Site Allocations Plan Leeds Local Plan
Council’s response to Inspectors Actions arising from hearing sessions held 9th July to 3rd August
October 2018 Contents Page Actions Week Commencing 9 July 2018 1
Actions Week Commencing 16 July 2018 3
Actions Week Commencing 30 July 2018 6
Main Modifications 8
List of Appendices Appendix 1 – Sustainability Appraisal Addendum – SA of Identified 11 Sites (relating to Question 16 Week Commencing 16 July 2018)
Appendix 2 – Update of EX2c Update of Planning Status of Identified 84 Sites (relating to Question 18 Week Commencing 16 July 2018)
Appendix 3 – Plan of East Leeds Orbital Route in relation to HG2-119 125 (relating to Question 20 Week Commencing 16 July 2018)
Appendix 4 – Statement of Common Ground East Leeds Extension 127 (relating to Question 21 Week Commencing 16 July 2018)
Appendix 5 – Inclusion of Additional Land within the Green Belt 132 (relating to Question 27 Week Commencing 16 July 2018)
Appendix 6 – Nether Yeadon Conservation Area Appraisal (relating to 146 Week Commencing 30 July 2018 Aireborough Question 3)
Appendix 7 – HS2 Proposals in relation to site HG2-179 (relating to 173 Week commencing 30 July 2018 Outer South Question 1)
Appendix 8 – Scrutiny Board report and minutes for 21/12/16 (relating 175 to Week commencing 30 July 2018 Outer North East Question 1) Week Commencing 9 July 2018
1. Council to consider wording for Main modification to Policy BL1 to clarify that any SAP review will be completed by March 2023.
As a consequence of the Inspectors Post-Hearing Procedural Note (EX72a) this is no longer considered to be a necessary action.
2. Provide note on UDP housing sites where work not yet commenced together with explanation why the Council remains confident the sites will come forward.
The Council has provided this information – see EX45.
3. Provide list of Identified sites in each HMCA where planning permission has expired and that are situated in the Green Belt including expected capacity.
The Council has provided this information – see EX65.
4. Submit further Addendum to HRA Screening Determination Clarification Note (EX35).
The Council has provided some information on this – see EX35b – and is progressing further assessment (to follow) in light of Inspector’s Post Hearing Note, October 2018.
5. Statement of Community Involvement – Council to provide further information on the work of the Neighbourhood Planning Team with the Neighbourhood Forum Groups.
The Council has provided this information – see EX42.
6. East Leeds Extension – Council to outline planning history of site.
The Council has provided this information – see EX46.
7. Council to ensure no site requirements omitted on individual sites arising from Infrastructure Background Paper updates.
The Council confirm there are no site requirements omitted. However, in updating the Infrastructure Background Paper there are some instances where site requirements have been amended. See table of Main Modifications to follow.
8. Provide copies of Development Plan Panel reports / Scrutiny Report (where summaries of site selection process explained).
The Council has provided this information – see EX66.
1 of 199 9. Add Leeds Inclusive Growth Strategy (including Digital Communications Strategy) to evidence base.
The Council has provided this information – see EX49.
10. Provide copies of judgements referred to (to be provided by Friday 20 July 2018).
The Council has provided this information – see EX39a to i.
2 of 199 Week Commencing 16 July 2018
11. Council to consider wording of a Main Modification, should the Walton Neighbourhood Plan be made following a referendum, to address the identification of sites in the Neighbourhood Plan that would be within the proposed Green Belt extension, if the SAP were to be found sound in this regard. Walton Neighbourhood Plan was Made in October 2018. A modification to the Plan in regard to this has been made. See table of Main Modifications to follow.
12. Provide copies of judgements referred to during Matter 6 session [to be given EX39 reference]. The Council has provided this information – see EX39a to i.
13. Provide minutes of Strategic Planning (Duty to Co-operate Meeting(s)) where extension to Green Belt discussed. The Council has provided this information – see EX50.
14. Provide minutes to Development Plan Panel Meeting of 16 December2014.
The Council has provided this information – see EX48a.
15. Provide background to UDP Policy RL1. (to be provided by Friday 27 July 2018) The
Council has provided this information – see EX47.
16. Carry out SA of identified sites where pp expired or UDP allocations not implemented (including EG1 and EO1 sites). (Timescales to be confirmed in note to Inspectors) w/c 23 July 2018 The Council has carried out further consultation on an SA of these identified sites from 14th August until 11th September 2018. 34 representations and 2 late representations were received. The consultation material alongside a summary of the consultation responses is provided at Appendix 1.
17. Consider Main Modification to delete / withdraw MX2-30.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
18. Up-date EX2c with the most up to date information at April 2018 (for HG1 sites where planning permission has expired and UDP sites) See Appendix 2 and in relation to UDP sites, EX45. Modifications proposed in Appendix 2 shall follow.
3 of 199 19. Consider Main Modification to allocation MX2-9 to clearly indicate what education provision is required. The Council has considered this, but do not propose a modification in this regard. Site requirements for education provision are deliberately non-specific so as to allow for flexibility in considering actual education needs at the time of dealing with specific planning applications. As the Updated Infrastructure Background Paper (EX51) explains “All the circumstances, at the time the school provision needs to be brought forward, will need to be appraised afresh” (paragraph 3.7) and “This approach should ensure the authority is not left with a strategic shortfall of provision, but proposals will only be brought forward where the demand is confirmed” (paragraph 3.9).
20. Provide plan to demonstrate the location of East Leeds Orbital Route in relation to HG2-119. See Appendix 3.
21. Provide details (in SoCG with Johnson Mowatt) of planning proposal being prepared on land in East Leeds Extension area. See Appendix 4.
22. HG2-168 & HG2-169 (OSW) – clarify relationship with implementation of site requirements and the adjacent Kirklees area See table of Main Modifications (Outer South West) to follow.
23. HG2-153 – consider Main Modification to site requirements relating to public right- of-way and traffic calming measures. See table of Main Modifications (Outer South West) to follow.
24. Provide clarification in relation to public footpath(s) within sites HG2-204 & HG2-206. See table of Main Modifications (Outer West) to follow.
25. Consider Main Modification to provide clearer sign-posting to drainage requirements. See table of Main Modifications to follow.
26. Clarify current position on site and site capacity expressed in planning permission on HG2-72. There is no current planning application or permission on site HG2-72, Tyersal Court, Tyersal, Outer West HMCA. Capacities in the Plan Paragraph 2.42 of the Plan (CD1/1) explains that ‘The capacities listed in the Plan against
4 of 199 each site use a standard methodology used for the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)…The approach estimates the potential housing capacity of a site by applying a standard density multiplier to the net area of the site. The density multiplier varies according to the location of a site, a higher multiplier being applied to City Centre sites to lower in more rural locations. The capacities can only be an indication of what could be achieved on a site – when a detailed planning application is submitted, this may be higher or lower, depending on the specific details of the application.’ The Council has checked that this site is correctly categorised in line with the approach to the rest of the Plan. For clarification the site falls within an area where a density of 30 dwellings per hectare has been applied.
School extension land provision The Council has applied a standard, consistent methodology to calculate the land required for school extensions. For sites where a one form entry extension is required to an existing school to provide a two form entry school, 0.84ha has consistently been applied to sites as a reserve area for the extension. However, the Council recognises that its methodology may underplay the potential capacity of sites as it applies a 75% net developable area calculation before land for schools is accounted for. To that end, the capacity for HG2-72 is proposed to be modified as follows:
Calculation used for HG2-72 Therefore, in the case of site HG2-72, the calculation was:
2.89 (total site area) x 30 (dph) x 0.75 (net developable area of 0.75 is assumed, to allow for provision of greenspace etc) = 65. From a capacity of 65, 25 is deducted for the school provision (0.84 x 30 = 25), resulting in a broad capacity of 40.
Revised Calculation proposed for site HG2-72 The Council propose to revise the calculation, to take the area needed for school provision off from the total site area at the start of the calculation, to ensure a net capacity figure for the site overall results:
2.89 – 0.84ha required for school extension = 2.05.
2.05 x 30 x 0.75 = 46
The Council therefore propose a main modification to the Plan to amend the capacity of HG2-72 from 40 to 46 (modifications to follow). The Council will apply the same revised methodology to similar sites, where this occurs, and propose modifications (to follow) accordingly. This is without prejudice to any detailed application, which may be submitted with a higher capacity, subject to site requirements and policy provisions being satisfied.
27. Conduct further work to justify the inclusion of additional land within the Green Belt and the demonstration of exceptional circumstances.
See Appendix 5
5 of 199 Week Commencing 30 July 2018
Aireborough
1. Provide Inspector with a Plan showing area of HG2-6 which excludes the allotments. The whole of proposed allocation HG2-6 is designated as N1A allotments in the saved UDP therefore it is not possible to provide a plan which excludes these. However, the plan overleaf shows the boundary of the planning application 17/01262/FU, which the Council understands excludes the allotments of those allotment holders who do not wish to relinquish their plots as part of a housing development. For clarity the plan also shows the boundary of HG2-6.
2. Consider rewording of Site Requirement to HG2-2 in relation to its relationship with BL1-7. As a consequence of the Inspectors Post-Hearing Procedural Note (EX72a) this is no longer considered to be a necessary action.
3. Provide the Inspector with the most up to date version of Nether Yeadon Conservation Area Appraisal. See Appendix 6.
6 of 199 HG2-6 Land at Silverdale Avenue, Guiseley
Planning Application: 17/01262/FU Site Allocation: HG2-6 ¯ © Crown Copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 10019567 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL Path: L:\CGM\Nazia Fazal\Projects\Lois\HG2 6.mxd Produced by: NF Date: 17/10/2018 Outer South
1. Submit SoCG with Neighbourhood Forum in respect of Site HG2-179 and how it is impacted by the route of HS2
Notwithstanding the Council’s position at the July hearing session, on 11 October 2018 High Speed Two (HS2) Limited published the Working Draft Environmental Statement for HS2 for public consultation. This shows that site HG2-179 is intended to form part of the construction area during the construction phase of HS2, and subsequently as an area of Woodland Habitat creation. During recent discussions, HS2 Ltd have also raised concerns about site HG2-179 due to this potential conflict. It is therefore not considered to be available for the plan period and the Council consider, as a result, should be deleted as a proposed housing allocation.
See extracts of HS2 Maps with HG2-179 annotated, at Appendix 7 and table of Main Modifications to follow.
Outer North East
1. Submit to Inspector Scrutiny Board report and minutes for 21/12/16
See Appendix 8.
2. Make an additional modification to document EX9/b to add reference to archaeology See table of Main Modifications to follow.
3. Consider the merits of submitting a MM to remove Site HG2-26 from the Green Belt (having regard to Note Inspector is going to provide) As a consequence of the Inspectors Post-Hearing comments EX74 (15th October 2018) this is no longer considered to be a necessary action. North None Outer South East
1. Submit to Inspectors a SOCG in relation to the extent and impact of Mr Makin’s, reserved right to mines and mineral in respect of Site HG2-124 by no later than 8 August.
The Council has provided this information – see EX71a.
7 of 199 Main Modifications
Aireborough
None
Outer South
1. Submit MM to amend the wording of the Ecology Site Requirement of Site HG2-175 to read “mitigation which may include a biodiversity buffer”.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
North
1. Submit MM to amend the wording of Ecology Site Requirement of Site HG2-46 to read “mitigation which may include a biodiversity buffer”.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
Outer North East
MX2-39
1. Submit MM to amend the preamble to the Site Requirements of MX2-39 to ensure it relates only to the allocation
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
2. Submit MM to replace all references to “Phase 1” with the words “the Site” or where more appropriate “the allocation”.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
3. Submit MM to amend Green space site requirements to expressly require green space provision over CS requirements.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
4. Submit MM to amend Education site requirement to clarify timing of delivery together with inclusion of wording (consistent with other sites) to set out quantum of school provision.
The Council has considered this, but do not propose a modification with regards to setting out the quantum of school provision. This is because site requirements for education provision are deliberately non-specific so as to allow for flexibility in considering actual education needs at the time of dealing with specific planning applications. As the Updated Infrastructure Background Paper (EX51) explains “All the circumstances, at the time the school provision needs to be brought forward, will need to be appraised afresh” (paragraph 3.7) and “This approach should ensure the authority is not left with a strategic
8 of 199 shortfall of provision, but proposals will only be brought forward where the demand is confirmed” (paragraph 3.9). Notwithstanding this, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to be approved as part of any planning application, as specified in the site requirements, will provide further details regarding education provision, including timing of delivery, at that stage. For this reason a modification is proposed to remove wording relating to the timing of delivery. See table of Main Modifications to follow.
5. Submit MM to amend Site Requirements to clarify the type of general employment use specifically required.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
6. Submit MM to amend the Local Highway Network Site Requirement of Site HG2- 226 to reflect up to date evidence as to what is required.
See table of Main Modifications to follow.
Postscript
1. Council to consider and confirm whether the inclusion of land situated within the Green Belt as part of housing allocation HG2-17 is necessary / justified to facilitate the anticipated capacity of housing within the site. Is a MM required?
HG2-17 Breary Lane East, Bramhope, Outer North West was allowed at appeal on 22nd December 2016 and granted outline permission (13/05134/OT) for residential development (up to 380 dwellings), a convenience store (up to 372sqm) and public open space. Reserved matters permission (17/02312/RM) for 319 dwellings, convenience store and open space was granted on 17th November 2017.
As part of the RM application process it has been clarified through masterplanning negotiations between the developer and the Council, that there is a requirement for the green belt part of the allocation to be used to provide a school, children’s play area, landscaped area and balancing pond. See plan overleaf.
The Council therefore confirms that housing allocation HG2-17 should include land within the Green Belt to reflect the planning permissions on the site and to enable a comprehensive development, which provides for necessary school provision and open space within the overall design for the site.
9 of 199 HG2-17 Breary Lane East, Bramhope
Proposed School Site HG2-17 Planning Application 13/05134/OT N32 Green Belt
© Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Appendices
10 of 199 Appendix 1
Site Allocations Plan Leeds Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Addendum 4 – Identified Sites October 2018
11 of 199
Contents Pages Consultation on SA of Identified Sites 13 Appendix A – Sustainability Appraisal Addendum – Identified Sites. August 2018 17 (Consultation Document) Appendix B – Consultation Responses to SA of Identified Sites (August 2018) 50 Appendix C – SA of Identified Housing and Employment Sites (Updated following 78 consultation to reflect amendments made)
Consultation on SA of Identified Sites
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Leeds City Council consulted on the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Identified Sites from 14th August to 11th September 2018 in response to preliminary observations of the Inspector during the examination of the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) . The SA was of all identified sites, excluding those which have been built or are under construction, as detailed in the SA Addendum August 2018. See Appendix A which comprises the consultation documents. This is notwithstanding the Council’s view, set out at the submission of the SAP, that these sites did not need to be subject to SA, as they were already subject to allocation and / or planning permission.
1.2 The purpose of this Addendum is to report the responses received during the consultation period and to provide details of any changes made to the SA of the identified sites arising from the representations.
2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED
2.1 A total of 34 representations were received together with 2 late submissions. Appendix B provides a summary of the comments made, the Council’s response and identifies whether changes have been made to the SA of the identified sites. • 2 of the 3 statutory SA consultees responded (Historic England and Natural England). Natural England noted the consultation and had no further comments to make. Historic England’s representation is considered in more detail below. No comments were received from the Environment Agency.
• Selby District Council and National Grid responded, but had no specific comments to make.
• Three agents submitted representations on behalf of various landowners and housebuilders, which are detailed in Appendix B. Their comments predominantly related to the principle of including identified sites and that these sites should be considered alongside all other reasonable alternatives to determine the most appropriate for allocation; The SA does not provide any assessment or justification to demonstrate that these sites remain the most appropriate when assessed against alternative sites.
• 26 representations were received from members of the public (of which 21 related to MX1-21 East of Otley (20 using a template response)). Many of the comments were made on the individual SA scores given for sites, which are detailed in Appendix B.
13 of 199 • Garforth Neighbourhood Planning Forum made comments in relation to a number of identified sites in the Outer South East HMCA and the mitigation measures identified for some of the SA objectives. Comments were also made in regard to the principle of the proposed land use for a number of sites.
• The 2 late submissions related to MX1-21 East of Otley using the template response. The content of their representations has been considered already through the duly made representations received during the consultation period.
3. HISTORIC ENGLAND
3.1 The representation from Historic England stated that:
“In the absence of easily-accessible plans showing the location of the 199 sites we do not have resources to evaluate whether or not the Appraisal has correctly identified the likely harm the development of each site might, potentially, cause to the historic environment or whether or not the suggested mitigation measures are likely to be able to adequately mitigate the level of harm identified.
The evaluation of the allocated sites in the submitted SA Addendum Report was informed to a certain extent by a heritage impact assessment. Therefore there was at least some degree of confidence that the assessed level of harm was broadly correct and that it was capable of mitigation. There has been no corresponding assessment of the HG1 sites against which to ascertain whether or not the assessed impact against SA21 is likely to be correct or whether the identified mitigation measures are likely to be effective.”
3.2 Whilst it is acknowledged that an individual heritage impact assessment has not been undertaken for the identified sites, it is important to confirm the status of these sites. Of the total number of identified sites, the SA identified that 15 had an ‘uncertain effect’ on the historic environment applying the scoring criteria consistently used for assessing sites having regard to proximity to heritage assets. Of these sites, 7 have planning permission and therefore the principle of development has already been accepted, with heritage issues having been addressed through that route. 6 sites are UDP allocations where heritage mitigation measures are included in the policy wording or text accompanying the UDP policies allocating the sites, or the preparation of a planning framework is required by the allocation whereby mitigation measures to address heritage impact can be incorporated, for example MX1-26 East of Otley. There are only 2 UDP allocations (HG1-394 Woolin Crescent, East Ardsley and HG1-177 Lane End, Pudsey) which were carried forward from previous local plans without policy wording. These two sites have been considered in greater detail by LCC conservation officers who have advised that appropriate mitigation measures could be agreed as part of any planning application process. Therefore the Council is content that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that
14 of 199 heritage impact will not be negatively affected by the development of these sites and that detailed consideration can be undertaken at the planning application stage applying Local Plan policies.
3.3 The Council does not therefore consider it is necessary to undertake further heritage impact assessment as part of the SAP and that the existing score for SA21 should remain as ‘U’ (uncertain effect without further assessment) given that appropriate and sufficient mitigation measures are in place to address any negative impacts arising from the sites individually or cumulatively.
4. CHANGES MADE TO THE SA OF IDENTIFIED SITES
4.1 The Council is content that the SA of the identified sites has been undertaken in a consistent way using the same methodology as all sites assessed as part of the SAP process.
4.2 Notwithstanding this, in response to representations received and following further review, a small number of revisions have been made to individual site scores.
4.3 For HG1-51 (Bowcliffe Road – Bramham House, Bramham) in the Outer North East HMCA, reflecting that the site is part greenfield and part brownfield, the scores for SA11 (greenfield/brownfield) and SA20 (local distinctiveness) have been revised to single negative (from double positive) and neutral (from single positive), respectively.
4.4 The scores for all employment sites against SA10 (greenspace) have been revised to neutral as accessibility to greenspace is not considered fundamental for employment uses. The SA21 (historic environment) scores for the mixed use sites assessed for housing use were all given a neutral score in error. This has been corrected where a potential impact against SA21 has been identified.
4.5 In the consultation version of the SA of the identified sites, a number of sites were given a score of double negative against SA12 (biodiversity or geological interests) implying that there was no ecological support for the site. This was a result of both an incorrect reflection of the conservation officer’s assessment and inputting errors in the SA database, because mitigation measures can be achieved by appropriate site requirements to protect sensitive areas of sites. This has been amended to a single negative to reflect the true position of these sites. Of these 19 sites, 9 sites have planning permission and therefore the principle of development has already been accepted, 10 sites are UDP allocations and site requirements through the existing UDP policy wording or other local plan policies can be achieved. However there is one site where, as a result of the SA and upon further detailed assessment, it is considered that the ecological value of the site could not be protected if the site was developed.
15 of 199 HG1-68 (Silk Mill Drive LS16, North HMCA) is a small site (0.39 ha / 20 units) entirely wooded now, as a result of the passage of time, and located within a UK BAP priority habitat. Delivery could not be achieved without the loss of woodland. As a result of the SA, the Council propose a main modification to delete the site.
4.6 Appendix C provides the SA of individual sites showing the revised scores together with the scoring criteria.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Council consulted on an SA of identified sites in response to a request from the Inspectors during the SAP hearings. A number of amendments have been made to the SA scores, primarily in response to representations received, as detailed in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5.
5.2 However, notwithstanding these changes, the overall SA conclusions have not resulted in the Council proposing any modifications to any sites, other than deletion of one site, HG1-68 in North HMCA. The SA enables all identified, allocated and non-allocated sites to be compared against each other, to ensure all reasonable alternatives are considered and informs the site selection process.
5.3 The supporting text to Adopted Core Strategy Policy SP6 states that the amount of land to be identified in the Site Allocations Plan will be composed of current, undelivered allocations, extant planning permissions and other sites which are deemed to be appropriate for housing delivery. The current undelivered allocations and extant planning permissions (HG1, MX1, EG1 and EO1 sites) have now been subject of Sustainability Appraisal (using the same approach as for the proposed allocations (HG2, MX2, EG2 and EO2 sites). This is considered by the Council to robustly fulfil the request of the Inspector at the Examination. To that end, alongside further work on site deliverability (see Appendix 2), this provides the further evidence sought from the Inspectors on the justification for relying on a quantum of undelivered allocations and extant planning permissions as set out in the Core Strategy.
5.4 Were identified sites not included in the Plan, this would have been out of conformity with Policy SP6 (para 4.6.12) of the Core Strategy and would have led to the necessity of allocating more sites within the Green Belt to meet the housing requirement.
16 of 199 APPENDIX A – (CONSULTATION DOCUMENT)
Site Allocations Plan Leeds Local Plan
Development Plan Document Sustainability Appraisal Addendum 3 – Identified Sites August 2018
17 of 199 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Leeds City Council has prepared the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) which was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 5th May 2017. The hearing sessions have progressed with Stage 1 hearings covering among other matters employment sites and Stage 2 hearings covering housing and mixed-use sites.
1.2 The SAP has been subject to sustainability appraisal (SA) throughout its preparation which is documented in CD1/17 the “Submission Draft Sustainability Appraisal (May 2017)” and CDR1/5b the “Revised Submission Draft SAP Sustainability Appraisal Addendum 2 (March 2018)”.
1.3 Document EX44 confirms that a number of sites, which had either previously obtained planning permission or are saved allocations in the Unitary Development Plan (known in the SAP as identified sites with a HG1, MX1, EG1 or EO1 prefix) were not subject to SA in CD1/17 or CDR1/5b. Notwithstanding the Council’s view that these sites did not need to be subject to SA; as they were already subject of allocation and/or planning permission; noting the preliminary observations of the Inspector, the Council has undertaken further SA work on identified sites.
2 ASSESSMENT OF IDENTIFIED SITES
2.1 Paragraphs 7 to 10 in EX44 set out that the scope of the SA will exclude sites which have been built or are under construction. These sites have either already or will contribute towards Core Strategy housing requirement and there is no practical reason for including them with an SA at this stage. The Council has assessed the following sites (updating the initial numerical assumptions in EX44):
• HG1 • MX1 • EO1 • EG1 2.2 This is an addendum to the Council’s SA; therefore it does not repeat the background, context or approach to the SA. It does contain the SA objectives for ease of reference at Appendix 2 and the mitigation measures at Appendix 3. It should be noted that references to site requirements in the mitigation table are not relevant for identified sites. Rather policies in other parts of the Local Plan are relevant.
3 ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
3.1 The identified effects of the SA are shown at Appendix 1 clearly against each of the SA objectives.
18 of 199 3.2 The appraisal highlights that for the majority of objectives the sites have either neutral or positive effects. Where negative effects have been identified these generally concern the following objectives: use of an existing employment use, use of existing greenspace, ecological impacts, located within a Coal Authority Development High Risk Area, landscape or tree impacts, potential impacts on heritage assets and impacts on agricultural land.
3.3 In accordance with the SEA Directive, the SA Report includes measures to prevent, reduce or offset significant adverse effects of including the identified sites as contributing to the Core Strategy housing requirements. These measures are usually referred to as ‘mitigation measures’. Mitigation measures can be a combination of policies to prevent or reduce the severity of effects, such as requirements identified in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Core Strategy, UDP or other supporting policy documents. They can also be site specific requirements applied through subsequent planning applications for individual sites.
3.4 Appendix 3 outlines the range of mitigation measures associated with each of the 22 SA objectives which could be used to off-set negative impacts for individual site allocations.
3.5 The SEA Directive requires the monitoring of significant environmental effects resulting from the implementation of the SAP. The Core Strategy has established a monitoring framework (Appendix 15 of CD1/17) which will also be used to assess the effects of this plan.
19 of 199 Appendix 1 Sustainability Appraisal of Individual Identified Sites
20 of 199 Sustainability of Identified Sites – housing and mixed use
Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 31 July 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment Aireborough HG1-5 5121 - - + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0+++++++0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 Aireborough HG1-8 HLA28023900 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 Aireborough HG1-11 3187 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + ++ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Aireborough HG1-13HLA27003700 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Centre HG1-423 182 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-425 3160 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-426 3139 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-427 3140 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-428 3141 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-440 5122 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-442 204 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-453 5157 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-458 3018 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre HG1-459 395 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + - ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-463 406 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + + 0 0 ++ 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre HG1-475 5225 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-481 5231 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-495 5247 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-496 5248 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-511 421 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-5 454 + + + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++++++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-7 402 + + + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-8 5359 + ++ + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-13 450 + ++ + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++- + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-14 405 + ++ + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-16 202 + ++ + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -+ 0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-17 409 - - + +0+++0?0- -+0+-++0 + 0 0 0 00+ 0 0 + City Centre MX1-20 445 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -+ 0++0 +++0 + - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-21 415 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0? 0 - - + 0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-23 456 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 0 - -++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-24 2023 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + East Leeds, Inner Area HG1-278 5124 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + East Leeds HG1-284 795 0 0 0 - 0 - + - 0 0 - - 0 - - + 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds, Outer North East HG1-288 797 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 + + - - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds, Inner Area HG1-303 2144A 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + East Leeds MX1-25 2039 0 0 0 + 0 - + ------+ 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 + Inner Area HG1-207 383 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 ++ - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-219HLA34023900 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-220 5109 - - + + 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-222 3206 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-225 2150D 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-236HLA2602860- - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-237HLA26038000 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-241HLA2603180 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-242 1144 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-245 2138 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-247 197 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-249 5150 00++00+00- --0++++++00 0 0 00+0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-250HLA24052400 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-251 1338 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-252 3354 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-253 1340A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-256 465 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 ++ - - - - ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-257 2141A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-259HLA2405110- - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-264HLA21049400 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-271 3142 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-274 3147 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-277HLA2104950 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-280 473 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-281 474 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0++- -0+++++++0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Inner Area HG1-470 5205 0 0 + + 0 + + + - - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-499 5342 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-504 5347 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-509 4117 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-6 208 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -+ 0++ - +++ - + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-11 447 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ - ++ 0 + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-12 433 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++0 ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-28 198 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - -++- ++ - +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
21 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 31 July 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment North Leeds HG1-59 3010A 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 + ++ - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + - - - 0 0 North Leeds HG1-60 685 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 + - - - - - + 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-64 5178 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 - ++ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 + North Leeds HG1-65 721 0 0 + 0 0 0 + - 0 - - - 0 - - + 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + North Leeds HG1-67HLA27013700 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-68 688 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 ------++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 North Leeds HG1-69 65 0 0 - - 0 - + + 0 0 ++ - - - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-74 687 0 0 - - 0 - + - 0 + + - - ++ 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-77 HLA3002600 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-80HLA30026400 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-88 8 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-89 764 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 - ++ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-94 5177 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-98 731 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-99HLA27014700 - + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-101HLA27014100 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-102 5176 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-106 3 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-110HLA3402640 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-111 106 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-116HLA2603760 - ++ + + 0 + + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-119 4184 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + - 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-124HLA2404950 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-127 4058A - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-471 5207 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-491 5243 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-493 5245 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-515 5009A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 + North Leeds HG1-518 97 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + North Leeds MX1-2 376 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - -++- - 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-36 103 0 0 + - 0 0 + - 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-39 90 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-49 HLA3104180 0 0 - - 0 - + - 0 0 - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-51 778 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 0 ++ - - - - ++ - - - 0 0 0 0 0 - + u - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-53 3152 0 0 - - 0 - + - - 0 - - - - - + - - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 Outer North East HG1-57 4072 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 - + + - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - - 0 0 Outer North West HG1-15 744 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 ++ - - - - - + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer North West HG1-20 HLA2901390 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Outer North West HG1-21 5181 - - + + 0 + + 0 0 - - + 0 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Outer North West HG1-25 364 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 - + 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 Outer North West MX1-26 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0? 0 ++- -- - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - 0 0 Outer South HG1-404HLA2202010 - - + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South HG1-410 507 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South HG1-412 2129A 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - + u - - 0 + Outer South HG1-418 135 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + - - 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 - - 0 + Outer South HG1-494 5246 - - - - 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 - ++ + - 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 0 +
22 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 31 July 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment Outer South East HG1-305 820 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer South East HG1-307 1118 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer South East HG1-309HLA3306630 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Outer South East HG1-315 3352 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East HG1-317 3351 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + - 0 + + ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East HG1-472 5208 0 0 0 - 0 - + - - + - - - - + + - 0 0 0 0 0 - - - + - - 0 0 Outer South West HG1-327 481 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-328HLA2104510 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-333 1077 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 + ++ + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-334 5131 0 0 u u 0 u + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-335 5100 - - 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 + ++ + + 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-344 563 - - + + 0 + + + 0 + ++ - 0 ++ + 0 - + 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-345HLA2304270 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 - + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-346 4198 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + ++ - - ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-350 547 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-364HLA2304310 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-365HLA2304210 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-366 5133 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-368 2100A 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-371 1281B 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-373 5191 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 - - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-380 5132 0 0 0 - 0 - + - - + - - 0 - + + - 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West HG1-384HLA2304220 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-388 5117 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-392 375 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-394 536 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-513 1064A - - - - + + 0 0 + - 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West HG1-514 1320 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer West HG1-140 3304 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-145 625 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-147HLA2405050 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-152 636 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-155 613 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-156 26 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-157 3196 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-158 4199 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-160HLA2405140- - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-161 649 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-162 678 - - + + 0 + + 0 0 - - + - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-163HLA2405090 - - + + 0 + + 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-177 650 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - -++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u 0 0 + Outer West HG1-181 656 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 ------+ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-182HLA2405190- - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-183 41 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - ++ 0 ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-189 653 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-190 644 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-192 4194 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-193HLA24054700 0 + + 0 - - + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-200 3203 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-202HLA25031700 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - - - 0 + Outer West HG1-204HLA24048200 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-205 595 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - + + + + 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-206 64 - - + - 0 - + - u - - + - - - + - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 + Outer West HG1-468 5203 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-469 5204 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 Outer West HG1-476 5226 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-488 5238 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-501 5344 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West MX1-4 CFSM051 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + - - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 - 0 0 +
23 of 199 Sustainability of Identified Sites – Employment
Sustainability Appraisals of identified employment sites. Version @ 31 July 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment Aireborough EO1-1 2900890 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 ++ - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ - 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EO1-2 2801002 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 +++0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - + Aireborough EO1-41 2900893 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 ++ - - - ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-1 2900891 - - 0 0 0 0 - + 0 ++ + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ - 0 0 0 0 - - + 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-3 2901210 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 ++- - - ++ + ++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-4 2801642+ + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - + City Centre MX1-5 454 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++ 0 ++++++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-7 402 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - -++0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-8 5359 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-13 450 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++- + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-14 405 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-16 202 +++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -+0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-17 409 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -+ 0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-20 445 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++0 ++ 0 + ++ 0 + - 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-21 415 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0+0++-++++0 + 0 0 - 0 + u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-23 456 +++0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0+- 0 - +00 + 0 0 - 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-24 2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++- ++ - +++0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre EO1-31 2002400 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - + - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre EO1-35 2005100 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + City Centre EO1-36 EMP00335 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre EO1-42 2003900 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - ++ - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre EG1-62 2103680 + ++ 0 0 0 ++ - - 0 - -++ 0 - 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + East Leeds MX1-25 2039 + + 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 - - - - - + 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds EO1-14 3203250 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + East Leeds EO1-15 3203252 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + East Leeds EG1-34 3203171 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + - 0 0 0 + 0 - - 0 + Inner Area MX1-6 208 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0- -+0++- +++- + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-11 447 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++- ++0 +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-12 433 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - -++0++ - +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-28 198 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++- -+ - + + 0 + - - 0 0 + u 0 0 0 Inner Area EO1-9 2005760 - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area EO1-11 2103380 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 ++ - - + ++ 0 + - 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EO1-37 2401781 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - ++ 0 ++++++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-22 2104060 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++ 0 ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-23 2105070 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - -++ 0 ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-25 2104130 + - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-26 2001252 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - -- - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-27 2001250 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++ - + ++ - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-28 2001251 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-31 2202540 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 +++0 ++++++++ - + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-70 2105260 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + North Leeds MX1-2 376 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 North Leeds EO1-5 2701300 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - ++ - - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 North Leeds EG1-13 2404193 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - + ++ - + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + North Leeds EG1-14 2404190 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - + ++ - 0 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer North East EO1-3 3103954 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 Outer North East EO1-40 3103953 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 Outer North East EG1-10 3203550 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer North East EG1-63 3100832 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - - - - + 0 - - - - + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 Outer North East EG1-64 3103750 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 ------+ + - - - + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 Outer North West MX1-26 745 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 ++ - - - - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - - 0 Outer South East EO1-17 3306221 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 ------+ + - 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer South East EG1-35 3306220 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-36 3306223 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 - + + - 0 + - 0 - 0 0 - - - 0 0 Outer South East EG1-38 3305014 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 - ++ + - 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-39 3305013 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-40 3303691 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-41 3303689 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-42 3303683 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-44 3305670 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 Outer South East EG1-45 3305990 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-23 2304560 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-24 2302835 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + - - 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-39 2302836 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-47 2403262 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-51 2304191 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 + - - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-52 2301611 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - - + 0 - 0 + - 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-55 2300894 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - - 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South West EG1-57 2300268 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West EG1-58 2301350 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + - 0 - + 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Outer South West EG1-60 2302750 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-67 2104440 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West MX1-4 CFSM051 0 0 0 0 0 u - + 0 0 - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 u 0 0 + Outer West EG1-15 2501660 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + 0 ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West EG1-16 2401631 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West EG1-17 2405670 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ - + 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West EG1-19 2401181 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 +
24 of 199 Appendix 2 Scoring Criteria for Assessing Sites Applying SA Objectives
(Table 4 from Submission Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report CD1/17)
SA Objective Assumptions Used Scoring SA1 Based on the location and existing use of Proposed Employment Use the site. + Proposed use will create new Employment employment O Existing employment use on site
Proposed Housing Use
O All sites except existing employment use on site - Existing employment use -- If single employment site in a smaller settlement.
SA2 Based on the location and existing use of Proposed Employment Use the site Economic ++ Proposed use will create new growth employment (City Centre or Town Centre location) + Proposed use will create new employment O Existing employment use on site
Proposed Housing Use
O All sites except existing employment use - Existing employment use -- If single employment site in a smaller settlement
SA3 Based on accessibility of site to existing + All site within accessibility zones for primary and secondary schools (data primary (20 min walk) and secondary Education provided by West Yorkshire Combined education (30 min walk) Authority). O Partly within accessibility zones for The assessment does not consider the primary and secondary education. capacity of existing schools to - Outside accessibility zones for accommodate new pupils. The primary and secondary education Infrastructure Background Paper includes consideration of schools capacity. Proposed Employment Use Large sites (750+ units) could accommodate new school on site. O Employment site
SA4 Based on accessibility of site to existing + All site within accessibility zone for primary health facilities (data provided by primary health facilities (20 min Health West Yorkshire Combined Authority) walk) The assessment does not consider the O Partly within accessibility zone. capacity of existing health facilities to - Outside accessibility zone accommodate new patients. The
25 of 199 SA Objective Assumptions Used Scoring Infrastructure Background Paper includes Proposed Employment Use consideration of healthcare. O Employment site SA5 Outside of the scope of the Site Allocations O All sites document to determine the implications for Crime crime arising from a site’s development.
SA6 Based on the location in terms of centres Proposed Housing Use and therefore the proximity to cultural and ++ Near/in the City Centre Culture, leisure facilities. Consider the size of the site + Near/in a Town Centre leisure & and impact on existing facilities. O Site not near or in a centre but recreation reasonably accessible - Not near or in a centre -- Loss of existing leisure facility
Proposed Employment Use
O Employment site
SA7 All housing sites will score favourably + All sites considered for housing. - Employment or retail site Housing
SA8 Outside the scope of the Site Allocations Proposed Housing Use document to determine the implications for + Good access to existing services in Community social inclusion and community the City Centre or Town Centres participation participation. However if large site may be O Remaining sites potential to provide new facilities on site O? Large site which could potentially accommodate new facilities on site - Poor access to existing services
Proposed Employment Use
O Employment site
SA9 Consider the relationship of the site to the O Site size considered to be in scale existing area, eg scale of site in relation to with settlement scale Community the scale of the existing settlement - Site is out of scale with settlement cohesion scale or loss of existing community facility (eg sports club, allotments) -- Site size is considered to be significantly out of scale with settlement scale
SA10 Scoring based on accessibility to existing Proposed Housing Use greenspace using standards set by Core ++ Access to 6 typologies Greenspace Strategy Policy G3. The scores reflect the + Access to 5 typologies accessibility of each site to each greenspace O Access to 3-4 typologies type listed by Policy G3. - Access to 2 typologies This scoring is overridden by sites in existing -- Access to 0-1 typologies greenspace use which are scored double negative. Information on the approach to -- Existing greenspace use on site
26 of 199 SA Objective Assumptions Used Scoring greenspace provision is set out in the Greenspace Background Paper Proposed Employment Use O Employment site -- Existing greenspace use on site
SA11 Consider existing greenfield / brownfield + + Derelict brownfield site status of the site + Occupied brownfield site Greenfield or - Part greenfield and brownfield site brownfield -- Greenfield site
SA12 Based on ecology comments O Support - Support with mitigation Biodiversity or -- No support geological interests
SA13 Based on accessibility assessment provided + + Score 5 by LCC Highways + Score 4 Greenhouse O Score 3 emissions - Score 2 -- Score 1
SA14 Data from Leeds Strategic Flood Risk + + Flood Zone 1 and brownfield Assessment and Environment Agency + Flood Zone 1 and greenfield Flood risk O Flood Zone 2 and brownfield - Flood Zone 2 and greenfield - Flood Zone 3 and brownfield -- Flood Zone 3 and greenfield
SA15 Based on LCC Highways comments on + + Score 5 accessibility, site access and local network + Score 4 Transport capacity O Score 3 network - Score 2 -- Score 1
SA16 Based on accessibility assessment provided + + Score 5 by LCC Highways (using Core Strategy ) + Score 4 Local needs NB Where a site is very large potentially O Score 3 met locally scope to accommodate new services on site - Score 2 - - Score 1 SA17 Based on waste sites designated in the O All other sites Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan. - Site lies within 100m of a Waste designated waste site -- Designated waste site
SA18 Subdivide SA18 into 3 parts (SA18A-D) to consider whether site is contaminated land, sensitive to air quality, affected by HSE Major Hazard Zone or land instability Pollution
SA18 A Contaminated Land based on historic + Potentially contaminated site records of sites O Uncontaminated site
27 of 199 SA Objective Assumptions Used Scoring
SA18 B Air Quality criteria agreed in discussion with O Site outside 50 metres of motorway Environmental Health or 30 metres of A road - Site within 50 metres of motorway or 30 metres of A road
SA18 C HSE Major Hazard Zone O Site not within HSE Major Hazard Zone - Site within HSE Major Hazard Zone
SA18D Land Instability O Less than 5% of the site is located within a Coal Authority Development High Risk Area - More than 5% of the site is located within a Coal Authority Development High Risk Area -- One or more mine entry and/or mine entry zone of influence located within the site boundary.
SA19 Guided by extent of woodland coverage and O No existing landscape features or number of hedges and other landscape feature could be retained Landscape features - Woodland coverage and hedges or Does the site fall within a Special Landscape attractive landscape which would Area or include a Tree Preservation Order be lost -- Special Landscape Area / Tree Preservation Order
SA20 Consider scale of site in relation to existing + Existing unattractive brownfield site. settlement and whether it would change O Brownfield site, but not unattractive; Local the distinctiveness of the settlement. greenfield site in scale with distinctiveness settlement; greenfield site where development could still maintain distinctiveness - Large Greenfield site, out of character with settlement
SA21 Consider if site would affect a heritage + Existing unsightly building/site or site includes asset. Defined by NPPF as Listed Building, Building at Risk. Development could have Historic Conservation Area, Registered Park & positive effect on the heritage value of the site environment Garden, Schedule Ancient Monument (Class subject to applying appropriate mitigation I and I) and Registered Battlefield. O No effect on heritage asset - Development could have negative effect on heritage asset which could be mitigated -- Development could have significant effect on heritage asset which could not be mitigated
U Site contains/ is within or adjacent to a heritage asset (100m) - uncertain effect without further assessment
SA22 Subdivide SA22 into 3 parts (SA22A, SA22B and SA22C) to consider whether site affected by agricultural land classification, minerals designation and water resources
28 of 199 SA Objective Assumptions Used Scoring Energy and natural resources SA22 A Agricultural Land O Non-agricultural land - Agricultural land Grade 3b or 4 -- Agricultural land Grade 1, 2, 3 or 3a
SA22 B Water Resources Proposed Housing Use For employment uses, consideration of O All retail and housing sites Environment Agency’s information on restricted water availability. Proposed Employment Use O All other employment sites - Area with restricted water available for licensing for employment use
-- Area where water not available for licensing for employment use
SA22 C Mineral Resources. + Site within the Sand and Gravel Mineral Based on designated minerals sites in the Safeguarding Area; or Surface Coal Mineral Natural Resources & Waste Local Plan Safeguarding Area, (policy MINERALS 2 & 3) O All other sites - Site lies within buffer zone of a designated minerals site -- Site allocated or safeguarded for mineral extraction; or preferred areas for stone or clay extraction; areas of search for sand and gravel; Safeguarded Minerals Processing sites; or Safeguarded Railway Sidings and Canal Wharves (policies MINERALS 4-7 and MINERALS 12 and emerging MINERALS 13).
29 of 199 Appendix 3 Proposed Mitigation Measures
(based on Appendix 14 from Submission Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report CD1/17)
SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management SA1 - Existing employment use or Mixed use development Policy EC3 considering Planning conditions Employment employment allocation incorporating employment use proposals for change attached – local of use on employment employment sites to ensure no loss agreements for of necessary construction period employment -- Single employment site or Mixed use development Policy EC3 considering Planning conditions employment allocation in a incorporating employment use proposals for change attached – local smaller settlement of use on employment employment sites to ensure no loss agreements for of necessary construction period employment SA2 - Existing employment use or Mixed use development Policy EC3 considering Economic growth employment allocation incorporating employment use proposals for change of use on employment sites to ensure no loss of necessary employment -- Single employment site or Mixed use development Policy EC3 considering employment allocation in a incorporating employment use proposals for change smaller settlement of use on employment sites to ensure no loss of necessary employment
30 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management SA3 - Outside accessibility zones for Improve access as part of Para.37 balance of land Spatial Policy 1 (vi) Contributions from Education primary and secondary transport accessibility uses within area, recognise new and Community education requirements. In some minimising journey existing infrastructure Infrastructure Levy circumstances a new school lengths to in delivering future (CIL) may be delivered on site. employment, development shopping, leisure, Policy T2 accessibilty education and other requirements and new activities. development Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools should be within walking distance of most properties. Para. 72 Sufficient choice of schools places to meet needs of existing and new communities. Give great weight to need to create, expand or alter schools. SA4 - Outside accessibility zones for Improve access as part of Para.37 balance of land Spatial Policy 1 (vi) Building for Health primary health facilities transport accessibility. In some uses within area, recognise new and Tomorrow Today circumstances new health minimising journey existing infrastructure SPD – design of facilities may come forward as lengths to in delivering future developments to part of site delivery, subject to employment, development address health and NHS/GPs identifying demand. shopping, leisure, Policy T2 accessibilty wellbeing education and other requirements and new activities. development
31 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities should be within walking distance of most properties. SA5 N/A Crime crime SA6 - Inaccessible/remote location Improve access as part of Para.32 all Policy T2 accessibilty Culture, leisure & transport accessibility developments requirements and new recreation requirements. generating significant development amounts of movement should be supported by Transport Statement or Transport Assessment . Para.35 exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes. Para.37 balance of land uses within area, minimising journey lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. -- Loss of existing leisure facility Provide replacement facility Policy T2 accessibility on alternative site. requirements and new development
32 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management SA7 - All non-residential uses Potentially provide mixed use Housing development if appropriate to site, however this may be contrary to the allocation of the site SA8 - Poor accessibility to existing Improve access as part of Para.37 balance of land Policy T2 accessibility Community services transport accessibility uses within area, requirements and new participation requirements. minimising journey development lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities should be within walking distance of most properties. SA9 - Site out of scale with Reduce scale of site so Para.58 developments Spatial Policy 1 (iii) for Neighbourhoods for Community cohesion settlement scale appropriate size for respond to local development to Living SPG settlement character and history. respect and enhance the local character and Planning application identity of places and process consider neighbourhoods. detailed design and Policy P10 (i) the size, landscaping to scale, design and reduce impact. layout of the development is appropriate to its context and respects the character and
33 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management quality of surrounding buildings; the streets and spaces that make up the public realm and the wider locality. - Loss of existing community Provide replacement facility Policy P9 alternative facility (eg sports club, on alternative site. provision should be allotments) provided if need identified -- Site significantly out of scale Reduce scale of site so Para.58 developments Spatial Policy 1 (iii) for with settlement scale appropriate size for respond to local development to settlement. character and history. respect and enhance the local character and identify of places and neighbourhoods. Policy P10 (i) the size, scale, design and layout of the development is appropriate to its context and respects the character and quality of surrounding buildings; the streets and spaces that make up the public realm and the wider locality. SA10 -- Access to 0-1 greenspace Provide new greenspace on Policy G4 new CIL Greenspace typologies (types) site, over and above site greenspace provision, requirement. including locations
34 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management with greenspace deficiency -- Existing greenspace use on site Provide replacement Para.74 replaced by Policy G6 protection greenspace on alternative site equivalent or better and redevelopment of or increase quality and/or provision in terms of existing greenspace. range of greenspace types on quantity and quality in (ii) the greenspace is existing greenspace sites in the a suitable location replaced by an area of locality. at least equal size, accessibility and quality in the same locality , (iii) redevelopment proposals demonstrate a clear relationship to improvements of existing greenspace quality in the same locality. SA11 -- Greenfield site Cannot be addressed. On site. Policy SP1 appropriate Greenfield / Identify alternative brownfield balance between brownfield site greenfield and brownfield land SA12 - Ecological support with Ecological Impact Assessment. Section 11 – Policy G8 protection of Planning application Biodiversity or mitigation Conserving and important species and to consider design of geological interests Boundary change or protect enhancing the natural habitats – account layout and use affected area from environment taken of adverse relevant conditions development within the site, Para. 109 – minimising impact through where necessary eg greenspace/landscaping/ impacts on biodiversity protection, mitigation, biodiversity buffers. and providing net gains enhancement and Planning application in biodiversity compensatory consultation of measures statutory
35 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management Specialist ecological Para. 118 – avoiding undertakers on management company to take significant harm Policy G9 – no water quality / on long-term management significant adverse supply, water and monitoring of retained impact on integrity or licensing and the use ecological areas. connectivity of the of SUDs. Leeds Habitat Network, and seeking NRWLP- WATER 2 – a positive contribution Protection of Water to the habitat network Quality
& WATER 7 – Surface Water Run-off
SPG22:Sustainable Urban Drainage
Biodiversity & Waterfront Development SPD. Building for Tomorrow Today SPD.
-- No ecological support Ecological Impact Assessment. Section 11 – Policy G8 protection of Planning application Conserving and important species and to consider design of Boundary change or protect enhancing the natural habitats – account layout and use affected area from environment taken of adverse relevant conditions development within the site, Para. 109 – minimising impact through where necessary eg greenspace/landscaping/ impacts on biodiversity protection, mitigation, biodiversity buffers. enhancement and
36 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management and providing net gains compensatory Planning application Specialist ecological in biodiversity measures consultation of management company to take statutory on long-term management Para. 118 – avoiding Policy G9 – no undertakers on and monitoring of retained significant harm significant adverse water quality / ecological areas. through mitigation or impact on integrity or supply, water as a last resort connectivity of the licensing and the use Off-site compensation (as a compensation Leeds Habitat of SUDs. last resort) to be agreed to Network, and seeking ensure it is appropriate – in a a positive contribution NRWLP- WATER 2 – location that contributes to to the habitat network Protection of Water the Leeds Habitat Network Quality and provides long-term specialist management. & WATER 7 – Surface Water Run-off
SPG22:Sustainable Urban Drainage
Off-site compensation may require S106 or CIL
SA13 - Accessibility score ranking 2 Submission of Transport Para.37 balance of land Policy T2 accessibility Building for Greenhouse Assessment demonstrating uses within area, requirements and new Tomorrow Today emissions improvements to accessibility minimising journey development SPD. Travel Plans of site lengths to SPD. CIL employment, Ensure new buildings are built shopping, leisure, NRWLP – AIR1 – low to energy efficient standards emission measures
37 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management education and other required for all major activities. development.
Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools and local shops should be within walking distance of most properties.
Para.93 planning should secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- Accessibility score ranking 1 Submission of Transport Para.37 balance of land Policy T2 accessibility NRWLP – AIR1 – low Assessment demonstrating uses within area, requirements and new emission measures improvements to accessibility minimising journey development required for all major of site lengths to development. employment, Ensure new buildings are built shopping, leisure, to energy efficient standards education and other activities.
Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools and local shops should be within
38 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management walking distance of most properties.
Para.93 planning should secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
SA14 - Flood zone 3 and brownfield If Sequential Test applied and Para.102 Inappropriate Policy EN5 manage and NRWLP – policies Flood risk alternative sites with lower development in areas mitigate flood risk by WATER3-7 – a set of flood risk not located, identify at risk of flooding (i) avoiding policies designed to mitigation measures to should be avoided by development in flood help manage flood address the Exception Test directing development risk areas by applying risk. away from areas at the sequential Building for highest risk, but where approach and where Tomorrow Today development is this is not possible by SPD. necessary, making it mitigating measures, in safe without increasing line with the NPPF CIL contributions. flood risk elsewhere. Para. 102 If following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed: demonstrate that the development provides
39 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk (informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment); and a site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and where possible reduce flood risk overall -- Flood zone 3 and greenfield Mitigation measures? NRWLP – WATER 4 – making space for water; WATER5 – residual risk assessment required in zones of rapid inundation; WATER6 – FRAs required; WATER7 – reduction in the speed of
40 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management surface water run- off.
CIL contributions SA15 - Accessibility, site access & Submission of Transport Para.32 all Policy T2 accessibility Street Design Guide Transport Network network capacity score ranking Assessment demonstrating developments requirements and new SPD. Travel Plans 2 improvements to accessibility generating significant development SPD. of site and vehicular access amounts of movement should be supported CIL contributions. by Transport Statement or NRWLP – MINERALS Transport Assessment . 13– protection for Para.35 exploit railway sidings and opportunities for canal wharves to sustainable transport encourage non-road modes. based freight Para.37 balance of land improvements. uses within area, minimising journey lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools should be within walking distance of most properties.
41 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management -- Accessibility, site access & Submission of Transport Para.32 all Policy T2 accessibility CIL contributions. network capacity score ranking Assessment demonstrating developments requirements and new 1 improvements to accessibility generating significant development of site and vehicular access amounts of movement should be supported by Transport Statement or Transport Assessment . Para.35 exploit opportunities for sustainable transport modes. Para.37 balance of land uses within area, minimising journey lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools should be within walking distance of most properties. SA16 - Accessibility score ranking 2 Submission of Transport Para.37 balance of land Policy T2 accessibility Travel Plans SPD. Local needs met Assessment demonstrating uses within area, requirements and new locally improvements to accessibility minimising journey development CIL contributions of site lengths to employment,
42 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management shopping, leisure, NRWLP- Waste3 – education and other provision of local activities. waste facilities to Para.38 large scale ensure self- developments, key sufficiency in facilities eg primary managing waste; schools and local shops should be within walking distance of most properties. -- Accessibility score ranking 1 Submission of Transport Para.37 balance of land Policy T2 accessibility Assessment demonstrating uses within area, requirements and new improvements to accessibility minimising journey development of site lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. Para.38 large scale developments, key facilities eg primary schools and local shops should be within walking distance of most properties. SA17 -- Designated waste site National Planning Policy EN6 sets targets Building for Waste Policy for Waste for waste arisings and Tomorrow Today provides over-arching SPD. strategy
43 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management NRWLP –Chapter 4 and all Waste policies SA18 Pollution A. Contaminated N/A No NRWLP – LAND1 – land negative remediation required scores on contaminated sites. B. Air - Air Quality Management Area Submission of Air Quality NRWLP – AIR1 – low for Air Quality Assessment and apply emission measures mitigation measures where air required for all major quality issues identified, eg development. through detailed site design. C. HSE Major - Site within HSE Major Hazard Para.109, 120, 121 and HSE statutory Hazard Zone Zone 172 consultee on planning applications within Major Hazard Zone – Advise on appropriate mitigation D. Land Instability -/ -- In Coal Authority DHRAs or General site requirement cross Para. 109, 120, 121 Saved UDP Policy G5 MZIs referencing UDP and NRWLP and 166 and NRWLP Minerals policies 3 set out requirements in relation to land instability and coal mining legacy areas
44 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management SA19 - Woodland coverage and Provide replacement Section 11 – Policy G8 protection of UDP policy N8 urban Landscape hedges or attractive landscape landscaping mitigation on site conserving and important species and green corridors, lost enhancing the natural habitats – account policy N24 greening environment taken of adverse the Green Belt edge, impact through policy N26 and LD1 protection, mitigation, landscape scheme enhancement and requirement compensatory measures Neighbourhoods For Living SPG
Guideline Distances from Development to Trees
NRWLP – LAND2 – trees lost through development must be replaced at a rate of 3 replacement trees for every 1 lost. -- Special Landscape Area and / or Boundary change or protect Policy G8 protection of UDP policy N8 urban subject to Tree Preservation affected area from important species and green corridors, Order development within the site, habitats – account policy N24 greening eg greenspace/landscaping or taken of adverse the Green Belt edge, provide replacement impact through policy N26 landscape landscaping / retain TPO trees protection, mitigation, scheme requirement enhancement and , policy N37 Special compensatory Landscape Areas and measures policy LD1 landscape schemes
45 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management
Neighbourhoods For Living SPG
Guideline Distances from Development to Trees
NRWLP – LAND2 – trees lost through development must be replaced at a rate of 3 replacement trees for every 1 lost. SA20 - Large greenfield site, out of Reduce scale of site so Para.58 developments Spatial Policy 1 (iii) for Neighbourhoods for Local distinctiveness character with settlement appropriate size for respond to local development to Living SPG. settlement. character and history. respect and enhance the local character and Street Design Guide identify of places and SPD. neighbourhoods. Policy P10 (i) the size, Conservation Area scale, design and Appraisals. layout of the development is Village & appropriate to its Neighbourhood context and respects Design Statements. the character and quality of surrounding buildings; the streets and spaces that make
46 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management up the public realm and the wider locality. SA21 - Development could have Where mitigation is achievable Para.58 developments Spatial Policy 1 (iii) for Neighbourhoods for Historic environment negative effect on heritage - respond to local development to Living SPG. asset which could be mitigated i) Standard site requirement character and history, respect and enhance referring to the need to and reflect the identity the local character and Street Design Guide Development could have preserve or enhance the of local surroundings identify of places and SPD. -- significant effect on heritage heritage asset; or and materials, while neighbourhoods. asset which could not be ii) Site specific requirement not preventing or Policy P10 (i) the Conservation Area mitigated providing tailored discouraging development protects Appraisals. requirements reflecting the appropriate and enhances the individual nature of the site innovation. district’s existing, Village & and location historic and natural Neighbourhood assets, in particular, Design Statements. historic and natural site features and NRWLP – MINERALS8 locally important – reopening of buildings, spaces, former quarries to skylines and views. provide stone for the repair of historic buildings. SA22 Energy and natural resources A. Agricultural -- Grade 1, 2 or 3A UDP Policy N35 Land - Grade 3B or 4 Para.112 Where UDP Policy N35 significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be
47 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management necessary, LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to higher quality. B. Water -- For employment uses only. Building for resources Within area where water not Tomorrow Today available for licensing SPD
NRWLP – WATER1 water efficiency. - For employment uses only. NRWLP – WATER1 Within area with restricted water efficiency. water available for licensing C. Mineral -- Within sites that are allocated This conflict cannot directly be Para 142 – ensure that CORE STRATEGY policy NRWLP policies Resources or safeguarded for mineral mitigated. In some instances it there is a sufficient EN7 MINERALS 4 -7, extraction or preferred areas may be possible to phase supply of material to MINERALS 12 and for stone or clay extraction or development so it takes place provide the emerging policy areas of search for sand and in later stages of the plan after infrastructure, MINERALS 13 gravel minerals processing ; or mineral extraction has buildings, energy and railway sidings and canal completed, however these goods that the country wharves instances will be very limited. needs.
++ Within the Sand and Gravel Prior extraction of important Para 143 – define CORE STRATEGY policy NRWLP policies Mineral Safeguarding Area or minerals to avoid their MSAs and adopt EN7 MINERALS 2 and 3 Surface Coal Mineral sterilisation by development appropriate policies in Safeguarding Area order that known locations of specific minerals of local and national importance
48 of 199 SA Objective Score Definition Mitigation Site Requirement NPPF Policy Core Strategy Policy Other Policy / Development Management are not needlessly sterilised by non- mineral development. Set out policies to encourage the prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and environmentally feasible, if it is necessary for non- mineral development to take place. - Within buffer zone of Avoiding conflicts between Para 143 – planning NRWLP policy designated minerals site mineral uses and other authorities should set MINERALS 9 development by considering out policies to avoid the impact of mineral uses on unacceptable impacts other uses in close proximity. from mineral operations
49 of 199 APPENDIX B Consultation Responses to SA of Identified Sites (August 2018)
Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Historic England (Ian All HMCAs General In the absence of easily-accessible plans showing the 15 sites are identified as having an No change Smith) location of the 199 sites we do not have resources to ‘uncertain effect’ on the historic evaluate whether or not the Appraisal has correctly environment (SA21). Of these, 7 identified the likely harm the development of each site sites have planning permission and might, potentially, cause to the historic environment or therefore the principle of whether or not the suggested mitigation measures are development has been considered likely to be able to adequately mitigate the level of harm and accepted. The remaining sites identified. are UDP allocations, 6 sites have heritage mitigation measures The evaluation of the allocated sites in the submitted SA included as part of the policy Addendum Report was informed to a certain extent by a wording or could be included as heritage impact assessment. Therefore there was at least part of the proposed planning some degree of confidence that the assessed level of framework proposed by the UDP harm was broadly correct and that it was capable of policy. 2 UDP allocations (HG1-394 mitigation. There has been no corresponding assessment and HG1-177) were carried forward of the HG1 sites against which to ascertain whether or not from previous local plans without the assessed impact against SA21 is likely to be correct or policy wording but have been whether the identified mitigation measures are likely to considered by LCC conservation be effective. officers who have advised that appropriate mitigation could be achieved through the planning application process. Natural England (Merlin General N/A Representation notes and welcomes the updated Comment noted No change Ash) assessment and has no further comments to make regarding the identified sites. Welcome the inclusion of the assessment of sites with existing or recently expired planning permission and previously allocated sites within the appraisal as it provides a clear audit trail of decision making. Selby District Council General N/A Officers at Selby District Council have no specific Comment noted No change comments to make on the document, but look forward to continued dialogue with Leeds City Council.
50 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action National Grid c/o Agent General N/A National Grid has no comments to make in response to Comment noted No change – Wood PLC (Hannah the consultation. Bevins) Various clients c/o I B General N/A Submission on behalf of various clients who have The purpose of SA is not, in itself, No change to Planning Ltd attended the Examination Hearings regarding housing to justify the allocation of sites. It is assessment of identified supply. The SA table is an over generalised conclusion a comparative exercise provided by sites with no detailed analysis or assessment to provide any the summary tables assessing sites justification for each site’s allocation. Does not provide against the SA objectives to ensure sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of any of the all reasonable alternatives are identified HG1 sites within the SAP. The SA work relates considered to inform the site to 188 residual sites set out in document EX44 (19 UDP selection process. sites without planning permission, 88 sites with detailed permission, 10 sites with outline permission and 90 sites with expired permission). The inclusion of historic UDP sites which have not achieved a planning permission since the adoption of the UDP over a decade ago as well as expired planning permission sites should not be included within the list of identified HG1 sites within the SAP automatically and should instead be assessed alongside all other submitted sites to determine which sites represent the best reasonable alternatives for formal allocation. As a consequence the SA should be undertaken afresh to compare these sites with all reasonable alternatives in arriving at the most appropriate for allocation within the SAP. Without this exercise there can be no justification that the most appropriate sites have been identified. Document EX45 identifies 3 UDP sites (503 dwellings) with expired permissions and 19 sites (6,299 dwellings) with no planning permission in place. Additionally the Council have confirmed that there are 3,919 dwellings on non UDP sites where planning permissions have expired after 2012. In total this represents 10,721 dwellings which are identified sites which should, appropriately, be assessed against all reasonable alternatives before a robust
51 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action conclusion can be reached on the soundness of the identified supply. The SA does not provide the level of assessment or justification to demonstrate that the most appropriate sites have been identified within the context of all reasonable alternative sites available. The exercise should be re-undertaken with the objective of identifying a supply of housing land within the SAP that includes the most appropriate sites which are available, achievable and deliverable within the plan period. Thornhill Estates; The General NJ/A There are is no detailed analysis of the SA results or any The purpose of SA is not, in itself, No change to Ogden Group; Keyland comparative exercise undertaken to provide justification to justify the allocation of sites. It is assessment of identified Developments Ltd; for each site’s identification as an allocation. This is a comparative exercise provided by sites Taylor Wimpey; Miller particularly relevant in the context of EX44 which states the summary tables assessing sites Homes; The Sir Robert that there are 550 HG1 sites of which 223 have been against the SA objectives to ensure Ogden Partnership; completed since 1st April 2012 and a further which are all reasonable alternatives are Redrow Homes; Linden under construction. The residual 188 sites comprise 19 considered to inform the site Homes; Great North UDP allocated sites with permission, 88 sites with detailed selection process. Developments; Mr John permission, 10 sites with outline permission and 90 sites Wilson and the Diocese with expired permission. The SA relates to the 188 of West Yorkshire and residual sites. The historic UDP allocations and sites which the Dales; Park Lane no longer have planning permission should not be Homes, D G Fryer, N considered as identified sites. These sites should be Joyce, B Timms and M considered alongside all other reasonable alternatives to Joyce; Barnaway and determine the most appropriate for allocation. Having Hamber; KCS undertaken the SA, the Council should review the scores Developments for these sites and compare with alternative sites to c/o I D Planning identify the most appropriate for allocation. There is no analysis of the resultant scores or justification to demonstrate the sites without planning permission or historic UDP allocations remain the most suitable options. Without this, the SA of the HG1 sites does not provide the justification required for the inclusion of these sites as allocation.
52 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action EX45 identifies there are 3 UDP sites (503 dwellings) with expired planning permissions and 19 sites (6,299 dwellings) with no planning permission. The Council’s response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions highlighted there were 3,919 dwellings on non-UDP sites where permission has expired post 2012. In total, this suggests there are 10,721 dwellings categorised as identified sites when they should have been fully assessed alongside other sites considered for allocation. Undertaking an SA at the end of the site selection process with no further assessment of how these sites compare with the reasonable alternatives is insufficient to demonstrate these sites are sound. The sheer quantum of identified sites with no permission or expired permission demonstrates at the very least a lapse rate of 10% should be applied to identified sites to allow for non-implementation. Whilst the SA provides an analysis of each site against the sustainability objectives, the results do not provide any assessment or justification to demonstrate that these sites remain the most appropriate when assessed against alternative sites. The SA does not therefore provide the justification required for the inclusion of the 10,721 dwellings included as identified sites, which do not have planning permission. Roger Shaw General N/A Commentary on the future design of housing estates in Comment noted, however does not No change Leeds, provision for affordable housing, over 50s and relate to the SA process prohibition of buy to let acquisitions. B J M Brockhouse Aireborough N/A For sites adjacent to the A65 Rawdon and Ring Road yet General comment not specifically No change & North to see any evidence that the HG1 sites have addressed related to the SA process. SA18B the clean air act. Due to increased risk of traffic pollution considers air quality identifying not appropriate for any development to proceed. Has the potential effects through proximity Council complied with the Clean Air Act. to A roads and motorways. Roland Smith Outer North N/A Reference to proposed development in Barwick-in-Elmet Comment does not relate to the SA No change East and government concern in meeting housing demand for process.
53 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action first time buyers. Proposed development for houses of £3- 400,000 will not meet the policy. Enid Barnett Outer North HG1-51 Object to allocation of HG1-51 because following SA12 – the LCC nature conservation No change East investigations by West Yorkshire Ecology for the Bramham officer has advised that Neighbourhood Plan, the site was added to the Leeds development of the site is possible Wildlife Habitat Network. It should be sieved out of the with appropriate mitigation to SAP. It is irreplaceable as woodland of high ecological safeguard the woodland habitat. value because if allocated there is no system in place to (NB the site score has been revised prevent its destruction. Conditions to conserve to more accurately reflect the environmental, biodiversity and ecological assets are comments nature conservation ineffective and unenforceable. officer’s comments)
SA11 object to assessment as ++ derelict brownfield site. SA11 – the score should be revised Revise score for SA11 to No assessment or acknowledgement of percentage of to a single negative score to reflect single negative land of high environmental value (ecological value). that it is part greenfield / part Reference to Natural England’s representation at Issues & brownfield. It is acknowledged that Options stage to definition of SA11 the majority of the site is greenfield.
SA20 reject assessment as unattractive brownfield site. SA20 – the site is mainly greenfield. Revise score for SA20 to Provided photograph of UK BAP Priority Habitat Agreed that the score is incorrect neutral Woodland surrounding site and should be revised to neutral (greenfield site where development could still maintain distinctiveness)
SA21 object to lack of further assessment and without it SA21 – the site is a UDP allocation No change the effect of residential allocation on the heritage asset with a policy requirement remains uncertain. Reference to Historic England’s identified in relation to the representation at Publication stage and subsequent work Conservation Area and the undertaken by the Council to assess sites and suggest retention and conversion of the mitigation through site requirements. Provided building with sensitive photograph of Bramham House in 1820s. development in the grounds. The principle of development is already established through the UDP.
54 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Detailed considerations in relation to the site will be a matter for the Reference to 2013 SA Report (section 5.1 – Main options planning application. considered and how they were identified in conformity Comment noted. The site selection with the Core Strategy. SA of Housing sites). The SAP is methodology including the SA was unsound and unjustified because the implemented UDP considered as part of the SAP sites brought forward into the SAP have not been examination hearings. compared with all the other site options to produce a set of preferred options and the allocations are therefore unjustified and unsafe. John & Christine Outer North N/A Strongly protest at any further building in the Wetherby General comment not specifically No change Maloney East area. Too many houses are already planned. In an olde related to the SA process. market town where road widening is difficult or impossible and parking at the limit already, extra traffic is unimaginable. Also urgent is the need for more doctors surgeries, schools, dentists etc. Please register our strong protest at further building. Alistair & Jenny Watson Outer North HG1-15 No meaningful opportunity has been provided (as Planning permission has been No change West construction is underway) to comment on the granted and the site has been Sustainability Appraisal for site HG1-15, the other Otley subject to SA in the same way as UDP “Identified Site “. other identified sites
MX1-26 SA1 Employment, SA3 Education, SA5 Crime, SA7 Housing, Noted No change SA 11 Greenfield or brownfield, SA12 Biodiversity or NB the assessment for SA12 has geological interests , SA17 Waste, SA18A contaminated been revised to more accurately land, SA18C HSE Major Hazard Zone, SA18D Land reflect the nature conservation instability, SA19 Landscape, SA22A Agricultural Land, officer’s comments (support with SA22B Water Resources – agree score mitigation)
SA2 Economic Growth – There is existing employment The site was assessed separately No change (farming) on the site. A neutral/0 score is more for housing and employment use. appropriate The score for SA2 for employment
55 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action use scored a single positive reflecting the proposed employment use.
SA4 Health - The site does not comply with the CS Table 2 The score for SA4 acknowledges No change Accessibility Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min that part of the site lies within the frequency bus service. The neutral housing use score of CS accessibility distance by zero appears inappropriate. providing a neutral score.
SA6 Culture Leisure & recreation - The majority of the site The score reflects the accessibility No change is will not be “reasonably accessible” to Otley town score of the site. The purpose of SA centre. The site does not comply with the CS Table 2 is not to reflect on the loss of Accessibility Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min cultural venues. However a new frequency bus service. The size of the development site for housing could support (alongside other additional SAP housing) underlines the existing or potentially new cultural loss (and continuing absence) of a large venue for cultural facilities in Otley. purposes in Otley. A neutral housing use score of zero appears inappropriate.
SA8 Community participation – Access from the site to The site was scored O? reflecting No change existing services in Otley Town Centre will not be “good” on the scale of the site and the except by foot (or bike) from the inner most part. The site potential to provide new facilities does not comply with the CS Table 2 Accessibility on site. Not clear what is meant Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min frequency bus by positive score for housing use. service. Car based travel could be substantially outward facility due to traffic and parking issues. A positive housing use score of + appears inappropriate.
SA9 Community Cohesion – The site represents a The SA process has to be No change substantial increase in the size of Otley. It is out of scale comparative across all site with the existing community. The size of the development assessments. It is acknowledged (alongside other additional SAP housing) also underlines that site MX1-26 is a large site the loss (and continuing absence) of a large venue for however notwithstanding this it is cultural purposes in Otley. A neutral score of zero appears considered in scale with the size of to be inappropriate. the settlement of Otley, when
56 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action compared for example against a village with a similar sized site. The neutral score is considered correct.
SA10 Greenspace – Housing: Not clear from Policy G3 how Housing use – the assessment No change to score for the accessibility distances for the 6 typologies should be against greenspace accessibility is housing use. measured. Given the scale of the site, have been correct using the same measured (as the crow flies) from the nearest example of methodology as other sites Revise score for each typology to furthest point on the site. Identified 4 Employment use – Agree that the employment use to typologies beyond accessibility distances. A ++ score score is incorrect. Should be neutral appears inappropriate. Employment: the ++ score neutral score. appears to be an error. A O score would appear more appropriate
SA13 Greenhouse emissions – The concerns of S13 appears to be “commuting emissions”. The vehicle routes The score for SA13 reflects the No change into Leeds, Bradford and Harrogate are long and accessibility score provided by congested (cars and buses) and Otley’s rail options are Highways officers “difficult” at best. A neutral score appears inappropriate
SA14 Flood Risk – The site is greenfield and part of the site is in Flood Zone 2. A neutral score appears inappropriate The site is scored a single negative No change not neutral in the SA which is considered correct SA15 Transport Network – The concerns of SA15 appears to be the road network. The site will be access from the The score for SA15 reflects the No change new relief road and good end connectivity. However the local highway network assessment local road network capacity is poor. A positive score of + provided by Highways officers appears inappropriate
SA16 Local Needs met Locally – The title of SA16 together with the text does not make it clear exactly what it relates The score for SA16 reflects the No change to. However it implies the focus is accessibility and accessibility score provided by services thus the comments made under SA4, 6,8,9 and 5 Highways officers
57 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action are probably relevant. The neutral score appears inappropriate
SA18B Air quality - A strip of the site over 1km in length The site assessment is based on the No change will lie within 30m of the Relief Road (which will existing characteristics of the site, presumably be an A road). A neutral score of zero not what is proposed. appears to be inappropriate.
SA20 Local Distinctiveness - A large greenfield site (part of It is acknowledged that site MX1- No change which is adjacent to the Conservation Area). Its 26 is a large site however development will not be in scale with the existing notwithstanding this it is settlement and will reduce its distinctiveness. considered in scale with the size of A neutral score of zero appears inappropriate. the settlement of Otley, when compared for example against a village with a similar sized site. The neutral score is considered correct
SA21 – It is assumed that the heritage asset referred to is The site adjoins the Conservation No change the adjacent Conservation Area. Nothing is known about Area. The UDP policy for the East of how this will be affected (but clearly it will). Otley site includes the requirement for a planning framework. Heritage considerations will be identified as part of the preparation of the document including mitigation measures.
SA22C Mineral Resources - Land at Midgley farm is Any sites lying within identified No change allocated for sand and gravel extraction (policy MINERALS buffer zones of a designated 5). 1.6Mt of sand and gravel reserves lie immediately to minerals site have been scored the east of the East of Otley site. There is no reference to accordingly. No buffer zone was buffer zones within the Adopted Natural Resources and identified for East of Otley site. Waste Local Plan, however it seems possible that the site may well lie within such a buffer zone. A neutral score of zero may be inappropriate.
58 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Cath Harrison Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Helen Allsopp Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Brian Simpson Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Stephen Rimmer Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 David Mowlam Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Chris Cooper Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Richard Pulleyn Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 A J Hartigan Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Concerned that additional housing has been approved Separate comment does not relate No change without adequate provision for transport and parking in to the SA process already congested town centre. Car journeys into town will be indirect using congested Leeds and Pool roads putting further pressure on parking. Reference to accessibility standards. Otley has no bus route offering a 15 minute services. Is there a plan to rectify this.
Sara Quin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26
59 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Sarah Gooder Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Simon Quin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Jackie Garnett Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Mike Harounoff Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Helen Thornton Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Keith John Best Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Neil Griffin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 David Bussey Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 ‘alexandhev’ Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Karen Newman Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Dr Simon Bryant Outer North MX1-26 Commenting in relation to SA12 (biodiversity interests). For the purposes of the SAP No change West Not aware of what stage any ecological impact process process a detailed ecological has reached, but if there has been one then it has missed assessment has not be undertaken. (intentionally or otherwise) the presence of a nationally However the comments from the important species of butterfly present within and around nature conservation officer
60 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action several areas of the site. The white-letter hairstreak identified support with mitigation (Satyrium w-album) is classified as EN (endangered) by can be achieved (NB the score for Butterfly Conservation and as such is listed in the 2010 SA12 is being revised to reflect Butterfly Red List of Great Britain (see: https://butterfly- this). conservation.org/sites/default/files/red-list.pdf). Take this A development brief is being into consideration and amend SA12 accordingly, and prepared for the site and will ensure the respectful treatment of this species going inform the future preparation of a forward, particularly with reference to Core Strategy planning application for the site. Policy G8. Requirements for nature conservation assessment and mitigation will be included as part of both processes. Garforth Neighbourhood Outer South EO1-17 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, Paragraph 3.3 of the SA Addendum No change Planning Forum (Sue East SA11, SA12, SA18d, SA19 and SA22a explains that mitigation can be McQuire) provided by a variety of means, EG1-36 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, through policy provisions and site SA11, SA18b, SA18d, SA19 and SA22a specific requirements applied through planning applications for EG1-35 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, individual sites. SA11, SA12, SA18b, SA18d, SA22a The remaining comments do not For EO-17, EG1-36 and EG1-35 have any site requirements specifically relate to the SA been made? process, the purpose of the consultation, rather than the EG1-37 These sites are situated within the present industrial principle of development. (?) estate in Garforth and are brownfield. Are any site EG1-38 requirements stated? EG1-39 Given surplus of vacant general employment and office EG1-40 premises both within Garforth and the surround areas EG1-41 and the fact these sites have been granted planning EG1-42 permission for the past 17/18 years, Core Strategy policy EC3 and para.5.2.7 should be applied as EO1-17, EG1-5 and EG1-36 could be described as not viable for employment. These sites could be reallocated to housing as that is where the need is greater.
61 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action
HG1-309 The site was given planning permission several years ago. Understand permission was only given for development provided retail shops were included on the ground floor. This site has a longer frontage to Beech Grove Avenue and not within the retail area. There are always vacant shop frontages on Main Street. The Forum wish to see this brownfield site, so close to all facilities, reserved for a development for older people. Avant Homes c/o WYG Outer South Representing Avant Homes in relation to land interests at Comments noted in relation to the No change (Matthew Good) West Highfield Drive / Harthill Lane, Gildersome (BL1-26). SA process. The remaining Reference to EX44, have particular concern regarding UDP comments do not specifically relate allocations without permission and sites with expired to the SA process, they relate to permission (109 sites). Have no objection to sites with the general site selection extant permission. Critical of process that HG1 sites given methodology which has been preferential treatment over other SAP sites in particular considered through the SAP broad locations. HG1 sites were included in the SAP examination. irrespective of their planning status and without undergoing SA and as such could not be properly judged against other SAP sites. Particularly pertinent for sites with expired permission. The omission of these sites from the initial SA work is considered unsound and has provided preferential status without equitable consideration alongside HG2, BL1 and omission sites. Equitable consideration would have led the council to different conclusions.
HG1-335, EX38 identifies 446 units in Outer SW are either UDP HG1-334, allocations without permission or are expired HG1-346, permissions. Given lack of progress on these sites there is HG1-350, significant uncertainty if any will be brought forward in HG1-392 the plan period. This is significant as represents 6% of OSW target. Failure to deliver will have significant impact upon the plan. Reference to planning status of sites
62 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action listed. No certainty over delivery and as such should be treated no different to allocations and broad locations.
Not challenging the SA scores of HG1 sites. Contain degree of subjectivity and interpretation. A simplistic comparison of BL1-26 scores similarly to HG1 sites.
Wider community needs must be taken into consideration. In Gildersome only 24 dwellings anticipated to be delivered in the next 5 years. HG2-146 currently occupied by active industrial units and questionable whether will be brought forward.
Do not dispute the SA scores of HG1 sites do object to the retrospective nature of the process. Objection limited to HG1 sites without extant permission. These sites should have been treated in same manner as HG2 and BL sites.
63 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Historic England (Ian All HMCAs General In the absence of easily-accessible plans showing the 15 sites are identified as having an No change Smith) location of the 199 sites we do not have resources to ‘uncertain effect’ on the historic evaluate whether or not the Appraisal has correctly environment (SA21). Of these, 7 identified the likely harm the development of each site sites have planning permission and might, potentially, cause to the historic environment or therefore the principle of whether or not the suggested mitigation measures are development has been considered likely to be able to adequately mitigate the level of harm and accepted. The remaining sites identified. are UDP allocations, 6 sites have heritage mitigation measures The evaluation of the allocated sites in the submitted SA included as part of the policy Addendum Report was informed to a certain extent by a wording or could be included as heritage impact assessment. Therefore there was at least part of the proposed planning some degree of confidence that the assessed level of framework proposed by the UDP harm was broadly correct and that it was capable of policy. 2 UDP allocations (HG1-394 mitigation. There has been no corresponding assessment and HG1-177) were carried forward of the HG1 sites against which to ascertain whether or not from previous local plans without the assessed impact against SA21 is likely to be correct or policy wording but have been whether the identified mitigation measures are likely to considered by LCC conservation be effective. officers who have advised that appropriate mitigation could be achieved through the planning application process. Natural England (Merlin General N/A Representation notes and welcomes the updated Comment noted No change Ash) assessment and has no further comments to make regarding the identified sites. Welcome the inclusion of the assessment of sites with existing or recently expired planning permission and previously allocated sites within the appraisal as it provides a clear audit trail of decision making. Selby District Council General N/A Officers at Selby District Council have no specific Comment noted No change comments to make on the document, but look forward to continued dialogue with Leeds City Council.
64 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action National Grid c/o Agent General N/A National Grid has no comments to make in response to Comment noted No change – Wood PLC (Hannah the consultation. Bevins) Various clients c/o I B General N/A Submission on behalf of various clients who have The purpose of SA is not, in itself, No change to Planning Ltd attended the Examination Hearings regarding housing to justify the allocation of sites. It is assessment of identified supply. The SA table is an over generalised conclusion a comparative exercise provided by sites with no detailed analysis or assessment to provide any the summary tables assessing sites justification for each site’s allocation. Does not provide against the SA objectives to ensure sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of any of the all reasonable alternatives are identified HG1 sites within the SAP. The SA work relates considered to inform the site to 188 residual sites set out in document EX44 (19 UDP selection process. sites without planning permission, 88 sites with detailed permission, 10 sites with outline permission and 90 sites with expired permission). The inclusion of historic UDP sites which have not achieved a planning permission since the adoption of the UDP over a decade ago as well as expired planning permission sites should not be included within the list of identified HG1 sites within the SAP automatically and should instead be assessed alongside all other submitted sites to determine which sites represent the best reasonable alternatives for formal allocation. As a consequence the SA should be undertaken afresh to compare these sites with all reasonable alternatives in arriving at the most appropriate for allocation within the SAP. Without this exercise there can be no justification that the most appropriate sites have been identified. Document EX45 identifies 3 UDP sites (503 dwellings) with expired permissions and 19 sites (6,299 dwellings) with no planning permission in place. Additionally the Council have confirmed that there are 3,919 dwellings on non UDP sites where planning permissions have expired after 2012. In total this represents 10,721 dwellings which are identified sites which should, appropriately, be assessed against all reasonable alternatives before a robust
65 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action conclusion can be reached on the soundness of the identified supply. The SA does not provide the level of assessment or justification to demonstrate that the most appropriate sites have been identified within the context of all reasonable alternative sites available. The exercise should be re-undertaken with the objective of identifying a supply of housing land within the SAP that includes the most appropriate sites which are available, achievable and deliverable within the plan period. Thornhill Estates; The General NJ/A There are is no detailed analysis of the SA results or any The purpose of SA is not, in itself, No change to Ogden Group; Keyland comparative exercise undertaken to provide justification to justify the allocation of sites. It is assessment of identified Developments Ltd; for each site’s identification as an allocation. This is a comparative exercise provided by sites Taylor Wimpey; Miller particularly relevant in the context of EX44 which states the summary tables assessing sites Homes; The Sir Robert that there are 550 HG1 sites of which 223 have been against the SA objectives to ensure Ogden Partnership; completed since 1st April 2012 and a further which are all reasonable alternatives are Redrow Homes; Linden under construction. The residual 188 sites comprise 19 considered to inform the site Homes; Great North UDP allocated sites with permission, 88 sites with detailed selection process. Developments; Mr John permission, 10 sites with outline permission and 90 sites Wilson and the Diocese with expired permission. The SA relates to the 188 of West Yorkshire and residual sites. The historic UDP allocations and sites which the Dales; Park Lane no longer have planning permission should not be Homes, D G Fryer, N considered as identified sites. These sites should be Joyce, B Timms and M considered alongside all other reasonable alternatives to Joyce; Barnaway and determine the most appropriate for allocation. Having Hamber; KCS undertaken the SA, the Council should review the scores Developments for these sites and compare with alternative sites to c/o I D Planning identify the most appropriate for allocation. There is no analysis of the resultant scores or justification to demonstrate the sites without planning permission or historic UDP allocations remain the most suitable options. Without this, the SA of the HG1 sites does not provide the justification required for the inclusion of these sites as allocation.
66 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action EX45 identifies there are 3 UDP sites (503 dwellings) with expired planning permissions and 19 sites (6,299 dwellings) with no planning permission. The Council’s response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions highlighted there were 3,919 dwellings on non-UDP sites where permission has expired post 2012. In total, this suggests there are 10,721 dwellings categorised as identified sites when they should have been fully assessed alongside other sites considered for allocation. Undertaking an SA at the end of the site selection process with no further assessment of how these sites compare with the reasonable alternatives is insufficient to demonstrate these sites are sound. The sheer quantum of identified sites with no permission or expired permission demonstrates at the very least a lapse rate of 10% should be applied to identified sites to allow for non-implementation. Whilst the SA provides an analysis of each site against the sustainability objectives, the results do not provide any assessment or justification to demonstrate that these sites remain the most appropriate when assessed against alternative sites. The SA does not therefore provide the justification required for the inclusion of the 10,721 dwellings included as identified sites, which do not have planning permission. Roger Shaw General N/A Commentary on the future design of housing estates in Comment noted, however does not No change Leeds, provision for affordable housing, over 50s and relate to the SA process prohibition of buy to let acquisitions. B J M Brockhouse Aireborough N/A For sites adjacent to the A65 Rawdon and Ring Road yet General comment not specifically No change & North to see any evidence that the HG1 sites have addressed related to the SA process. SA18B the clean air act. Due to increased risk of traffic pollution considers air quality identifying not appropriate for any development to proceed. Has the potential effects through proximity Council complied with the Clean Air Act. to A roads and motorways. Roland Smith Outer North N/A Reference to proposed development in Barwick-in-Elmet Comment does not relate to the SA No change East and government concern in meeting housing demand for process.
67 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action first time buyers. Proposed development for houses of £3- 400,000 will not meet the policy. Enid Barnett Outer North HG1-51 Object to allocation of HG1-51 because following SA12 – the LCC nature conservation No change East investigations by West Yorkshire Ecology for the Bramham officer has advised that Neighbourhood Plan, the site was added to the Leeds development of the site is possible Wildlife Habitat Network. It should be sieved out of the with appropriate mitigation to SAP. It is irreplaceable as woodland of high ecological safeguard the woodland habitat. value because if allocated there is no system in place to (NB the site score has been revised prevent its destruction. Conditions to conserve to more accurately reflect the environmental, biodiversity and ecological assets are comments nature conservation ineffective and unenforceable. officer’s comments)
SA11 object to assessment as ++ derelict brownfield site. SA11 – the score should be revised Revise score for SA11 to No assessment or acknowledgement of percentage of to a single negative score to reflect single negative land of high environmental value (ecological value). that it is part greenfield / part Reference to Natural England’s representation at Issues & brownfield. It is acknowledged that Options stage to definition of SA11 the majority of the site is greenfield.
SA20 reject assessment as unattractive brownfield site. SA20 – the site is mainly greenfield. Revise score for SA20 to Provided photograph of UK BAP Priority Habitat Agreed that the score is incorrect neutral Woodland surrounding site and should be revised to neutral (greenfield site where development could still maintain distinctiveness)
SA21 object to lack of further assessment and without it SA21 – the site is a UDP allocation No change the effect of residential allocation on the heritage asset with a policy requirement remains uncertain. Reference to Historic England’s identified in relation to the representation at Publication stage and subsequent work Conservation Area and the undertaken by the Council to assess sites and suggest retention and conversion of the mitigation through site requirements. Provided building with sensitive photograph of Bramham House in 1820s. development in the grounds. The principle of development is already established through the UDP.
68 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Detailed considerations in relation to the site will be a matter for the Reference to 2013 SA Report (section 5.1 – Main options planning application. considered and how they were identified in conformity Comment noted. The site selection with the Core Strategy. SA of Housing sites). The SAP is methodology including the SA was unsound and unjustified because the implemented UDP considered as part of the SAP sites brought forward into the SAP have not been examination hearings. compared with all the other site options to produce a set of preferred options and the allocations are therefore unjustified and unsafe. John & Christine Outer North N/A Strongly protest at any further building in the Wetherby General comment not specifically No change Maloney East area. Too many houses are already planned. In an olde related to the SA process. market town where road widening is difficult or impossible and parking at the limit already, extra traffic is unimaginable. Also urgent is the need for more doctors surgeries, schools, dentists etc. Please register our strong protest at further building. Alistair & Jenny Watson Outer North HG1-15 No meaningful opportunity has been provided (as Planning permission has been No change West construction is underway) to comment on the granted and the site has been Sustainability Appraisal for site HG1-15, the other Otley subject to SA in the same way as UDP “Identified Site “. other identified sites
MX1-26 SA1 Employment, SA3 Education, SA5 Crime, SA7 Housing, Noted No change SA 11 Greenfield or brownfield, SA12 Biodiversity or NB the assessment for SA12 has geological interests , SA17 Waste, SA18A contaminated been revised to more accurately land, SA18C HSE Major Hazard Zone, SA18D Land reflect the nature conservation instability, SA19 Landscape, SA22A Agricultural Land, officer’s comments (support with SA22B Water Resources – agree score mitigation)
SA2 Economic Growth – There is existing employment The site was assessed separately No change (farming) on the site. A neutral/0 score is more for housing and employment use. appropriate The score for SA2 for employment
69 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action use scored a single positive reflecting the proposed employment use.
SA4 Health - The site does not comply with the CS Table 2 The score for SA4 acknowledges No change Accessibility Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min that part of the site lies within the frequency bus service. The neutral housing use score of CS accessibility distance by zero appears inappropriate. providing a neutral score.
SA6 Culture Leisure & recreation - The majority of the site The score reflects the accessibility No change is will not be “reasonably accessible” to Otley town score of the site. The purpose of SA centre. The site does not comply with the CS Table 2 is not to reflect on the loss of Accessibility Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min cultural venues. However a new frequency bus service. The size of the development site for housing could support (alongside other additional SAP housing) underlines the existing or potentially new cultural loss (and continuing absence) of a large venue for cultural facilities in Otley. purposes in Otley. A neutral housing use score of zero appears inappropriate.
SA8 Community participation – Access from the site to The site was scored O? reflecting No change existing services in Otley Town Centre will not be “good” on the scale of the site and the except by foot (or bike) from the inner most part. The site potential to provide new facilities does not comply with the CS Table 2 Accessibility on site. Not clear what is meant Standard of a 5 min walk to a 15 min frequency bus by positive score for housing use. service. Car based travel could be substantially outward facility due to traffic and parking issues. A positive housing use score of + appears inappropriate.
SA9 Community Cohesion – The site represents a The SA process has to be No change substantial increase in the size of Otley. It is out of scale comparative across all site with the existing community. The size of the development assessments. It is acknowledged (alongside other additional SAP housing) also underlines that site MX1-26 is a large site the loss (and continuing absence) of a large venue for however notwithstanding this it is cultural purposes in Otley. A neutral score of zero appears considered in scale with the size of to be inappropriate. the settlement of Otley, when
70 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action compared for example against a village with a similar sized site. The neutral score is considered correct.
SA10 Greenspace – Housing: Not clear from Policy G3 how Housing use – the assessment No change to score for the accessibility distances for the 6 typologies should be against greenspace accessibility is housing use. measured. Given the scale of the site, have been correct using the same measured (as the crow flies) from the nearest example of methodology as other sites Revise score for each typology to furthest point on the site. Identified 4 Employment use – Agree that the employment use to typologies beyond accessibility distances. A ++ score score is incorrect. Should be neutral appears inappropriate. Employment: the ++ score neutral score. appears to be an error. A O score would appear more appropriate
SA13 Greenhouse emissions – The concerns of S13 appears to be “commuting emissions”. The vehicle routes The score for SA13 reflects the No change into Leeds, Bradford and Harrogate are long and accessibility score provided by congested (cars and buses) and Otley’s rail options are Highways officers “difficult” at best. A neutral score appears inappropriate
SA14 Flood Risk – The site is greenfield and part of the site is in Flood Zone 2. A neutral score appears inappropriate The site is scored a single negative No change not neutral in the SA which is considered correct SA15 Transport Network – The concerns of SA15 appears to be the road network. The site will be access from the The score for SA15 reflects the No change new relief road and good end connectivity. However the local highway network assessment local road network capacity is poor. A positive score of + provided by Highways officers appears inappropriate
SA16 Local Needs met Locally – The title of SA16 together with the text does not make it clear exactly what it relates The score for SA16 reflects the No change to. However it implies the focus is accessibility and accessibility score provided by services thus the comments made under SA4, 6,8,9 and 5 Highways officers
71 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action are probably relevant. The neutral score appears inappropriate
SA18B Air quality - A strip of the site over 1km in length The site assessment is based on the No change will lie within 30m of the Relief Road (which will existing characteristics of the site, presumably be an A road). A neutral score of zero not what is proposed. appears to be inappropriate.
SA20 Local Distinctiveness - A large greenfield site (part of It is acknowledged that site MX1- No change which is adjacent to the Conservation Area). Its 26 is a large site however development will not be in scale with the existing notwithstanding this it is settlement and will reduce its distinctiveness. considered in scale with the size of A neutral score of zero appears inappropriate. the settlement of Otley, when compared for example against a village with a similar sized site. The neutral score is considered correct
SA21 – It is assumed that the heritage asset referred to is The site adjoins the Conservation No change the adjacent Conservation Area. Nothing is known about Area. The UDP policy for the East of how this will be affected (but clearly it will). Otley site includes the requirement for a planning framework. Heritage considerations will be identified as part of the preparation of the document including mitigation measures.
SA22C Mineral Resources - Land at Midgley farm is Any sites lying within identified No change allocated for sand and gravel extraction (policy MINERALS buffer zones of a designated 5). 1.6Mt of sand and gravel reserves lie immediately to minerals site have been scored the east of the East of Otley site. There is no reference to accordingly. No buffer zone was buffer zones within the Adopted Natural Resources and identified for East of Otley site. Waste Local Plan, however it seems possible that the site may well lie within such a buffer zone. A neutral score of zero may be inappropriate.
72 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Cath Harrison Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Helen Allsopp Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Brian Simpson Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Stephen Rimmer Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 David Mowlam Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Chris Cooper Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Richard Pulleyn Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 A J Hartigan Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Concerned that additional housing has been approved Separate comment does not relate No change without adequate provision for transport and parking in to the SA process already congested town centre. Car journeys into town will be indirect using congested Leeds and Pool roads putting further pressure on parking. Reference to accessibility standards. Otley has no bus route offering a 15 minute services. Is there a plan to rectify this.
Sara Quin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26
73 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action Sarah Gooder Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Simon Quin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Jackie Garnett Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Mike Harounoff Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Helen Thornton Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Keith John Best Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Neil Griffin Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 David Bussey Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 ‘alexandhev’ Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Karen Newman Outer North HG1-15 Duplicate representation as Alistair & Jenny Watson As above As above West & MX1- 26 Dr Simon Bryant Outer North MX1-26 Commenting in relation to SA12 (biodiversity interests). For the purposes of the SAP No change West Not aware of what stage any ecological impact process process a detailed ecological has reached, but if there has been one then it has missed assessment has not be undertaken. (intentionally or otherwise) the presence of a nationally However the comments from the important species of butterfly present within and around nature conservation officer
74 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action several areas of the site. The white-letter hairstreak identified support with mitigation (Satyrium w-album) is classified as EN (endangered) by can be achieved (NB the score for Butterfly Conservation and as such is listed in the 2010 SA12 is being revised to reflect Butterfly Red List of Great Britain (see: https://butterfly- this). conservation.org/sites/default/files/red-list.pdf). Take this A development brief is being into consideration and amend SA12 accordingly, and prepared for the site and will ensure the respectful treatment of this species going inform the future preparation of a forward, particularly with reference to Core Strategy planning application for the site. Policy G8. Requirements for nature conservation assessment and mitigation will be included as part of both processes. Garforth Neighbourhood Outer South EO1-17 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, Paragraph 3.3 of the SA Addendum No change Planning Forum (Sue East SA11, SA12, SA18d, SA19 and SA22a explains that mitigation can be McQuire) provided by a variety of means, EG1-36 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, through policy provisions and site SA11, SA18b, SA18d, SA19 and SA22a specific requirements applied through planning applications for EG1-35 Reference to mitigation measures identified for SA10, individual sites. SA11, SA12, SA18b, SA18d, SA22a The remaining comments do not For EO-17, EG1-36 and EG1-35 have any site requirements specifically relate to the SA been made? process, the purpose of the consultation, rather than the EG1-37 These sites are situated within the present industrial principle of development. (?) estate in Garforth and are brownfield. Are any site EG1-38 requirements stated? EG1-39 Given surplus of vacant general employment and office EG1-40 premises both within Garforth and the surround areas EG1-41 and the fact these sites have been granted planning EG1-42 permission for the past 17/18 years, Core Strategy policy EC3 and para.5.2.7 should be applied as EO1-17, EG1-5 and EG1-36 could be described as not viable for employment. These sites could be reallocated to housing as that is where the need is greater.
75 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action
HG1-309 The site was given planning permission several years ago. Understand permission was only given for development provided retail shops were included on the ground floor. This site has a longer frontage to Beech Grove Avenue and not within the retail area. There are always vacant shop frontages on Main Street. The Forum wish to see this brownfield site, so close to all facilities, reserved for a development for older people. Avant Homes c/o WYG Outer South Representing Avant Homes in relation to land interests at Comments noted in relation to the No change (Matthew Good) West Highfield Drive / Harthill Lane, Gildersome (BL1-26). SA process. The remaining Reference to EX44, have particular concern regarding UDP comments do not specifically relate allocations without permission and sites with expired to the SA process, they relate to permission (109 sites). Have no objection to sites with the general site selection extant permission. Critical of process that HG1 sites given methodology which has been preferential treatment over other SAP sites in particular considered through the SAP broad locations. HG1 sites were included in the SAP examination. irrespective of their planning status and without undergoing SA and as such could not be properly judged against other SAP sites. Particularly pertinent for sites with expired permission. The omission of these sites from the initial SA work is considered unsound and has provided preferential status without equitable consideration alongside HG2, BL1 and omission sites. Equitable consideration would have led the council to different conclusions.
HG1-335, EX38 identifies 446 units in Outer SW are either UDP HG1-334, allocations without permission or are expired HG1-346, permissions. Given lack of progress on these sites there is HG1-350, significant uncertainty if any will be brought forward in HG1-392 the plan period. This is significant as represents 6% of OSW target. Failure to deliver will have significant impact upon the plan. Reference to planning status of sites
76 of 199 Representor HMCA Site Ref Representation made Response Action listed. No certainty over delivery and as such should be treated no different to allocations and broad locations.
Not challenging the SA scores of HG1 sites. Contain degree of subjectivity and interpretation. A simplistic comparison of BL1-26 scores similarly to HG1 sites.
Wider community needs must be taken into consideration. In Gildersome only 24 dwellings anticipated to be delivered in the next 5 years. HG2-146 currently occupied by active industrial units and questionable whether will be brought forward.
Do not dispute the SA scores of HG1 sites do object to the retrospective nature of the process. Objection limited to HG1 sites without extant permission. These sites should have been treated in same manner as HG2 and BL sites.
77 of 199 APPENDIX C – SA OF IDENTIFIED HOUSING AND MIXED USE SITES (UPDATED FOLLOWING CONSULTATION TO REFLECT AMENDMENTS MADE) Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Aireborough HG1-5 5121 - - + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0+++++++0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 Aireborough HG1-8 HLA28023900 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 Aireborough HG1-11 3187 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + ++ + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Aireborough HG1-13HLA27003700 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Centre HG1-423 182 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-425 3160 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-426 3139 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-427 3140 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-428 3141 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-440 5122 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-442 204 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-453 5157 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-458 3018 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre HG1-459 395 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + - ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-463 406 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre HG1-475 5225 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-481 5231 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-495 5247 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + City Centre HG1-496 5248 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre HG1-511 421 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-5 454 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++++++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-7 402 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-8 5359 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-13 450 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ - + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-14 405 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-16 202 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-17 409 - - + + 0+++0?0- -+0+-++0 + 0 0 0 00+ 0 0 + City Centre MX1-20 445 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ 0 + ++ 0 + - 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-21 415 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0? 0 0 + 0 ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-23 456 0 0 + + 0 ++ + 0 0 - - ++ - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-24 2023 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 0 ++ - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + u 0 0 + East Leeds HG1-278 5124 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + East Leeds HG1-284 795 0 0 0 - 0 - + - 0 0 - - 0 - - + 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds HG1-288 797 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 0 + - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds HG1-303 2144A 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + East Leeds MX1-25 2039 0 0 0 + 0 - + - - 0 - - - - + 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + Inner Area HG1-207 383 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 ++ - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-219HLA34023900 0 + + 0 + + + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-220 5109 - - + + 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-222 3206 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0- -+0+++++++0 + 0 0 0 000 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-225 2150D 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-236HLA2602860 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-237HLA26038000 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-241HLA2603180 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-242 1144 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-245 2138 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-247 197 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-249 5150 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-250HLA2405240 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-251 1338 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-252 3354 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-253 1340A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-256 465 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - - ++ + ++ ++ 0+ 0 0- --000 0 + Inner Area HG1-257 2141A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-259HLA2405110 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-264HLA2104940 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
78 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Inner Area HG1-271 3142 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-274 3147 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-277HLA2104950 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-278 5124 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-280 473 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-281 474 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Inner Area HG1-303 2144A 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-470 5205 0 0 + + 0 + + + - - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-499 5342 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-504 5347 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area HG1-509 4117 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-6 208 - - + + 0 0 + + 0 - -+0++- +++- + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-11 447 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - -++ - ++ 0 + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-12 433 0 0 + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ - + ++ 0+00000-00+ Inner Area MX1-28 198 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - -++- ++ - +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + u 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-59 3010A 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 + ++ - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - + - - - 0 0 North Leeds HG1-60 685 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 + - - - - + 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-64 5178 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 - ++ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 + North Leeds HG1-65 721 0 0 + 0 0 0 + - 0 0 - - 0 - - + 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + North Leeds HG1-67HLA27013700 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-68 688 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 ------++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 North Leeds HG1-69 65 0 0 - - 0 - + + 0 0 ++ - - - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-74 687 0 0 - - 0 - + - 0 + + - - ++ 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-77 HLA3002600 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-80 HLA30026400 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-88 8 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-89 764 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 - - + 0 - ++ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-94 5177 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-98 731 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-99HLA27014700 - + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-101HLA27014100 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-102 5176 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-106 3 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-110HLA3402640 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-111 106 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-116HLA2603760 - ++ + + 0 + + + 0 - - ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-119 4184 - - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + - 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-124HLA2404950 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-127 4058A - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-471 5207 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-491 5243 0 0 +-00+00- --00++00+ 0 0 0- -00 0 0 0 North Leeds HG1-493 5245 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + North Leeds HG1-515 5009A 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 + North Leeds HG1-518 97 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + North Leeds MX1-2 376 0 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 - -++ - 0 ++ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-36 103 0 0 + - 0 0 + - 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-39 90 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 0++0 0+++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-49HLA31041800 0 - - 0 - + - 0 0 - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-51 778 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 0 - - - - + - - - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 u - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-53 3152 0 0 - - 0 - + - - 0 - - - - - + - - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-57 4072 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - -- - 0 - + + - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - - 0 0 Outer NE HG1-288 797 0 0 0 - 0 0 + - 0 0 + - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + Outer NW HG1-15 744 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 ++- - - - + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer NW HG1-20 HLA2901390 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Outer NW HG1-21 5181 - - + + 0 + + 0 0- -+00 - +00 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Outer NW HG1-25 364 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +- -0 - + 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 Outer NW MX1-26 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0? 0 ++- - - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - 0 0
79 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Outer South HG1-404HLA2202010 - - + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South HG1-410 507 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South HG1-412 2129A 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - + u - - 0 + Outer South HG1-418 135 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 + - - 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 - - 0 + Outer South HG1-494 5246 - - - - 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 - ++ + - 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SE HG1-305 820 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 +- -0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer SE HG1-307 1118 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer SE HG1-309HLA3306630- - + + 0 + + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + Outer SE HG1-315 3352 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +- -0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer SE HG1-317 3351 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + - 0 + + ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SE HG1-472 5208 0 0 0 - 0 - + - - + - - - - + + - 0 0 0 0 0 - - - + - - 0 0 Outer SW HG1-327 481 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - -+ 0++++ +++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-328HLA21045100 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-333 1077 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 ++++ + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-334 5131 0 0 u u 0 u + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-335 5100 - - 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 ++++ + 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-344 563 - - + + 0 + + + 0 +++ - 0 ++ + 0 - + 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-345HLA23042700 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 - + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-346 4198 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 +++ - ++++++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-350 547 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 +++0 0+++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-364HLA23043100 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-365HLA23042100 0 + + 0 + + + 0 + + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-366 5133 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +- -0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-368 2100A 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +- -0 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-371 1281B 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + - - x + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-373 5191 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 - - - + 0 ++++ + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-380 5132 0 0 0 - 0 - + - - +- -0 - + + - 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer SW HG1-384 HLA23042200 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-388 5117 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0+++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-392 375 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0++0 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-394 536 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 +- -0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-513 1064A - - - - + + 0 0 + - 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer SW HG1-514 1320 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 + - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer West HG1-140 3304 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-145 625 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-147HLA2405050 - - + + 0 ++ + + 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-152 636 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-155 613 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - ++ 0 ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-156 26 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-157 3196 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-158 4199 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 -+0+++++++0 + 0 0 0 00- - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-160HLA2405140- - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-161 649 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + x ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-162 678 - - + + 0 + + 0 0 - - + - ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-163HLA2405090 - - + + 0 + + 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-177 650 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u 0 0 + Outer West HG1-181 656 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 ------+ 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-182HLA2405190- - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-183 41 0 0 + + 0 + + + 0 - ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-189 653 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 - - - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-190 644 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-192 4194 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-193HLA24054700 0 + + 0 - - + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-200 3203 0 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-202HLA25031700 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - ++ 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - - - 0 + Outer West HG1-204HLA24048200 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-205 595 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - + + + + 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-206 64 - - + - 0 - + - u - - + - - - + - 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 +
80 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified housing sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Outer West HG1-468 5203 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-469 5204 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 Outer West HG1-476 5226 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + - - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer West HG1-488 5238 - - + + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer West HG1-501 5344 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 - - - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West MX1-4 CFSM051 - - + + 0 + + + 0 0 + - ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 - 0 0 +
81 of 199 APPENDIX C – SA OF IDENTIFIED SITES EMPLOYMENT AND MIXED USE (UPDATED FOLLOWING CONSULTATION TO REFLECT AMENDMENTS MADE) ) Sustainability Appraisals of identified employment sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Aireborough EO1-1 2900890 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++++ - 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EO1-2 2801002 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0++0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - + Aireborough EO1-41 2900893 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 - - - ++ + ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-1 2900891 - - 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + 0 ++++++++ - 0 0 0 0 - - + 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-3 2901210 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 - - - ++ + ++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Aireborough EG1-4 2801642+ + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0-00++00 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - + City Centre MX1-5 454 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++0 ++++++++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-7 402 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0++0++ - ++++0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-8 5359 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre MX1-13 450 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++ - + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-14 405 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ - ++ - ++ ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-16 202 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + 0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-17 409 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + 0 + - + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + City Centre MX1-20 445 +++0 0 0 0 - + 00++0++0+++0 + - 0 - 0++ 0 0 + City Centre MX1-21 415 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + 0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-23 456 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre MX1-24 2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ - ++ - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 + City Centre EO1-31 2002400 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre EO1-35 2005100 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ 0 ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + - 0 0 + City Centre EO1-36EMP00335+ ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + City Centre EO1-42 2003900 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ - ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + City Centre EG1-62 2103680 + ++ 0 0 0 ++ - - 0 0++0 - 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + East Leeds MX1-25 2039 + + 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 - - - - + 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 u - - 0 + East Leeds EO1-14 3203250 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + East Leeds EO1-15 3203252 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + East Leeds EG1-34 3203171 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 + - 0 0 0 + 0 - - 0 + Inner Area MX1-6 208 ++ 0 0 0 0 - + 00+0++-+++- + 0 0 0 00 - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-11 447 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++-++0 +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-12 433 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++0++- +++0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area MX1-28 198 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0++- + - ++0 + - - 0 0 + u 0 0 0 Inner Area EO1-9 2005760 - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0++ - ++++0 + 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 + Inner Area EO1-11 2103380 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 ++ - - + ++ 0 + - 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EO1-37 2401781 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ 0 ++++++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-22 2104060 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-23 2105070 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0++ 0 ++ - ++++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-25 2104130 + - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 ++++++++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-26 2001252 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0- -0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-27 2001250 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0++ - +++ - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-282001251+ + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-31 2202540 + ++ 0 0 0 0 - 0 00++0++++++++- + 0 0 0 0+0 0 0 + Inner Area EG1-70 2105260 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 ++++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 + North Leeds MX1-2 376 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0++0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 North Leeds EO1-5 2701300 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - ++- - + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 North Leeds EG1-13 2404193 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ - + ++ - + 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + North Leeds EG1-14 2404190 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 ++ 0 ++ - + ++ - 0 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0 + Outer North East EO1-3 3103954 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 Outer North East EO1-40 3103953 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 Outer North East EG1-10 3203550 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer North East EG1-63 3100832 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - - - + 0 - - - - + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 Outer North East EG1-64 3103750 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - - - + + - - - + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0
82 of 199 Sustainability Appraisals of identified employment sites. Version @ 18 October 2018 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Outer North West MX1-26 745 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - - 0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - - 0 u - - - 0 Outer South East EO1-17 3306221 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - - + + - 0 + 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Outer South East EG1-35 3306220 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - - 0 + + 0 0 + - 0 - - - - 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-36 3306223 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 - + + - 0 + - 0 - 0 0 - - - 0 0 Outer South East EG1-38 3305014 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 - ++ + - 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-39 3305013 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-40 3303691 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-41 3303689 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer South East EG1-42 3303683 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South East EG1-44 3305670 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 Outer South East EG1-45 3305990 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-23 2304560 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-24 2302835 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EO1-39 2302836 + + 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 - - 0 ++ + ++ ++ 0 + - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-47 2403262 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-51 2304191 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - 0 + - - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-52 2301611 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - - + 0 - 0 + - 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-55 2300894 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + Outer South West EG1-57 2300268 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + Outer South West EG1-58 2301350 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - + 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Outer South West EG1-60 2302750 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + Outer South West EG1-67 2104440 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West MX1-4 CFSM051 0 0 0 0 0 u - + 0 0 - - ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 - - - - 0 u 0 0 + Outer West EG1-15 2501660 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0+++ 0++0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Outer West EG1-16 2401631 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 + Outer West EG1-17 2405670 + + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 ++ 0 ++++ + ++ - + 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 + Outer West EG1-19 2401181 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 ++ + + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 +
83 of 199 Appendix 2
Site Allocations Plan
Leeds Local Plan
Update of EX2C – Update of Planning Status of Identified Sites
October 2018 84 of 199 Revised Capacities arise from most recent updates to permissions Sites proposed to be deleted as HG1 sites on the basis of up to date information are hatched in grey Sites which are UDP sites are in italics and assessed in EX45
Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Site previously obtained planning approval by Site previously obtained planning Ennell Welding Ltd on 05/01/2010. Site is approval under 08/02206/FU suitable but remains undeveloped and the Permission expired on 05/01/2013. Council has written to the landowner to Prospects for site development confirm availability and timeframe for delivery enhanced by recent development as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No interest in this former industrial Aireborough HG1-5 7 7 response as yet. No evidence to suggest that brownfield area. Site at Nethermoor site is not available. On the strength of an Works, Otley Road nearby – planning improving housing market there are no interest with application for demolition identified impediments to the achievability of of existing buildings and erection of 4 the site subject to a suitable scheme being dwellings (18/04854/FU) submitted on brought forward. 27th July 2018. Site previously obtained planning approval by K M Norris Ltd on 24/01/2011. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm Site previously obtained planning availability and timeframe for delivery as part approval under 10/05349/FU of the SHLAA in November 2016. No Permission expired on 24/01/2014. response has been received but on the
strength of an improving housing market Planning permission (15/05887/OT) 5 6 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. Yes Aireborough HG1-11 has since been given for 4 houses to ransom strips or multiple landowners) or the rear of the public house, and a achievability impediments to the site being separate permission for two flats delivered subject to a suitable scheme being above the public house brought forward. The site is part of the (17/06875/FU). Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
85 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds Partnership NHS Foundation Trust on 22/04/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No response has been received but on the strength of an improving Pre application enquiry for residential City Centre HG1-423 7 7 housing market there are no identified land conversion in 2018 highlights retained Yes ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple interest in housing development. landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Planning approval under 09/01713/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing Development completed and Yes City Centre HG1-425 6 6 market there are no identified impediments to occupied. the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Building occupied as university offices. No modernisation or refurbishment of building for existing use. Prospects for conversion to residential enhanced by City Centre HG1-426 11 11 Expired since EX2c pre-application enquiries for residential conversions of nearby similar properties on sites HG1-428 and HG1- 423. Plot of land between two terraces. Prospects for development enhanced by pre-application enquiries for City Centre HG1-427 6 6 Expired since EX2c residential conversions of nearby properties on sites HG1-428 and HG1- 423.
86 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Planning approval under 13/05005/FU unimplemented but site remains available. Pre-application enquiry for residential On the strength of an improving housing 6 6 conversion in 2018 highlights retained Yes City Centre HG1-428 market there are no identified impediments to interest in housing development. the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by The Riverside Group on 03/03/2010. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. On the strength of an improving housing market Building remains undeveloped and there are no identified impediments to the available. Prospects for development site being delivered subject to a suitable have been enhanced by a planning City Centre HG1-440 73 73 scheme being brought forward. The site is application ref 18/01276/FU submitted part of the Council's Private Sector Housing for the neighbouring corner plot (MX2- Acceleration Scheme and officers are in 18 Regent St / Skinner La) for dialogue with landowners and developers to development of 221 apartments. bring forward development in the short term. The delivery of a scheme on this site has been subject to recent pre-application advice with a view to an application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by Private on 23/04/2009. Site is suitable remains undeveloped. Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No response has been Development completed and City Centre HG1-442 7 7 Yes received but on the strength of an improving occupied. housing market there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
87 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Vacant offices above a shop. No current planning activity. Prospects for development enhanced by completion City Centre HG1-453 18 18 Expired since EX2c of conversions above shops at HG1- 451, HG1-446 and HG1-480, and conversion above a bar at HG1-449.
Development completed and City Centre HG1-454 8 8 Expired since EX2c Yes occupied.
Building remains undeveloped and available. Prospects for development Site previously obtained planning approval have been enhanced by a planning by Opaltex Pension Fund Site remains application ref 18/02577/FU being undeveloped and available. On the strength submitted for the neighbouring infill City Centre HG1-458 18 18 of an improving housing market there are no plot (MX2-22 St Peters Square). This Yes identified impediments to the site being is for an Eight storey building delivered subject to a suitable scheme being comprising 56 flats with flexible brought forward. commercial units (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 or D1) at ground floor and part first floor.
Site has been cleared and is available for development. No known legal or ownership constraints. Landowner confirmed availability through contact with the Council’s Housing Growth Team as part of Private Sector
Housing Acceleration Scheme. Scheme City Centre HG1-463 57 101 Permission 17/02666/FU granted Yes assessed as achievable and able to 13/7/18 for 101 apartments commence in the short term. Application pending determination for Ten storey block of 101 apartments with ground floor resident’s lounge, cinema room, gym and cycle storage room submitted on 24/05/2017 under 17/02666/FU.
88 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Site previously obtained planning approval by Private on 28/02/2007. Site is suitable but Prospects for development have been remains undeveloped and the Council has enhanced by the current construction written to the landowner to confirm of student flats (permission ref availability and timeframe for delivery as part 16/02175/FU) at the northern end of of the SHLAA in November 2016. Landowner Cookridge Street, the developer of City Centre MX1-5 50 50 confirmed availability through contact with the which has acquired the adjacent Council’s Housing Growth Team as part of stalled semi-completed hotel building Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme. which faces site MX1-5 to complete it On the strength of an improving housing as student flats (planning application market there are no identified impediments to ref 18/01711/FU). the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Rushbond Retail Ltd on 20/07/2010. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to Building recently refurbished as confirm availability and timeframe for delivery offices. Availability for residential as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No development is therefore unlikely in City Centre MX1-9 5 0 response has been received but on the the plan period and there are no pre- strength of an improving housing market application inquiries for residential. there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or Proposed modification: delete site. achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
Site remains undeveloped and available and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016 during plan City Centre MX1-13 263 750 period. On the strength of an improving UDP site addressed in submission EX45 housing market there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The delivery of a scheme on this site has been subject to recent pre-application
89 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined advice with a view to an application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. This site forms part of a wider landholding comprising seven parcels of land, known as ‘CEG: South Bank’, which is being promoted for the development of office, commercial and housing, alongside improved connectivity and public realm by CEG. The site will be developed as part of a comprehensive site masterplan which has been subject to detailed pre-application discussions with officers since January 2016. Details of the emerging masterplan have been presented to members of City Plans Panel at pre-application presentations in August 2016 and January 2017. A Scoping Opinion has been provided in respect of the CEG: South Bank masterplan, detailing the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment that will accompany the forthcoming planning application. The planning application is due to be submitted shortly for the delivery of housing, commercial and office uses. Site previously obtained planning approval by Ctp/St James on 09/10/2008. Site remains undeveloped and available. Landowner confirmed availability through representation(s) made to Site Allocations Plan consultation. On the strength of an City Centre MX1-15 250 250 improving housing market there are no Development commenced. Yes identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Application pending determination for Mixed use development across three buildings, comprising residential apartments (use class C3), flexible office
90 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined (use class B1) or food and drink (use class A3), D1 (Clinics and health centres), undercroft parking and associated landscaping. submitted on 19/02/2016 under 16/01115/FU Site previously obtained planning approval by Mr K Durkin on 06/05/2010. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No City Centre MX1-16 15 15 response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market UDP site addressed in submission EX45 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Igloo Regeneration (Gp) Ltd on 30/06/2005. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. On the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable City Centre MX1-17 90 90 scheme being brought forward. The delivery UDP site addressed in submission EX45 of a scheme on this site has been subject to recent pre-application advice. This site forms part of a wider landholding comprising seven parcels of land, known as ‘CEG: South Bank’, which is being promoted for the development of office, commercial and housing, alongside improved connectivity and public realm by CEG. The site will be developed as part of a comprehensive site masterplan which has
91 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined been subject to detailed pre-application discussions with officers since January 2016. Details of the emerging masterplan have been presented to members of City Plans Panel at pre- application presentations in August 2016 and January 2017. A Scoping Opinion has been provided in respect of the CEG: South Bank masterplan, detailing the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment that will accompany the forthcoming planning application. The planning application is due to be submitted shortly for the delivery of housing, commercial and office uses. Site previously obtained planning approval by Montpellier Estates Ltd on 19/09/2006. Site remains undeveloped and available within the plan period and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm timeframe for New landowner Caddick. Reserved delivery as part of the SHLAA in November matters approval granted on 29/6/18 2016. No response has been received but on for enabling works for redevelopment the strength of an improving housing market of land at Meadow Road for uses there are no identified land ownership (i.e. within the following classes B1, D2, City Centre MX1-20 296 296 Yes ransom strips or multiple landowners) or C1, C3 (up to 296 residential units) achievability impediments to the site being and ancillary A1, A3, A4 and A5 uses, delivered subject to a suitable scheme being including associated works for brought forward on the medium or long term. formation of site access roads Application approved for Use of site as a 17/08408/RM temporary car park together with associated works and landscaping (742 spaces) submitted on 16/12/2016 under 16/07820/FU. Development completed and City Centre MX1-21 9 9 Expired since EX2c Yes occupied.
92 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Site is owned by Leeds City Council who are interested in development. Scheme assessed East Leeds HG1-284 300 300 UDP site addressed in submission EX45 as achievable and able to commence in the short term Site has been a prospect for over 15 years in the Development Plan. A variety of landownerships. Representation received during SAP consultation confirming willing landowner (Johnson Brook Ltd on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd). Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term. A Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is in preparation to East Leeds HG1-288 4446 4446 establish development and delivery principles UDP site addressed in submission EX45 in order to aid and positively prepare for the delivery of the site. Application pending determination for means of access and erect residential development (circa 2000 dwellings), retail, health centre, community centre and primary school development, with associated drainage and landscaping submitted on 08/06/2012 under 12/02571/OT. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 24/06/2011. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No No longer expired. Granted consent response has been received but on the East Leeds HG1-303 62 45 for 45 units in June 2017 Yes strength of an improving housing market (16/07359/FU). there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Application approved for 45 dwellings, creation of new public space and
93 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined associated highway improvements submitted on 30/11/2016 under 16/07359/FU. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 13/08/2010. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery No further planning activity. Cleared as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No former school site remains suitable, 34 34 response has been received but on the Inner Area HG1-207 available and achievable for residential strength of an improving housing market development within the plan period there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Roseville Properties Limited - Mr Stephen Foster on 04/09/2007. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has The site is built out as a three storey written to the landowner to confirm residential care home under availability and timeframe for delivery as part permission 13/01683/FU. of the SHLAA in November 2016. No Inner Area HG1-208 77 38 Yes response has been received but on the The capacity of 38 reflects the strength of an improving housing market Council’s standard ratio of care-home there are no identified land ownership (i.e. bedspaces to dwellings. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
Planning approval under 08/04840/FU A pre-Application was submitted by unimplemented but site remains available. LCC’s regeneration team on the 12th On the strength of an improving housing July 2018: PREAPP/18/00402: Inner Area HG1-219 22 22 Yes market there are no identified impediments to Residential development of 20 new the site being delivered subject to a suitable council apartments. scheme being brought forward. Text contained in the application letter:
94 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined ‘The council is considering purchasing the site above from owners to supplement its ambition to provide a further 600 new council houses.’
An offer for the land has been submitted. Site previously obtained planning approval by Private on 01/04/2010. Site is suitable but This is flat development above a shop remains undeveloped and the Council has in a Town / Local Centre. written to the landowner to confirm There has been no further planning availability and timeframe for delivery as part activity regarding residential of the SHLAA in November 2016. No development following the permission 8 8 response has been received but on the Inner Area HG1-222 10/00397/FU - Change of use of strength of an improving housing market second floor bed and breakfast to 8 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. flats. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being Upper floors of shop remain available delivered subject to a suitable scheme being for residential conversion. brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 14/12/2010. Application approved for Residential Cleared Council owned site within an development of 272 dwellings, public open area of housing. Part of the Housing 45 45 Inner Area HG1-225 space, road link between South Parkway and Investment Land Strategy (HILS) Brooklands Drive and associated access programme with development likely works submitted on 30/11/2016 under within the plan period. 16/07381/FU. Planning approval under 10/04519/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing Inner Area HG1-237 6 6 Yes market there are no identified impediments to Conversion to 6 flats completed the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
95 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Prospects for development of the site for residential are improved by recent planning activity for residential development nearby:
Planning approval under 09/03718/FU 104 Burley Road (13/00476/EXT), for unimplemented but site remains available. conversion to flats with extensions On the strength of an improving housing permitted 22/3/13. Inner Area HG1-241 9 9 market there are no identified impediments to 124 Burley Road (15/01912/FU) the site being delivered subject to a suitable conversion to 4 dwellings permitted scheme being brought forward. 3/6/15. 18 Woodsley Road (17/05795/FU) Change of use of ground floor bank to cafe (A3), change of use upper floors to 4 flats permitted 16/2/18.
Dog and Gun Pub Site (York Road)
Planning application 18/00777/FU approved 05/10/2018.
Partial demolition of former Inner Area HG1-249 7 27 Expired since EX2c supermarket and change of use to Yes form 15 flats including two storey and three storey extensions, construction of 12 houses, laying out of access road and associated works.
Demolition works underway on-site. Planning approval under 08/03159/OT Recent development interest. unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing 17/00615/FU - Change of use of market there are no identified impediments to former clinic to form 15 flats. Approved Inner Area HG1-250 17 15 Yes the site being delivered subject to a suitable – 14/03/2017. scheme being brought forward. Application Part of derelict and nuisance property pending determination for Change of use of programme former clinic to form 15 flats.
96 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 10/08/2010. Site is Interest shown in site. suitable but remains undeveloped and the
Council has written to the landowner to Local Authority Application. confirm availability and timeframe for delivery
as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No Extension to original application of response has been received but on the 2013 requested. strength of an improving housing market
41 41 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. Yes Inner Area HG1-251 10/02221/LA - Outline Application for ransom strips or multiple landowners) or residential development to vacant site achievability impediments to the site being - 13/03679/EXT delivered subject to a suitable scheme being
brought forward. The delivery of a scheme on PREAPP/13/00275 - Proposed social this site has been subject to recent pre- housing sites - Regeneration application advice with a view to an Programmes. application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by Mr Reiller on 17/06/2011. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the Further interest in pre-application SHLAA in November 2016. No response has (PREAPP/12/01250) by Leeds Inner Area HG1-252 9 9 been received but on the strength of an Yes Federated Housing Association for 14 improving housing market there are no affordable dwellings identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Allocated in the UDP Review (2006) as a Phase 1 site but with access issues to resolve. Network Rail proposal is to dispose
Inner Area HG1-256 140 140 of site to HCA for housing. Barbar Ahmed UDP site addressed in submission EX45 MRICS, Senior Development Surveyor has confirmed this. The landowner has confirmed that the site remains available for residential
97 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined development. Network Rail are in discussions with Asset Management and Regeneration Land & Property Team to resolve access issue by using Council owned land which would provide access into the site via Halton Moor Avenue. Disposal of the site is expected to commence once the necessary regulatory approvals required for the disposal have been secured. The site has an existing allocation for housing in the Local Plan which is expected to provide the planning certainty required by the HCA to trigger disposal. As a result, the disposal of the site to the HCA is forecast to take place in late 2017. Planning permission recently granted Site previously obtained planning approval for residential development of 102 by Leeds City Council on 23/12/2010. dwellings (ref 16/07348/FU) Application approved for Residential Part of Housing Investment Land Inner Area HG1-257 55 55 development of 102 dwellings; new public Strategy (HILS) programme to deliver Yes open space and associated highway of 970 units to be delivered in improvements submitted on 30/11/2016 Seacroft. under 16/07348/FU. Permission above includes site HG2- 105 No further planning interest in residential development beyond the extension of permission. Planning approval under 11/02684/EXT Permission (14/00757/FU) granted unimplemented but site remains available. On 27/3/14 to use the site as car wash 9 0 the strength of an improving housing market Inner Area HG1-259 with storage cabin and office which there are no identified impediments to the was implemented and is the current site being delivered subject to a suitable use. scheme being brought forward. Proposed modification: delete site.
98 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Planning approval under 11/04016/FU Prospects for development of the site unimplemented but site remains available. for residential are improved by recent On the strength of an improving housing planning activity for residential Inner Area HG1-264 8 8 market there are no identified impediments to development nearby: the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Change of use of shop to dwelling at 2 Cleveleys Road (17/07540/DPD) permitted 5/1/18. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 15/12/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to The houses on this site had been long confirm availability and timeframe for delivery term vacant but were subject to a as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No package of comprehensive Inner Area HG1-271 60 60 response has been received but on the Yes refurbishment under permission strength of an improving housing market 13/02227/FU which has been there are no identified land ownership (i.e. completed recently. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 17/12/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to The houses on this site had been long confirm availability and timeframe for delivery term vacant but were subject to a as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No package of comprehensive Inner Area HG1-274 55 55 response has been received but on the Yes refurbishment under permission strength of an improving housing market 13/02228/FU which has been there are no identified land ownership (i.e. completed recently. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
99 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Prospects for development of the site for residential are improved by recent planning activity for residential development nearby:
Planning approval under 12/00328/FU 270 Dewsbury Road (17/07260/FU) unimplemented but site remains available. approved – 13/02/15 On the strength of an improving housing 5 5 Ground floor travel agent and a three Inner Area HG1-277 market there are no identified impediments to bedroom house at part ground, first the site being delivered subject to a suitable and second floor level (C3). scheme being brought forward.
259 Dewsbury Road (14/05465/FU) approved – 13/02/15 Change of use of former public house to form retail unit and seven flats Expect landowner would promote development if the site were released UDP Site addressed in submission EX45 Inner Area HG1-280 35 35 through new planning policy. Scheme
assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term. Site owned by Leeds City Council and available for residential development. Scheme UDP Site addressed in submission EX45. Inner Area HG1-281 100 100 assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term Council owned site. Site previously obtained Recent permission (16/07359/FU) for planning approval by Leeds City Council on residential development of 45 24/06/2011. Application approved for 45 dwellings approved 9/6/17 Inner Area HG1-303 62 45 Yes dwellings, creation of new public space and Part HILS (Housing Investment Land associated highway improvements submitted Strategy) programme to deliver of 970 on 30/11/2016 under 16/07359/FU. units to be delivered in Seacroft. Site previously obtained planning approval by Bridge Estates on 05/03/2010. Site is suitable Current PREAPP application for 428 428 Yes Inner Area MX1-6 but remains undeveloped and the Council residential uses on site. has written to the landowner to confirm
100 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. In August 2018 KMRE Group announced plans to deliver 92 homes as part of an £14.5m scheme at Mabgate Gateway on the land immediately south of the site. Reserved Matters applications now submitted for Phase 1 and 2 for multi-level mixed use development. Application pending determination for Reserved Matters application for approval of appearance for Phase 2 of multi-level mixed use development pursuant to outline planning permission 12/04953/EXT submitted on 06/06/2017 under 17/01993/RM. Site previously obtained planning approval by Lend Lease on 14/11/2006. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm Subsequent application activity availability and timeframe for delivery as part 16/07714/FU – full permission granted of the SHLAA in November 2016. Landowner for 307 apartments and commercial Inner Area MX1-11 Yes 463 607 confirmed availability through uses, and outline permission granted for representation(s) made to Site Allocations two further blocks of residential Plan consultation. Scheme assessed as accommodation on 21/9/17 (up to a total achievable and able to commence in the of 607 dwellings). short term. Permission now 'live' following approval of 16/04118/OT with agreement of phased development plan. Site previously obtained planning approval by Considerable planning interest in site Globe Road Ltd on 22/09/2005. Site remains over many years. undeveloped and available. Landowner confirmed availability through 12/03459/FU – Permission 15/11/13 Inner Area MX1-12 609 609 representation(s) made to Site Allocations for development of 609 residential Yes Plan consultation On the strength of an apartments, commercial units (Class improving housing market there are no A1 to A5, B1, D1 and D2) identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being 18/02481/FU – Application for 2
101 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined brought forward. The delivery of a scheme on residential blocks at 17 and 21 stories, this site has been subject to recent pre- comprising of 463 flats with linked application advice with a view to an podium, car parking, landscaping and application being submitted to the Council for associated facilities. Application has the delivery of housing in the short term. not been determined. Site previously obtained planning approval by Leeds City Council on 10/08/2010. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery Former Ralph Thoresby High School as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No site. The site has been put forward in a North Leeds HG1-59 52 52 response has been received but on the bid to MHCLG for extra care housing. Yes strength of an improving housing market The results of the bid submission are there are no identified land ownership (i.e. expected this autumn. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Leeds City Council have agreed to dispose of North Leeds HG1-60 40 40 the site. Scheme assessed as achievable and UDP Site. See Document EX45 for assessment. able to commence in the short term. Site first included as part of SHLAA assessment in 2009 Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term The site is part of the Council's North Leeds HG1-65 75 75 UDP Site. See Document EX45 for assessment. Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Motor repair garage has ceased Planning approval under 08/06110/FU operation. Permission granted unimplemented but site remains available. 30/1/2015 for change of use / On the strength of an improving housing North Leeds HG1-67 7 7 extensions to create 1 detached market there are no identified impediments to dwelling (ref 14/06319/FU) but no the site being delivered subject to a suitable implementation activity since. Strong scheme being brought forward. market area. Site better suited to
102 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined convert existing buildings back to dwellings and some new build.
As an allocation in the UDP, development interest on the part of the landowner is 20 20 UDP Site. See Document EX45 for assessment. North Leeds HG1-68 assumed. Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by John Ogden Properties Ltd on 28/07/2009. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No Planning application (ref 18/04952/FU) North Leeds HG1-69 59 59 response has been received but on the submitted for 149 dwellings on Yes strength of an improving housing market 13/8/18. there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Conditions relating to permission 08/06633/FU approved 28/6/2011. Planning approval under 08/06633/FU A similar property 20m to the north on unimplemented but site remains available. the corner of Harrogate Road and On the strength of an improving housing North Leeds HG1-77 10 10 Sandhill Lane obtained planning market there are no identified impediments to permission (ref 15/04651/FU) for 10 the site being delivered subject to a suitable flats in December 2015 with conditions scheme being brought forward. approved on April 2016 and completed recently. Planning approval under 10/02001/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing market Development completed and North Leeds HG1-80 6 6 Yes there are no identified impediments to the site occupied. being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
103 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Planning approval under 10/04752/LA unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified impediments to Permission for 4 dwellings the site being delivered subject to a suitable 7 4 (13/00683/FU) was granted in May Yes North Leeds HG1-84 scheme being brought forward. The delivery 2013. Development completed. of a scheme on this site has been subject to recent pre-application advice with a view to an application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by The Erkulis Group/Devere Group Plc on 14/03/2011. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Permission for 6 apartments and 7 Acceleration Scheme and officers are in houses (16/04153/FU) approved North Leeds HG1-88 13 13 Yes dialogue with landowners and developers to 19/4/17. Application to discharge bring forward development in the short term. conditions submitted on 1/5/18. Application approved for Part demolition and conversion of Spenfield to create 6 apartments and studio flat together with construction of 7 terraced dwellings on car park to the rear with associated boundary treatments, landscaping and car parking submitted on 26/07/2016 under 16/04153/FU. Retrospective permission (ref Planning approval under 10/05406/OT 16/07649/FU) for the change of use of unimplemented but site remains available. existing buildings to light On the strength of an improving housing industrial/storage granted 17/03/17. North Leeds HG1-99 5 0 market there are no identified impediments to Site not now available for housing. the site being delivered subject to a suitable Proposed modification: delete site. scheme being brought forward.
104 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Planning approval under 07/07045/FU unimplemented but site remains available.
On the strength of an improving housing No further planning activity, but the market there are no identified impediments to site is located in a very desirable the site being delivered subject to a suitable market area, and the site opposite, to scheme being brought forward. Application North Leeds HG1-101 8 8 the north (HG2-45 – St Joseph’s pending determination for Part retrospective Outwood Lane), has recently started application for the installation of Biomass construction, showing that hoppers to rear of garage with associated development interest is strong in the flues; Solar Panels to roof of garage and area. extension of garage to enclose fuel storage hoppers submitted on 12/08/2016 under 16/05076/FU. Permission (ref 14/00905/FU) granted 25/3/15 for 32 extra care apartments expired on 25/3/18. Correspondence received from landowners during the North Leeds HG1-102 32 32 Expired since EX2c SHLAA 2018 consultation confirms Yes that they are in the pre-application stage for an extra-care scheme on site. Discussions are ongoing with the Council. Site previously obtained planning approval by Mr R Spencer on 08/08/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm Correspondence with the agent availability and timeframe for delivery as part indicates that the landowner is waiting of the SHLAA in November 2016. No for the SAP to be adopted before response has been received but on the North Leeds HG1-106 9 9 proceeding to an application. Further strength of an improving housing market applications have been submitted for there are no identified land ownership (i.e. the extension of the property, but have ransom strips or multiple landowners) or not been approved. achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing
105 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
Planning approval under 10/01045/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing North Leeds HG1-110 5 5 No further applications submitted. market there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Permission for previous mixed use scheme expired on 07/07/2017. New North Leeds HG1-111 74 72 Expired since EX2c outline permission (ref 15/07108/OT) Yes for 72 apartments and houses permitted 29/8/18. Site previously obtained planning approval by The Big Word on 13/02/2013. On the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified impediments to the No further applications submitted. The site being delivered subject to a suitable landowner has confirmed the site is no scheme being brought forward. The site is longer available for housing North Leeds HG1-119 6 0 part of the development. Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in Proposed modification: delete site. dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward a planning application in the short term. Planning approval under 07/03002/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing North Leeds HG1-124 17 17 No further applications submitted. market there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
106 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Planning approval under 06/00922/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing Development completed for 22 North Leeds HG1-128 22 22 Yes market there are no identified impediments to apartments. the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site is now recorded as completed following recent return of building control reports from 15/00565/FU consent for 14 units North Leeds HG1-506 16 14 Aedis Group - Newcastle for Internal Yes completed. alterations to Villa to form 5 apartments and 11 new build dwellings. The developer Kebbell Homes have Site previously obtained planning approval by confirmed that they are no longer Kebbell Homes - J Arblaster on 24/08/2009. interested in bringing the site forward Landowner confirmed site no longer available. because the owners of some of the Outer North HG1-36 9 0 On the strength of an improving housing East existing houses are unwilling to sell-up market there are no identified impediments to and move. Site is now not available. the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Proposed modification: delete site.
The historic planning permission has not been implemented as the site is required for access to the HG2-22 proposed housing allocation (same land ownership). The allocation of HG2-22 is expected to stimulate the Outer North HG1-39 13 13 Expired since EX2c development of the site which is likely Yes East to be developed in conjunction with HG2-22, as outlined within the landowner SAP rep (PNW00009 – para 4.7). Recent pre-application enquiries on the site indicate that HG1-39 will be brought forward
107 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined simultaneously with HG2-22 in the short term.
Currently being marketed and planning brief exists. A number of schemes under consideration. Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the Outer North HG1-51 30 30 short term. The delivery of a scheme on this UDP site addressed in submission EX45 East site has been subject to recent pre- application advice with a view to an application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by The University Of Leeds on 24/02/2009. Site No further update, but strong market remains undeveloped and available. On the area and revised NPPF policy would, Outer North HG1-53 9 9 strength of an improving housing market in principle, support a similar proposal East there are no identified impediments to the for conversion of buildings in the site being delivered subject to a suitable Green Belt. scheme being brought forward.
Site has been a prospect for over 15 years in the Leeds Development Plan. A variety of landownerships. Representation received during SAP consultation confirming willing landowner (Johnson Brook Ltd on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd). Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the Outer North UDP site addressed in submission HG1-288 4446 4446 short term. A Supplementary Planning East EX45 Document (SPD) is in preparation to establish development and delivery principles in order to aid and positively prepare for the delivery of the site. Application pending determination for Outline Application for means of access and erect residential development (circa 2000 dwellings), retail,
108 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined health centre, community centre and primary school development, with associated drainage and landscaping submitted on 08/06/2012 under 12/02571/OT.
Confirmation received from landowner that site is available and a scheme with Yorkshire Housing Association is being prepared with a formal planning application due to be submitted. The landowner has confirmed that the site remains available for residential development. Planning application UDP site addressed in submission 16/06770/FU (Land off Meagill Rise, Otley) EX45 Outer North HG1-15 135 75 was taken to Plans Panel on the 6th July 16/06770/FU approved on 25/10/17 for Yes West 2017 and resolved to delegate approval erection of 75 dwellings (C3), public subject to a S106 Agreement. Scheme open space, landscaping and access assessed as achievable and able to details. commence in the short term. Application pending determination for Erection of 75 dwellings (C3), public open space, landscaping and access details submitted on 01/11/2016 under 16/06770/FU.
Planning approval under 11/04439/EXT unimplemented but site remains available. On Planning permission 11/04439/EXT Outer North the strength of an improving housing market HG1-20 8 8 expired. Development interest has West there are no identified impediments to the recently been expressed. site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Site previously obtained planning Mr And Mrs Brown on 14/01/2010. Site is approval under 12/05354/RM and Outer North 8 8 suitable but remains undeveloped and the expired on 12/02/2016. West HG1-25 Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery No further planning activity. Attractive
109 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No green field site in Bramhope. response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Landowner interest and housebuilders have negotiated options. Based on UDP Review programmed to come forward in medium term. Subject to detailed work. Representation received during SAP consultation confirming willing landowner (Johnson Brook Ltd on behalf of BBS). Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term. The Council is currently working with Persimmon Homes to progress a deliverable scheme for the site UDP site addressed in submission EX45. Outer North MX1-26 550 550 which addresses the requirements identified West in the UDP Policy (namely housing, employment, greenspace and the provision of a relief road) together with school provision identified in the SAP. A report is due to be presented to the Council’s Executive Board on the 20th September in relation to facilitating the delivery of the proposed relief road during Phase 1 of the site delivery. Other technical considerations are ongoing including land assembly, geotechnical surveys and site investigation work.
110 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Subsequent application 12/02997/FU Planning approval under 10/04598/FU for change of use from window sales unimplemented but site remains available. centre to garage has been On the strength of an improving housing implemented. Therefore, the site is Outer South HG1-404 6 0 market there are no identified impediments to unavailable for housing. the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Proposed modification: delete site.
The site may well be in the same ownership as the PAS site situated to the rear and as such developers could be waiting to develop the sites in tandem. Representation received during SAP consultation confirming willing landowner (Turley on behalf of Miller Homes). Outer South HG1-410 15 15 UDP site addressed in submission EX45 Landowner confirmed availability through contact with the Council’s Housing Growth Team as part of Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme. Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term Site previously obtained planning approval by Mr Andrew Pritchard on 17/01/2014. Site remains undeveloped and available. On the Substantive start made on site Outer South HG1-412 6 6 strength of an improving housing market (application 13/01473/FU). Permission Yes there are no identified impediments to the extant. site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Sir George Martin Trust on 17/07/2009. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Application 08/05441/FU approved Council has written to the landowner to 17/07/09 for 8 units superseded by confirm availability and timeframe for delivery 8 4 application 10/05516/FU approved Yes Outer South HG1-418 as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. On 17/7/12 for 4 units. This has been the strength of an improving housing market implemented. there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
111 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined No known legal or ownership constraints. Representation received during SAP consultation confirming willing landowner (ID Planning on behalf of Great North Outer South Developments). Scheme assessed as UDP site addressed in submission EX45 East HG1-305 150 150 achievable and able to commence in the short term. Application pending determination for Outline application for residential development (access only) submitted on 14/09/2015 under 15/05484/OT. Planning application submitted in May 2016 by Mandale Homes North Ltd for residential Outer South development. Scheme assessed as HG1-306 All 12 units now completed. Yes East 14 12 achievable and able to commence in the short term. Site now has planning permission under 16/02898/FU. Planning approval under 09/00853/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified impediments to the Application 15/05136/FU for 11 site being delivered subject to a suitable dwellings approved on 28.06.2017. Outer South HG1-309 9 11 Yes East scheme being brought forward. Application Currently extant (date of expiry approved for Development of 11 apartments 28.06.2020). and two A1/A2 retail units to ground floor submitted on 26/08/2015 under 15/05136/FU. Site previously obtained planning approval by As advised at EiP, this site is to be Mrs M Bennison on 26/01/2012. Landowner removed from the SAP as the Outer South confirmed site no longer available. On the landowner has confirmed the site is no
East HG1-317 8 0 strength of an improving housing market longer available. there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable Proposed modification: delete site. scheme being brought forward.
112 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by Ice Pak Seafood Specialists Retirement on 07/08/2006. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and Application for mixed use (community timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA centre/sports hall) granted on appeal in November 2016. No response has been (approved on 12/06/2017). Recent application for variation of condition Outer South received but on the strength of an improving HG1-327 received which relates to phasing of West 25 0 housing market there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple construction received on the landowners) or achievability impediments to 19/06/2018. Therefore, site no longer the site being delivered subject to a suitable available for residential development. scheme being brought forward. The site is Proposed modification: delete site. part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Outline has expired. Reserved matters application will expire later this year.
Site was discussed during the OSW Outer South HMCA Examination session. Site is HG1-333 West 23 23 Expired since EX2c currently a HG1 site and over washed with Green Belt. The landowners/agents want the site to become a HG2 site and removed from the Green Belt. Landowner confirmed availability through contact with the Council’s Housing Growth Team as part of Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme. Scheme assessed as Outer South achievable and able to commence in the See document EX45 for further details. West HG1-334 15 15 short term The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
113 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by Prospect Estates Limited - Mr Rob Cooke on 03/04/2013. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No response has been received but on the strength of an improving Outer South 9 9 housing market there are no identified land West HG1-335 No further update. ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by Mone Bros Properties on 11/09/2006. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to Considered that housing use likely to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery conflict with the adjacent safeguarded as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No scrapyard, in the adopted Natural response has been received but on the Resources and Waste Local Plan. Given this and onus on prospective Outer South strength of an improving housing market HG1-344 developer as an agent of change to West 40 0 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or deliver a scheme which would not be achievability impediments to the site being affected it is considered that the site is delivered subject to a suitable scheme being not now suitable. brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Proposed modification: delete site. Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
114 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Planning approval under 08/05118/FU Prospects for residential development unimplemented but site remains available. are improved by a significant level of Outer South On the strength of an improving housing residential planning applications in the
West HG1-345 5 5 market there are no identified impediments to last few years on nearby sites (HG1- the site being delivered subject to a suitable 341/HG1-517/HG1-514) in the Albert scheme being brought forward. Road/Train Station area of Morley. Site previously obtained planning approval by Sandmile (Gibraltar) Ltd on 13/06/2012. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market Outer South 18 18 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. No update. West HG1-346 ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
Site previously obtained planning approval by Ahf Projects on 04/06/2004. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm
availability and timeframe for delivery as part New applications (16/04256/FU & Outer South of the SHLAA in November 2016. Landowner HG1-350 37 37 16/04249/FU) for 10 and 27 dwellings. Yes West confirmed availability through contact with Due to be determined end of October the Council’s Housing Growth Team as part 2018. of Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme. On the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought
115 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.Applications pending determination for construction of 10 dwellings and conversion of mill into 27 apartments under 16/04256/FU & 16/04249/FU. Site previously obtained planning approval by Pan English Developments on 25/06/2009. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to Site assessment in July 2018 reveals confirm availability and timeframe for delivery site now built-out and complete. as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No Completions to be recorded by Outer South 22 22 response has been received but on the Valuation Office Agency confirmation Yes West HG1-360 strength of an improving housing market as no notification through private there are no identified land ownership (i.e. building control certification. Delivery ransom strips or multiple landowners) or will be part of Core Strategy period achievability impediments to the site being performance. delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward.
Planning approval under 11/03379/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing
Outer South market there are no identified impediments to 6 6 New application (17/05238/FU) for 6 Yes West HG1-364 the site being delivered subject to a suitable dwellings approved 20/10/2017. scheme being brought forward. Application pending determination for 10 flats with associated landscaping submitted on 19/01/2017 under 17/00304/FU. Planning approval under 10/03649/FU unimplemented but site remains available. On the strength of an improving housing Application (14/06883/FU) approved Outer South HG1-365 6 1 Yes West market there are no identified impediments to for 8 bed HMO. Determined the site being delivered subject to a suitable 20/02/2015. scheme being brought forward.
116 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by Marksman Properties Ltd - Mr M Foyle on 02/06/2009. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to New application for 3 care homes the landowner to confirm availability and (14/00003/FU) approved 07.07.2014. timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA Outer South 11 12 in November 2016. No response has been Yes West HG1-366 24 beds, therefore should count as 12 received but on the strength of an improving units according to standard LCC housing market there are no identified land approach. Built out and occupied. ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Yes. Leeds City Council owned. Members Outer South agreed housing in principle subject to playing HG1-368 140 140 See document EX45 for further details. West pitches. Scheme assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term Site previously obtained planning approval by Stone Hampton Ltd on 13/02/2012. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the New permission for 4 dwellings Council has written to the landowner to (16/04616/FU). Approved 20/09/2017. Outer South confirm availability and timeframe for delivery HG1-380 8 4 No capacity for further dwellings on Yes West as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. site. Application pending determination to make
14/05975/FU 'live' following discharge of conditions submitted on 04/11/2015 under 15/06434/COND.
Planning approval under 09/04975/FU Westerton Road/Haigh Moor Road has unimplemented but site remains available. had several residential planning Outer South On the strength of an improving housing HG1-384 5 5 applications submitted within the last West market there are no identified impediments to few years (HG1-385 which is adjacent the site being delivered subject to a suitable to this site, HG1-382 and HG1-386). scheme being brought forward.
117 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
Site previously obtained planning approval by Mr Auty on 17/04/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm Outer South availability and timeframe for delivery as part New application (16/06768/FU) for 2 HG1-392 Yes West 6 2 of the SHLAA in November 2016. Application dwellings approved 31/05/2017. No approved for Change of use and alterations capacity for further dwellings on site. of barn to form dwelling house and erect detached house with detached double garage submitted on 31/10/2016 under 16/06768/FU. Landowner confirmed availability through contact with the Council’s Housing Growth Team as part of Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme. Scheme assessed as Outer South achievable and able to commence in the HG1-394 28 28 See document EX45 for further details. West short term The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Extension of time period permitted 18/04/12 for planning permissions 07/03047/FU and 07/03048/FU to erect residential development and convert mill to 75 two bedroom flats. Outer West HG1-152 133 133 Expired since EX2c These permissions have now expired. Interest in residential development in the local area indicated by recent planning applications for residential development at mill building at 546 Broad Lane and 548 Broad Lane
118 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined
18/00211/FU Proposed industrial development of 4No. buildings for use class B1C, B2 and B8 with ancillary Site previously obtained planning approval by offices and associated external works - K Moorhead on 07/09/2006. Site is suitable approved 13/6/18 (Applicant Harold but remains undeveloped and the Council Newsome Ltd) has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part 17/03299/FU - Erection of of the SHLAA in November 2016. No industrial/warehouse unit (Use Class response has been received but on the B2/B8) with ancillary offices (Use strength of an improving housing market Class B1a) - Approved 3/10/17. Outer West HG1-155 25 0 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. (Applicant Harold Newsome Ltd This is ransom strips or multiple landowners) or land to expand existing use on achievability impediments to the site being adjacent site. delivered subject to a suitable scheme being Industrial permission not started on brought forward. However, application site, but owner has confirmed intention pending determination for Erection of B2 to pursue industrial permission rather warehouse unit with ancillary offices than housing. submitted on 22/05/2017 under 17/03299/FU. Proposed modification: delete site.
Site previously obtained planning approval by Urban Places Ltd on 07/11/2007. Site remains undeveloped and available. On the strength of an improving housing market The landowner confirmed in 2017 that there are no identified impediments to the the site has been sold for industrial Outer West HG1-157 22 0 site being delivered subject to a suitable use. scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Proposed modification: delete site. Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term.
119 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by M Beaumont on 18/01/2013. Site is suitable Enquiries of the Council’s Housing but remains undeveloped and the Council Growth Team suggest the landowner has written to the landowner to confirm is unwilling to risk development activity availability and timeframe for delivery as part at the current time but does not rule it of the SHLAA in November 2016. No out. response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market Verbal conversation very recently with Outer West HG1-158 28 28 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. the owner following recent letter. Site ransom strips or multiple landowners) or remains available to build out for achievability impediments to the site being residential. They will be looking to delivered subject to a suitable scheme being pursue approval through the brought forward. The site is part of the permission in principle process. Council's Private Sector Housing
Acceleration Scheme and officers are in
dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Planning approval under 11/02515/EXT unimplemented but site remains available. On No update. the strength of an improving housing market Outer West HG1-160 5 5 there are no identified impediments to the
site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Leeds City Council brokering the sale of the site on behalf of the Trustees of Charity Outer West HG1-161 50 50 Farm, for housing. Scheme assessed as UDP site - see EX45 achievable and able to commence in the short term Site previously obtained planning approval by Jack Lunn (Properties) Ltd on 05/09/2007. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and Site still in use as industry, offices and the Council has written to the landowner to car sales. Contact with landowner 78 78 Outer West HG1-162 confirm availability and timeframe for delivery suggests that housing is a prospect as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No before 2028 but not in the short term. response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market
120 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Permission for non-residential development (14/00774/FU) of Planning approval under 10/03907/EXT A1/A2/A3 uses approved 30/6/15 and unimplemented but site remains available. On now implemented and occupied. Site the strength of an improving housing market 8 0 no longer available for residential Outer West HG1-163 there are no identified impediments to the development. site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Proposed modification: delete site.
No planning consent has been sought or granted and therefore it is not immediately apparent as to the sites availability. However, the lack of physical constraints is such that if the site was to become available it could be developed in the short term. The landowner has confirmed that the site remains available for housing or mixed use allocation. Scheme assessed as achievable and able to 17/07071/OT – for 38 units - Outer West HG1-168 38 38 commence in the short term. The site is part application under consideration - Yes of the Council's Private Sector Housing eastern part of the site allocation Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. The delivery of a scheme on this site has been subject to recent pre-application advice with a view to an application being submitted to the Council for the delivery of housing in the short term. Western site cleared and available for Outer West HG1-177 20 20 development. Some buildings to the east of UDP Site. Please refer to Exam Doc EX45 the site remain to be cleared. Scheme
121 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined assessed as achievable and able to commence in the short term.
Planning approval under 10/01508/EXT unimplemented but site remains available. On Prospects for development enhanced the strength of an improving housing market Outer West HG1-182 5 5 by planning application for adjoining there are no identified impediments to the site HG2-183 – see below site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Site previously obtained planning approval by Commercial Estates Projects on 03/12/2009. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No
response has been received but on the Planning application 16/04457/FU – 26 strength of an improving housing market houses and 25 apartments. Approved 62 62 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. Yes Outer West HG1-183 by Council Plans Panel subject to ransom strips or multiple landowners) or signing of S106 which is under achievability impediments to the site being negotiation. delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Application pending determination for Laying out of access road and construction of 25 apartments and 24 houses submitted on 27/07/2016under 16/04457/FU.
Landowner considering scheme and Outer West HG1-189 28 28 alternative access in recent discussion with UDP Site. Please refer to Exam Doc EX45 Housing Growth Team.
122 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined Site previously obtained planning approval by J Wadsworth on 20/03/2008. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA in November 2016. No response has been received but on the strength of an improving housing market Landowner has advised that they Outer West HG1-190 12 12 there are no identified land ownership (i.e. intend to sell site for residential ransom strips or multiple landowners) or development. No planning update. achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. The site is part of the Council's Private Sector Housing Acceleration Scheme and officers are in dialogue with landowners and developers to bring forward development in the short term. Site previously obtained planning approval by Mci Developments - Mr Andrew Garnett on 04/02/2013. Site is suitable but remains undeveloped and the Council has written to the landowner to confirm availability and timeframe for delivery as part of the SHLAA Outer West HG1-192 16 16 in November 2016. No response has been Development of 16 houses completed. Yes received but on the strength of an improving housing market there are no identified land ownership (i.e. ransom strips or multiple landowners) or achievability impediments to the site being delivered subject to a suitable scheme being brought forward. Planning approval under 11/02431/OT Planning application for 5 houses and unimplemented but site remains available. 2 flats (ref 17/06050/FU) approved On the strength of an improving housing 19/12/17. A discharge of conditions Yes Outer West HG1-193 6 7 market there are no identified impediments to application is presently under the site being delivered subject to a suitable consideration. scheme being brought forward. (Near Stonebridge Mills site HG2-205
123 of 199 Recent Pre- SAP Revised App / App Not Recent Started / HMCA SAP Ref Position Aug 2017 Position Sept 2018 Capacity Capacity Yet Permission Completed Determined has a residential application under consideration on now)
Planning approval under 11/00108/EXT A permission for 3 dwellings unimplemented but site remains available. On (16/02667/FU) was approved 20/6/16. the strength of an improving housing market This only covers a quarter of the site. Yes (part) Outer West HG1-202 12 12 there are no identified impediments to the Discharge of condition application site being delivered subject to a suitable under consideration. Land remains for scheme being brought forward. further development. Planning approval under 13/02683/EXT Planning application 8 dwellings unimplemented but site remains available. On 18/04363/FU – under consideration for the strength of an improving housing market whole site. Application withdrawn Outer West HG1-204 12 12 Yes there are no identified impediments to the (03/09/2018) however landowners site being delivered subject to a suitable intend to submit revised scheme scheme being brought forward. shortly.
TOTALS 14 Sites 22 Sites 18 Sites (Excluding 8,640 8,524 99 Sites UDP Sites in Dwellings Dwellings (1,335 (1,522 (545 EX45) Dwellings) Dwellings) dwellings)
TOTALS 119 15,190 15,561 (Including Sites Dwellings Dwellings UDP Sites)
124 of 199 Appendix 3 – Plan of East Leeds Orbital Route
HG2-119 HG1-284 HG1-288
HG1-288
HG1-288
Route of ELOR Identified housing 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Housing allocation ¯ © Crown Copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 10019567 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL 125 of 199 Path: L:\CGM\GIS Projects\Site Allocations Submission Draft 2016\HOUSING 2016\CAD_Portrait.mxd Produced by: NF Date: 15/08/2018 Appendix 3 – Plan of East Leeds Orbital Route
HG2-119 HG1-288
HG1-284
Route of ELOR Identified housing Housing allocation ¯ © Crown Copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 10019567 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL 126 of 199 Path: L:\CGM\Nazia Fazal\Projects\Adam Harvatt\CAD.mxd Produced by: NF Date: 15/08/2018 Appendix 4
Statement of Common Ground between Leeds City Council and Johnson Mowat (representing Taylor Wimpey)
East Leeds Extension Delivery Overview and Housing Trajectory
Revised Site Allocations Plan Examination
Leeds Local Plan ~Leedsm _._._ C IT Y COUNCIL
127 of 199 1. Introduction
1.1 This statement has been prepared jointly between Leeds City Council ("LCC") and Johnson Mowat acting on behalf of a consortium of housebuilders in the Middle and Southern Quadrants and who have liaised with the Planning Consultants responsible for planning matters in the Northern quadrant. Johnson Mowat and LCC are "the Parties" to this SoCG. The statement has been prepared by the Parties in response to the inspectors' request for the Parties to set out the areas of common and uncommon ground in respect of the deliverability and build out rate of identified housing site HG1-288, known as the East Leeds Extension.
2. Background
2.1 The East Leeds Extension was identified as a Protected Area of Search (Safeguarded land) in the 2001 Unitary Development Plan. The Site was then allocated for housing in the 2006 Unitary Development Plan (Revised) as site 'H3- 3A.33' as a Phase 3 site. Phase 3 sites were released for development in 2011.
2.2 As a UDP allocation, the East Leeds Extension is referred to as an Identified site (HG1-288) within the Site Allocations Plan, with a capacity of 4,446 dwellings. This capacity is shared across the East and Outer North East Housing Market Characteristic Areas (HMCA), with 3,771 units being in the East HMCA and 675 in the Outer North East HMCA.
2.3 Planning permission was granted for the East Leeds Orbital Road (ELOR) in November 2017. A Public Inquiry for the Compulsory Purchase Order that would allow the Council to acquire the land to build ELOR will take place in February 2019.
2.4 Taylor Wimpey are a major landowner at the East Leeds Extension. However, they do not own the majority of the site, and the views expressed here do not represent the views of the other landowners.
3. Areas of Common Ground
3.1 The Parties agree that the East Leeds Extension (HG1-288) is a deliverable, available and suitable site and as such its inclusion within the Site Allocations Plan is entirely sound. There is strong developer interest in the delivery of the site.
3.2 The East Leeds Extension SPD is now adopted and will provide clarity and certainty to applicants for proposals on the East Leeds Extension. In addition the Council has commissioned Aecom to provide technical due diligence on the sites that make up the East Leeds Extension and to prepare a Masterplan in consultation with the developers.
3.3 Both parties are committed to seeing the delivery of the East Leeds Orbital Road, which will facilitate the full delivery of the East Leeds Extension.
128 of 199 4. Matters of Uncommon Ground - Johnson Mowat's Position
Johnson Mowat's position in relation to the delivery of the Northern Quarter is as follows:
Northern Quadrant Si:,lit with East Leeds & Outer North East)
Dedlivet ry 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 o a e
o o o 7 10 l10 ~ 100 100 1100 /100 Imo J 4.1 Total Capacity= Circa 2,000 dwellings Delivery in plan period to 2028 = 670 dwellings I Delivery outside plan period= 1,330 dwellings
4.2 Historic outline planning application made on behalf of Persimmon Homes and multiple land owners, and a Section 106 Agreement is currently being negotiated. Delivery rates set out in the trajectory above are provided by the developer consortium. It assumes two initial outlets on site, with output increasing in later years.
Middle Quadrant (Split with East Leeds & Outer North East)
Dedlivery 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 to ate
0 0 _ _Q O 40 70 70 1100 1100 roo ~o 4.3 Total Capacity= Circa 1,150 dwellings Delivery in plan period to 2028 = 580 dwellings I Delivery outside plan period = 570 dwellings
4.4 Outline planning application(s) are being prepared by Johnson Mowat on behalf of Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon Homes and a consortium of smaller land owners. It is currently timetabled for a late 2018 submission, with detailed applications to follow late 2019 following outline approval and negotiation of a Section 106 Agreement. Delivery rates set out above are provided by the developer consortium.
Southern Quadrant
Dedlivery 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 to ate
b 0 0 0 0 70 70 100 100 100 ~00
4.5 Total Capacity= Circa 1,300 dwellings Delivery in plan period to 2028 = 540 dwellings I Delivery outside plan period = 760 dwellings
129 of 199 4.6 Outline planning application(s) are being prepared by Johnson Mowat on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and Redrow Homes. These are currently timetabled for 2019 submission, with detailed applications to follow early 2020 following the negotiation of a Section 106 Agreement and outline approval. Delivery rates set out above are provided by the developer consortium.
5. Matters of Uncommon Ground - Leeds City Council's Position
5.1 The Council welcomes the further clarification provided by Johnson Mowat on the timetable for applications on the Middle and Southern Quadrants of the East Leeds Extension. This demonstrates the developer interest in this site and the commitment to the delivery of housing by the development industry. However, the Council considers the projected housing trajectory as provided above by Johnson Mowat to be overly pessimistic and unambitious. The Council has estimated the delivery of the East Leeds Extension as a whole, rather than broken down into individual quadrants. The Council's estimates for delivery are as follows:
pe livery 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 to a d t e I Q__ 51 200 G5o 450 kso 600 600 poo poo �45 I 5.2 Total Capacity = 4,446 dwellings Delivery in plan period to 2028 = 4,446 dwellings
5.3 Monitoring data from the Grime's Dyke site (HG1-287), adjacent to the East Leeds Extension shows that 360 dwellings were delivered over the course of 3 years. This demonstrates that in this market area, one outlet can build over 50 units per annum. With sites of this scale, the Council considers it to be possible for 4 outlets to operate on one site.
5.4 This position is further underpinned by the Council effort to maximise early delivery at the East Leeds Extension by:
1) Funding and managing the delivery of the East Leeds Orbital Road (in addition to other local junction improvements) which will facilitate a large proportion of the development. The Council are currently securing land for the delivery of the road, which was granted planning permission in November 2017, and a Public Inquiry on the Compulsory Purchase Order will take place in February 2019. Subject to this process, completion of the road is expected by December 2021. The Manston Lane Link Road, which is an essentially element of the delivery of the East Leeds Orbital Road, is under construction and is due for completion by the end of this year (2018). ELOR is not considered an impediment to delivery as development can occur before its completion.
130 of 199 2) The Council has now adopted the East Leeds Extension Development Framework Supplementary Planning (August 2018) which provides further clarity and certainty for developers. The document encourages modern methods of construction, which could increase delivery rates.
3) Commissioning consultants (Aecom) to carry out Due Diligence technical assessments of the East Leeds Extension as well as Masterplanning work, in order to speed up the planning application process.
4) Working with partners to enable the delivery of a Park and Ride railway station at Thorpe Park, which will aid the attractiveness and thus delivery of the Southern Quadrant.
5.5 As such, LCC considers that the delivery rates projected by the Council are ambitious but wholly realistic. The Council have taken significant steps to unlocking the site. It is the Council position that the major house builders need to demonstrate their commitment to delivery in Leeds, by maximising delivery rates.
Confirmed as agreed: Name: Tim Hill, Chief Planning Officer Date: 18/10/18
Signature: ~ .( ·,-c...II. ,... -- kzv·. UJ-,\--S/.i;. ' '
Name: Mark Johnson, Johnson Mowat (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) Date: 18/10/18
Signature: ��------
131 of 199 Appendix 5
Site Allocations Plan
Leeds Local Plan
Further Justification for Green Belt Extension in Outer North East HMCA
October 2018
132 of 199 1 Introduction
1.1 The submitted Leeds SAP includes proposals to designate the majority of existing Rural Land covered by policy RL1 of the UDP, as an extension to the existing Green Belt. The Council has previously outlined the justification for this Green Belt extension within the Green Belt background paper (CD1/31) – section 6. This proposal was discussed at the SAP Stage 2 Examination within the Green Belt hearing session. Following discussions during the hearing session the Council agreed to undertake further work to justify the extended Green Belt proposals. The Inspectors actions (No 27), requires the Council to ‘conduct further work to justify the inclusion of additional land within the Green Belt and the demonstration of exceptional circumstances’. This paper supplements the justification within CD1/31 and provides further clarity and evidence to support the Council’s proposals to designate an additional area of new Green Belt within the Outer North East HMCA.
1.2 The paper sets out the two strong exceptional circumstances for the extension of the Leeds Green Belt into the Outer North East area currently designated as Rural Land. The first, as a result of the character and quality of the land in question. The second, as a result of changing national and local plan guidance and its implications for the saved Rural Land designation. 2 SAP Green Belt proposals overview
2.1 Within the ONE HMCA there is an area of countryside to the east of Wetherby and to the north of the River Wharfe covering 1,399 hectares, which is currently designated as Rural Land. There is also a small parcel of land to the north-west of Wetherby, known as Kings Meadow which is also designated as rural land, however it is detached from the main extent of the rural land designation. Rural land is unique in Leeds insofar as it is the only area of countryside not to be designated as Green Belt within the Leeds district. Map 1 – Existing Green Belt / Rural Land context (current policies map)
133 of 199 2.2 The SAP proposes to designate the majority of this rural land as a Green Belt extension. Only two parts of the existing rural designation are not proposed to be re-designated as Green Belt. These are the proposed housing allocation at Land to the East of Wetherby (HG2-226) and the existing Young Offenders Institute and adjacent land to the south of HG2-226. These areas have not been included within the additional Green Belt proposals because HG2-226 is required to provide for the housing growth needs of the the Outer North East HMCA and has been assessed as being a suitable site for housing. If found sound this site will become allocated for housing thus removing the rural land designation in any event. The Young Offenders Institute is a substantial urban development adjacent to the proposed HG2-226 allocation. Given this urbanised character it is considered that the land would not make an effective contribution to the Green Belt. It is also considered that the surrounding roads (York Road and B1224) would provide a suitable strong defensible boundary to the new Green Belt. Similarly the site would serve little purpose as Rural Land so the RL1 policy is proposed to be deleted from this site leaving the land as “white land” with no land use policy designation.
2.3 The existing rural land is covered by policy RL1 of the UDP Review (2006) which is a saved policy within the current Local Plan. The proposed Green Belt land extension would result in the wholesale deletion of saved Policy RL1 as it would no longer be required because either a) it has been re-designated as Green Belt or b) it no longer serves a Rural Land purpose.
Policy RL1 (saved UDPR policy)
RL1: THE AREA OF OPEN COUNTRYSIDE TO THE NORTH OF THE RIVER WHARFE IS DESIGNATED AS RURAL LAND. THIS AREA WILL BE SAFEGUARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UDP STRATEGIC PRINCIPLE SP2. ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE GUIDANCE CONTAINED WITHIN PPG7 “THE COUNTRYSIDE AND THE RURAL ECONOMY” AND OTHER RELEVANT NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY GUIDANCE.
134 of 199 Map 2 – Proposed areas of additional Green Belt (Submission Draft)
3 Regional Green Belt overview
3.1 The existing Green Belt land within Leeds forms part of the West Yorkshire Green Belt which surrounds the urban areas of Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield and Huddersfield. The Green Belt helps to prevent urban sprawl by keeping areas permanently open and free from inappropriate development. The West Yorkshire Green Belt is contiguous with the South Yorkshire and North West Green Belt along the Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire boundary creating a continuous band of protected land to the west coast. The City of York Green Belt also lies just a few miles to the east of the West Yorkshire Green Belt.
3.2 Local to the ONE HMCA the Green Belt extends beyond the eastern boundary of the Leeds District into Selby District Council administrative area and to the north in between Harrogate and Knaresborough within the Harrogate District Council administrative area. The proposed additional Green Belt land within the ONE HMCA would form a relatively small extension to this existing expansive Green Belt area.
135 of 199 Map 3 – Regional Green Belt context
4 Policy Context
4.1 The NPPF (2012) sets the Government’s approach to Green Belt within Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land. Paragraphs 79 – 86 of the framework are of most importance for plan-making purposes. Paragraph 79 outlines the role of Green Belts stating ‘the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of the Green Belts are their openness and their permanence’.
4.2 Whilst the NPPF (2012) needs to be considered as a whole, the Council is of the view that the key paragraphs for consideration in this instance are the following: 80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; ● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; ● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and ● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, 136 of 199 through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. 84. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
85. When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should: ● ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; ● not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; ● where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period; ● make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development; ● satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and ● define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
4.3 In addition Paragraph 82 sets out several criteria to satisfy for local authorities who are proposing ‘a new Green Belt’. The Council considers that the SAP proposals for extending the Green Belt within the ONE HMCA do not engage this paragraph of the framework as the SAP proposals will form an extension to an existing established Green Belt (West Yorkshire Green Belt) and not specifically a new Green Belt. The Council is therefore not required to consider the criteria in paragraph 82 of the NPPF (2012). Nevertheless the guidance contained within para 82 provides useful context and have nevertheless been considered when justifying the Green Belt extension. 5 Justification for extending the current Green Belt boundary
5.1 The proposal for additional Green Belt land has been assessed against the requirements of the NPPF (2012). The assessment largely centres on the need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances when amending Green Belt boundaries. Exceptional circumstances
5.2 Paragraph 83 of the framework states that ‘… Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan…’ The Government has not defined what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’, they are for each Local Authority to demonstrate and they are an exercise in planning judgement.
5.3 In Leeds the existing Rural Land designation is different to the consideration of open countryside elsewhere, with the vast majority of countryside and open land in the authority designated as Green Belt. The implications of this difference in land designations is significant because in line with the NPPF, Rural Land has far less protection than other areas of countryside which are designated as Green Belt. There is no good planning reason why this area of Leeds should have comparatively far lesser protection from development and be more susceptible to being targeted through the operation of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development which does not 137 of 199 recognise Rural Land as a restrictive designation. The Council’s concern is that the NPPF allows for the HMCA to take a disproportionate degree of the city’s growth needs via future plan-making processes (where non-Green Belt land would be sequentially preferable) and ad hoc planning applications (where local policies relevant to the determination of planning applications may be considered to be out of date, especially in any absence of a 5 year housing land supply).
5.4 The protection afforded to Green Belt land is increasing within Ministerial Statements and the updated NPPF. In particular the NPPF (2018) now requires Councils to examine fully other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development before concluding whether or not there are exceptional circumstances to justify using Green Belt land. Such options may be sourced from Rural Land. As such the previously highlighted disparity could be further exacerbated in future years. The proposed Green Belt designation would offer equal projection for all countryside areas across Leeds.
5.5 Linked to this the Green Belt boundaries in Leeds were last defined by the Unitary Development Plan Review in 2006. Since this time Leeds has established a settlement policy as part of the Adopted Core Strategy (Spatial Policy 1), which seeks to direct development toward the most sustainable locations in the district. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF (2012) states ‘when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary’.
5.6 The existing area of Rural Land is situated on the margins of the authority area and contains some of the most inaccessible areas in the city in terms of access to services, facilities, public transport and the City Centre. This is evidenced by the recent SOS decision following a Public Inquiry at Thorp Arch Trading Estate (APP/N4720/W/17/3168897), which is a large brownfield site surrounded by the Rural Land designation. In the appeal decision the SOS found the site not to be in a sustainable location (for the proposed development – 874 dwellings), given its conflict with the Core Strategy accessibility standards. The Rural Land area generally has a poor correlation with the Core Strategy settlement hierarchy (Policy SP1), with the exception of Wetherby, which is categorised as a major settlement. Within the plan- making process undertaken through the Site Allocations Plan, Wetherby is already subject to a significant settlement extension proposal in line with the Core Strategy.
5.7 The proposals to extend the Green Belt in Leeds would be entirely in line with the overall spatial approach of the Core Strategy to help channel development towards the urban areas of Leeds and locations in line with the settlement hierarchy, ensuring sustainable growth patterns with a priority for use set in Policy SP1 of previously developed land, then infill and then sustainable urban extensions.
5.8 The Core Strategy proposed a significant increase in the scale of growth across the city compared to the previous plan period. The SAP proposals include a major extension to the east of Wetherby, which presently lies on land designated as Rural Land. The proposal (HG2-226) for 1100 units would extend the settlement of Wetherby significantly eastwards beyond the A1(M) and would considerably change the context of the area. The development will extend the settlement of Wetherby noticeably closer to the other surrounding towns, villages and other urban areas within the Rural Land area including Walton, Thorp Arch village and Thorp Arch Trading Estate. The SAP proposals to
138 of 199 designate the rural land as Green Belt would help maintain the settlements and other urban areas as distinct separate places by ensuring that any new development is restricted, logical and well planned. The Green Belt designation would in particular help to contain the future unrestricted sprawl of Wetherby to the east which could be especially under threat given the settlement hierarchy, housing targets and non-Green Belt status of the land. Urban sprawl has multiple economic costs and a Green Belt designation would have the benefit of keeping the land on the edge of Wetherby and other villages permanently open. The urban fringe is the nearest opportunity for outdoor recreation for large numbers of people in urban areas and the Green Belt designation would positively result in helping to retain this land as open and a valuable resource for the residents.
5.9 It is also important to consider how the area of Rural Land proposed to be designated as Green Belt would meet the purposes of Green Belt. The five purposes of Green Belt are contained within paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2012). Land does not need to meet all five of the highlighted purposes in order for it to be considered as potentially making an important contribution to the Green Belt and requiring safeguarding. The assessment of how the Rural Land area would contribute to Green Belt is set out in the table below:
139 of 199 PURPOSES OF ASSESSEMENT GREEN BELT To check the Wetherby is a major free-standing settlement and a large built up unrestricted sprawl area. A significant extension to the east of Wetherby (HG2-226) is of large built-up planned within the SAP proposals. A Green Belt designation would areas; help to prevent the uncontrolled growth of this urban area into the countryside and help to restrict unsustainable ribbon and isolated development within the area.
To prevent The land is well related to several settlements (Wetherby, Walton, neighbouring towns Thorp Arch village). The major extension proposed to Wetherby will merging into one extend the settlement notably closer to the other settlements within another; the area. The village of Bickerton (within Harrogate LA) lies a short distance to the east of the proposed settlement extension. The settlements of Walton, Thorp Arch and the large brownfield Thorp Arch Trading Estate are also located only a short distance apart and are at risk of merging. A Green Belt designation would help to prevent these neighbouring settlements from merging into one another and help retain their individual identities.
To assist in The Rural Land can be reasonably classed as open countryside. It is safeguarding the mainly characterised by attractive agricultural land and the absence countryside from of built development. In terms of landscape quality and the influence encroachment; of the urban area, it is considered that the land largely constitutes open countryside as opposed to urban fringe with an array of agricultural buildings reinforcing the countryside character. Several Public Rights of Way extend across the area providing access to the countryside for the local community. The land is also all high grade agricultural land (Grade 2 and 3) containing some of Leeds’s best quality agricultural land. This area of countryside cannot easily be differentiated from the Green Belt land to the south of the River Wharfe. Indeed this area of Leeds is of a high landscape quality and contains more openness characteristics than other areas of the Green Belt surrounding Leeds. The Green Belt designation would help to protect this area of valuable countryside from encroachment.
To preserve the This criteria is not of great relevance to the settlements of Leeds, setting and special however Wetherby does have some historic interest and both character of historic Walton and Thorp Arch have extensive conservation areas and towns; and listed buildings. The Green Belt designation could help to further preserve the special historic character of these settlements.
To assist in urban The continued exclusion from the GB may lead to development on a regeneration, by scale and in such a manner as materially to reduce developer encouraging the demand for development within urban areas, especially derelict land recycling of derelict which is a focus for delivery in Leeds in line with national guidance. and other urban A Green Belt designation in the area would help to further channel land. development towards urban areas and assist in their regeneration and re-investment.
140 of 199 5.10 Consequently the Council considers that the rural land area is considered to strongly fulfil the five purposes of Green Belt. 6 The robustness of the existing Rural Land policy
6.1 In addition, an important consideration in the proposals to designate a Green Belt extension is the existing planning policy context of the Rural Land. The land is currently protected by policy RL1 of the UDPR which is currently a saved UDPR policy within the Local Plan. The policy seeks to protect the attractive open countryside to the north of the River Wharfe for its own sake and as a recreational resource. The origins of the policy date back to PPG7, which included extensive guidance as to which type of development could be considered appropriate in rural areas whilst ensuring that the openness of the countryside is safeguarded. PPG7 has of course since been replaced by guidance contained within the NPPF. In contrast, the NPPF (both 2012 & 2018) contains limited references to the countryside (non Green Belt) and in particular the safeguarding of the countryside. Whilst the protection of Green Belt land has particular prominence within the NPPF. Policy RL1 also references Policy SP2 of the UDPR which is now a deleted policy. This is a material change in circumstance since the UDPR was adopted and Policy RL1 now has lesser weight. Consequently the Rural Land area is at the present time more at threat from development, making the greater protection proposed though Green Belt designation necessary for the area. In addition the Leeds Core Strategy (2014) also does not include any policies which directly relate to the area of Rural Land. As such the existing planning and development management policies for are area of Rural Land are not considered to now to be adequate (or consistent with the NPPF) as they only offer the area of Rural Land limited protection, especially compared to the protection Green Belt status would offer.
6.2 The above positions (in Sections 2 to 6) when considered collectively are considered to constitute the exceptional circumstances required to amend and extend the Green Belt boundary. 7 Proposed boundaries of the extended Green Belt land
7.1 Paragraph 85 of the NPPF requires that when defining boundaries (Green Belt), local planning authorities should define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. This is usually considered to include features such as woodlands, hedgerows, tree belts, waterways, highways and railway lines etc. The proposed extended boundary of the Green Belt is the Leeds administrative boundary, where it borders the neighbouring planning authorities of Harrogate and Selby. On the ground this boundary is extensive and is formed in parts by a variety of features including tree lines, hedgerows and highways. It is however acknowledged that sections of the proposed Green Belt boundary, especially along its eastern edge do not always follow a hard boundary on the ground. Notwithstanding this the administrative boundary is considered to form an appropriate boundary for a number of reasons.
7.2 Firstly, there is no reason to assume that the administrative boundaries are likely to change, thus satisfying the need to create boundaries which will ensure for long beyond plan periods. Secondly, there is no obvious inner Green Belt boundary within the Leeds administrative area nor obvious outer Green Belt boundary were the Council to work together with neighbouring local authorities to establish one. Moreover, in the absence of regional strategies as a means addressing and making decisions about the strategic Green Belt current working arrangements between Leeds and its neighbouring
141 of 199 authorities are undertaken via the Duty to Cooperate Group. Harrogate and Selby are at a different stages in the plan-making process and a joint Plan to establish a different Green Belt boundary would have undoubtedly resulted in delays to the adoption of a Plan. This would potentially have had negative implications for other priorities in the framework such as boosting housing supply and delivering sustainable development. Delays are therefore considered to be unwarranted in this context and a boundary outside of the Leeds administrative area is not considered to be a realistic option.
7.3 In addition no neighbouring authorities have raised any objections to the Green Belt extension proposals, either through the Duty-to-Cooperate or representations made during the statutory consultation periods of the SAP. See EX50. The proposal is a relatively modest addition to the existing expansive West Yorkshire Green Belt and would only marginally bring the West Yorkshire Green Belt closer to the York Green Belt at its nearest point, maintaining a gap of several miles between the two Green Belts, and retaining the existing Green Belt’s contribution to the five purposes of the green belt (Para 80). The proposal therefore does not have any consequences for adjoining administrative areas.
7.4 The extended Green Belt area is also likely to be able to endure for a significant timeframe given that the SAP is proposing a major extension to Wetherby which alongside other allocations will provide a consistent supply of housing over an extended period time within the area. The safeguarded land supply within the SAP will also provide the flexibility for additional growth and potentially reduce the need for future changes to the boundary. Furthermore, in the context of the likely downward trajectory of housing need and requirements to review Plans/policies more frequently it is considered that the Green Belt will have permanence and endure for a significant time period.
7.5 Overall it is noted that a conflict exists with paragraph 85, bullet 6, which states that ‘… local authorities should define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent’. However, the Council considers that the planning benefits and necessity of designating the land as Green Belt as previous discussed outweigh the harm caused by this conflict. 8 Land at Kings Meadow
8.1 Part of the proposed additional Green Belt land lies to the north-west edge of Wetherby and encompasses a site known as Kings Meadow, Wetherby which is currently an open agricultural field. This area of land is detached from the main extent of the proposed additional Green Belt land, however the Council still considers that it is appropriate to identify this land as Green Belt. The designation would have the benefit of assisting the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment and it would also help to direct development towards the urban area. In addition the site would make a contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of Wetherby. It should be noted that Wetherby has significant development pressure evidenced by the high level of development activity, high market area and discounted SAP housing sites surrounding the settlement. This pressure is not just limited to land within Leeds City Council administrative area as a planning approval for a major scheme for 210 dwellings has recently been granted on non-allocated land adjacent to Wetherby within the Harrogate Borough Council administrative area (17/01897/OUTMAJ), which will result in the further sprawl of Wetherby into the countryside. The outer boundary of the Kings Meadow site follows a clear track and the designation would help to limit sprawl to the north-west of Wetherby.
142 of 199 Kings Meadow
HG2-266
8.2 It is not considered the location of this part of the proposal is an impediment in seeking to protect the land. There are numerous examples across the country of small areas of Green Belt land which are detached and not contiguous with the main extent of the Green Belt. Some examples from Waverley and Bacup are set out below. The land at King Meadows is geographically closely linked to both the existing Green Belt and the main extent of the proposed additional Green Belt land which will enable it to contribute to the strategic function of Green Belt. Waverley (L) & Bacup (R) Green Belt
143 of 199 9 Walton Neighbourhood Plan
9.1 The Council has previously made the Inspectors aware of a potential conflict between the Green Belt extension proposals within the SAP and local housing proposals within the emerging Walton Neighbourhood Plan (NP) which has a plan period up to 2033. This issue has now been simplified as the Walton Neighbourhood Plan was ‘Made’ on 8th October 2018 and now forms part of the Leeds Local Plan. The Walton NP includes 3 housing allocations for up to 20 dwellings as the following extract from the Made Neighbourhood Plan (2018) shows.
9.2 In order to positively reflect this change in circumstances since the submission of SAP the Council is proposing to exclude the three Walton NP housing allocations from the proposed area of additional Green Belt via a main modification to the SAP (to follow) which will confirm the exact boundary changes. 10 Conclusion
10.1 Overall the Council considers that the Green Belt extension within the SAP is a sound proposal when considered locally and sub-regionally, which meets the exceptional circumstances required for altering the existing Green Belt boundary as set out within the NPPF 2012. Firstly, as set out in Section 5, the proposal is considered to serve the five purposes of the Green Belt. Secondly the extended Green Belt boundary would provide a range of positive implications for sustainable development in Leeds. These, set out in Section 6, include offering equal protection to all countryside areas of the city and helping to promote sustainable patterns of development across the district in line with the objectives of the Core Strategy and the NPPF. The extent of the extended boundary is justified at section 7 and is considered to form a robust and defensible boundary which will last well beyond the plan period.
10.2 It is significant that there has been a change in circumstances since the Green Belt boundaries where last amended through the UDPR process. Firstly, a major extension is proposed to Wetherby which changes the context of the area. The Green Belt designation is necessary to help contain the sprawl of Wetherby. Secondly, the 144 of 199 effectiveness of the existing Rural Land (RL1) policy protection for the area has diminished as a consequence of national planning policy changes. Consequently it is considered that the Rural Land area has the characteristics which require the enhanced protection which Green Belt protection would provide. As such the Green Belt extension proposals are considered to help bring the SAP in conformity with the NPPF and adopted Core Strategy.
10.3 The paper also reflects the local circumstances in section 8 and 9 which will affect the detailed mapping of the extended Green Belt, including a small parcel of land to the north of Wetherby and reflecting the recently made Walton Neighbourhood Plan.
145 of 199 Appendix 6
Nether Yeadon is a place of special character and historic interest. This appraisal and management plan sets out the features that contributeTemple Mill, Marshallto its Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy distinctiveness and identifies opportunities for its protection and enhancement. Nether Yeadon CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL & MANAGEMENT PLAN
Approved as a material consideration in the determination of planning decisions 1st July, 2015
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 146 of 199 and it is therefore unique in its context Overview and within the locality.
Summary of special interest The Conservation Area contains some increased density to the North of New The Nether Yeadon Conservation Area Road, in Henshaw, but the majority of represents a rare survival of older rural the area is defined by open vistas, and very early industrial townscape of country lanes and a loosely interlinked sparsely populated, but interlinked pattern of buildings that all contribute farmsteads, cottages and houses that to the overriding character. historically defined the earlier origins of much of the Rawdon area. The open There has been no extensive loss or spaces, landscape, views and exposed damage to the Conservation Area but character all contribute to this highly loss of historic window frames has been distinctive and unique place. extensive where older sash windows have been replaced by casement fenestration. Sometimes historic Summary of issues mullions have been removed also.
Nether Yeadon retains the open There is also good survival of historic Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy character, built forms and landscape walling in the area, although historic dry that represent a rare survival of pre stone, field walls have been eroded due industrialised settlement patterns in this to lack of maintenance, damage and Top: The isolated, ‘wind blown’ area. Many nearby Conservation Areas changing farming techniques. Ancient setting of High Fold, so character- such as Rawdon Little London and Little hedgerows also flank Warm Lane and istic of a traditional Yorkshire Moor all began life as similar sparsely are of historic interest. Farm. Below: Cottages on Gill populated, semi agricultural settlements Lane. Right: The rural character that were later in-filled by terrace forms The settlement has seen little change in of Gill Lane which is also a defin- as population and local employment 200 years except for some minor infill ing local characteristic. opportunities increased and industry which has eroded some elements of the became more mechanised. historic environment and setting of some historic buildings, but to a lesser Early water powered industry became extent than some other areas. The established in Nether Yeadon but halted mature woodland and the local main new infill was the new housing on topography. prior to mass industrialisation and as what was the old gasworks site, now such the character of the Conservation Pennythorn Drive, which makes an Area is one that halted on the cusp of All new build schemes should be attempt to pay attention to the responsive in terms of form, materials change from rural community, to character of the area. The extensive industrial town. and local character and be based upon mass housing around Greanlea Road sound understanding and analysis of contributes nothing to the setting of the the Conservation Area including Nether Yeadon represents a rare Conservation Area but is also survivalTemple ofMill, this Marshall older settlement Street. form respecting the ‘isolated’ or landscaped 1842 by Joseph Bosomy fortunately sheltered by extensive setting of important listed buildings. 147 of 199 The Listed Buildings of Low Hall, Location and Context High Fold, Old Rawdon Manse and 24/26 Gill Lane are included. Nether Yeadon has been designated as a new Conservation Area based upon St John’s Church forms the the area’s special architectural and northern boundary and the historic interest. The Conservation Area junction of Gill Lane leading to covers the rural and semi rural areas Greanlea Road form the southern around Gill Lane and Warm Lane, but boundary. also contains Henshaw whose relationship to Nether Yeadon has always been interlinked.
The farmsteads and cottages are loosely arranged around the triangular area of land between Gill Lane and Warm Lane and this acts as a focal point and place of orientation for the settlement. Buildings are visibly interlinked and footpaths criss-cross this area and formed historic routes that Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy respected contemporary desire lines from the early industry that was located along Yeadon Gill.
The more densely populated Henshaw is a much tighter grain and represents the more developed but historically related character of the area.
The Conservation Area boundary is shown on the map, right, the main Conservation Area Boundary for Nether Yeadon. areas of designation are as follows: The open field to the south of Warm Lane that is important for The core of the Conservation the setting of the Conservation links between High Fold Farm the Green and the later turnpike Area is focussed around the Area as well as the setting of the row of cottages at Gyllroyd and Leeds Road. fields between Gill Lane and listed buildings of High Fold and Low Hall. Old Rawdon Manse. Warm Lane and extends into The early water powered Henshaw to the North East. The tight urban forms of industrial sites alongside Yeadon The important field between Henshaw and its historic Gill. Warm Lane and Gill Lane that relationship to Nether Yeadon Temple Mill, Marshall Street. maintains visual (and historical) 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 148 of 199 Yeadon do survive in other areas in the Location and context vicinity but the majority have been altered significantly (from 19th century Location and setting industrial development), completely changing their original rural setting. Nether Yeadon is located between Across the Conservation Area are the Leeds and Bradford approximately 9 historic sunken lanes of Gill Lane and miles northwest of Leeds City Centre. It Warm Lane with a series of public is located in the ward of Guiseley and footpaths running from them. These Yeadon and makes up the part of the lanes originally serviced the three water Aireborough district. Contained in the mills in the valley that represent the conservation area are 8 listed buildings, early industry that once existed here. which include examples of early Yeomen's houses and agricultural Geology, topography and buildings (within an established landscape setting agricultural setting). These types of buildings create the special rural The underlying geology of this site is character of the Nether Yeadon Area. Lower Coal Measures comprising of Building types as found in Nether sandstone and millstone grit. (British
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
Above: Sandstone (yellow) and Millstone Grit (green) underlay Nether Yeadon and have been the traditional building materials throughout its history.
Geological Survey 2009). Much of this raw material has traditionally been quarried locally and dictated the area’s aesthetic and vernacular form.
The landscape is mainly of an open rural agricultural nature overlooking isolated farm steads and the Upper Aire valley and are included within designated Green Belt.
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 149 of 199 kingdom of Northumbria. Historic development It is likely that the sunken lanes of Warm Origins and historic settlement Lane and Gill Lane were ancient routes and this is illustrated in the 1807 Tithe Yeadon consisted of individual settle- Award Map which mentions ‘the ancient ments (Upper Yeadon, Nether Yeadon routes’ around Mill Gill. The lanes led and Henshaw) the latter two settlements directly to Yeadon from the 12th Century were clustered around their own area of priory at Esholt and much of the surround- open space or village green. Nether ing land was leased to the nunnery at this Yeadon Green is mentioned in the 1807 time by John de Yeadon. Evidence shows Tithe Award and was located between that John gave an annuity from his mill Henshaw and Gill Lane where New Road (The Old Corn Mill, Yeadon Gill) towards now runs. the support of a chaplain to the priory.
The name Yeadon comes from the Old Esholt Priory, also known as St Leonard’s English words for ‘High Hill’ and would Priory was founded in 1172 and had a have perfectly described the location of powerful influence on the area, becoming Yeadon town centre situated around a an essential part of the local economy. mile from the Conservation Area. The Several records survive including the Court name Nether Yeadon literally means Rolls that record the social justice adminis- Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy ‘Lesser High Hill’ which may suggest that tered by the Priory in the middle ages. Nether Yeadon was named at a later date The importance of local resources was after the early English meaning had been also mentioned in the rolls with clear em- forgotten. Evidence from Aerial photo- phasis being placed upon the importance graphs in 2008 revealed a curved earth- of good land management. For instance work feature on the summit of Yeadon in 1539 there were 34 acres containing Haw that may reinforce the position of 260 Oak Trees worth around £11.33. In a Upper Yeadon as being the older, princi- record some 200 years older it is recorded ple settlement. that a larger area of lesser managed Above: The 1775 Jeffery’s Map woodland was worth substantially less, so showing the topography and land- Possibly the earliest written reference to forestry management was an important mark buildings of the time. Esholt Yeadon however comes from the early resource where the land was being used Hall, Upper Yeadon and Nether 8th Century AD regarding a gift of land to efficiently and productively. Yeadon are all clearly shown. The Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon in 678 as being in older roads are marked in yellow ‘Gaedyne’. Domesday records that the Nether Yeadon was also part of a produc- with the purple line showing land was owned by a Saxon Lord named tive agricultural landscape (‘the best farm- roughly where the New Road Gamal, son of Orm who also owned large ing land’ was here, wrote one commenta- Turnpike road now runs. Right: areas of land in Lincolnshire and other tor) but this later evolved to support early The 17th century High Fold Farm. parts of Yorkshire. According to Thores- mechanised industry that supported the by, writing in his History of Leeds, Gamal needs of the community through small andTemple Orm were Mill, of MarshallDanish decent Street. and gave scale milling and dyeing. The local indus- their1842 names by Josephto many Bosomyplaces within the try developed due to the Yeadon Gill that gave an early source of power. 150 of 199 The mills, including Henshaw Mill (1810) on Historic development Henshaw Lane, were powered by the streams and water from Yeadon Gill that Origins and historic settlement made its way down towards the bottom of the Aire Valley. Henshaw Mill was report- Following the dissolution in 1539/40 the edly the first mill in the area to use steam priory lands were dispersed and eventually power and nearby the field name ‘Engine came into the ownership of local families Fields’ reflects this. Archive records show such as the Marshalls and Stansfields. The the leases in 1659 for “Corn Mill, Kiln, rent from the priory lands at this time was Damstead and one house near Nether £9 14s 8d per annum. Yeadon Mill.” And on the 20th September, 1705 John Holmes, Abraham Milner and The Marshall family subsequently con- Walter Calverley of Esholt were permitted structed Low Hall in the early 17th Century to build a dam at Yeadon Gill Beck. This along with further developing the mills evidence provides us with a fitting date for along Yeadon Gill. Archive records show the early, post priory industry of Nether that John Marshall bought the Manor of Yeadon in the 17th and early 18th Century. Esholt from the Duke of Norfolk in 1719. Area on The legacy of the Marshalls (and their de- The 1807 Tithe Award Map (right) Photo scendants the Barwicks) gave Nether shows the ‘ancient Lanes’ around Yeadon perhaps its most notable family TempleNether Yeadon.Mill, Marshall Judging Street. by the 1842 sunk- by Joseph Bosomy and certainly its most impressive building, en lanes and the density and number Low Hall. of species in hedgerows on Warm Lane and Gill Lane, (photo below) Many of the farms and buildings around these roads are likely to have very Warm Lane and Gill Lane date from around early origins and have been hollowed the 17th century and may provide further out over centuries of use. The Leeds evidence to reinforce the physical and so- Turnpike Road runs through ‘Nether cial connection between the Marshalls and Yeadon Green’ and past ‘Sizers Hill’, their estate. Indeed the connection be- This may show us where the medie- tween Manor, farm and mill would have val village green of Henshaw and been a productive one and is still reflected Nether Yeadon was once located with in the footpaths that criss-cross the open the Woolpack facing onto it. space between Gill Lane and Warm Lane. The aerial photo, bottom right, shows The local Tithe Map shows that Richard the last remaining piece of this land Barwick of Low Hall owned much of the north of New Road that has recently land immediately adjacent to Gill Lane and been built on. (Bing maps) Warm Lane and he was the owner of Gill Mill which was built nearby in 1819. This The top map shows buildings and mill replaced an earlier fulling mill from the mills in 1838 with the ’Green’ now 17th century that perhaps had even earlier Temple Mill, Marshall Street. divided amongst local landowners. origins.1842 by Joseph Bosomy
151 of 199 to pay these debts. He was also the Historic development man, who in 1733 agreed to the enclosure of part of ‘Nether Yeadon Low Hall is a fine Yeoman’s house and Common’. The ‘Nether Yeadon although it was heavily restored and clothiers’, (another glimpse into the modified in the 19th century, (possibly early industry of the area) were known around 1876 when John Marshall to frequent the ‘Haunch of Venison’ pub Barwick, a solicitor at the time, on Lands Lane on their visits to the embellished the Hall with the Victorian market in Leeds. Most of the Yeadon crenelated bay windows to the south contingent generally visited the ‘Cock front) the original building is still largely and Bottle’ and the ‘Black Bull’, it is readable in form. curious to speculate why the two communities were insistent on being Another notable feature of the hall was apart? the porch, reputed to have come from Esholt Priory and dated 1658. There is Another addition to the village was the also a reputed connection with some erection of the School at Nether Yeadon other nationally important figures such Green and resulted in the first non- as Mary Queen of Scots and Winston conformist schoolhouse being built in Churchill who both were reputed to 1703 on land leased for 999 years from have stayed here. Churchill is said to Henry Layton of Rawdon. 5 prominent have attended a secret meeting in the signatories to the lease included John dining room here during the Second TempleMarshall Mill,of Low Marshall Hall and Street. Zachariah 1842 by Joseph Bosomy World War and the Hall would have Collier. The original school was been a convenient meeting place near replaced in 1821 and this building s now to the shadow Avro factory higher up a house located near the corner of the hill. Apperley Lane and Warm Lane. It is possible that the original school was The archives provide us with some of located elsewhere although where this Above: The 1851 OS map the interesting occurrences in the lives would be is open to speculation. showing the mill ponds and of local people. The name Zachariah turnpike road. Collier is one such name that seems to In the late 19th century the church of St crop up. Collier was a Gentleman who John provided a place of Anglican The photograph to the right owned much land around Nether worship and enabled the people of the shows Low Hall from the Yeadon until being declared bankrupt in area to worship near home rather than south garden. The porch 1749 following several presumably walking to St Oswald’s in Guiseley. In from Esholt and the later failed businesses. In 1745 for instance 1844 the new church opened and Victorian Crenelated bays “Zachariah Collier and his wife Beatrix, several of the residents of Low Hall disguise some, but not all of deforcients(!), (owned) property were subsequently interred here. The the original 17th Century including 12 messuages, 8 cottages, church is located in Henshaw on land form. one maltkiln , 12 barns, 12 stables, 12 once belonging to the Barwicks. In Left; a 19th century garden gardens, 4 orchards, 200 acres, 100 refurbishments in the 1970’s the church party on the very same meadow, 100 pasture, in Nether tower was found to be unstable and so lawn. Yeadon, Stone Top, Guiseley and had to be demolished. As a result the Temple Mill, Marshall Street. Haworth.” Collier was forced to church is now not the obvious landmark mortgage1842 by allJoseph this property Bosomy to enable him that it once was. 152 of 199 importance of this valuable, but and enables it still to be ‘read’ and Historic development ultimately over exploited, energy understood today. source. Into the 20th Century Nether Yeadon therefore retains many The mills were soon superseded by of the characteristics of a mid 19th In 1830 the Guiseley to Leeds Turnpike larger industry that began to displace century West Riding village prior to the Road opened and Richard Barwick of the local hand weaving tradition and mass industrialisation that changed so Low Hall was one of the trustees. This smaller mills, much to the annoyance of many other places to such a great road, still one of the major arteries of local Luddites who were also active in extent. the area, ran to the north east of Nether this area. Yeadon and bisected Gill Lane through an area of land called ‘Nether Yeadon The Lower Mill in Nether Yeadon was Green’ between Nether Yeadon and eventually turned over to farming and Henshaw, thereby splitting them in Middle Mill was advertised for sale by perpetuity. The road also ran over the Barwick’s in 1885 but was Sizers Hill before joining Apperley Lane. eventually pulled down. This saw the (see map page 6) There was a toll end to mechanised industry in Nether house constructed on the new road and Yeadon and larger woollen mills such the new link enabled the Woolpack pub as Green Lane Mills took over the to diversify its trade from Inn to meeting production from what had always point and post office. previously been small scale enterprises. Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy Shortly after this date the 3 mills along The other major change in the 19th Yeadon Gill began to decline. The century was the Yeadon Gas Works reason why the industry ceased to that took up a large site where operate in Nether Yeadon is not well Pennythorn Drive now stands. Richard documented but the most likely reason Barwick was again trustee, did he is loss of a reliable source of power. perhaps move from milling to the supply The mills had been powered by Yeadon of energy? Following this the area Gill for centuries and it is likely that this around New Road began to contain new flow had limitations in its ability to low density industry and in the provide water power for an increasing 1960’s/70’s extensive new housing was number of mills and the greater built to the north of Yeadon Gill. Upper left: The Wool Pack pub now mechanisation that was required. separated from the south side of The ‘best farming land’ as Illingworth Gill Lane by the later turnpike road. One instance describes Gill Mill, leased put it, around Nether Yeadon still exists This pub once fronted onto Nether at the time to Samuel Bentley & Co in and the area subsequently never Yeadon Green. Bottom Left: The 1834, as using both water and steam developed as an industrial settlement row of houses of Ghyllroyd facing depending on the flow of the water. Old like many of its neighbours. The onto the Green near Warm Lane Mill further up stream was owned by economic climate and lack of viability of Above: Gill cottage and some of Joseph Cawthra and after diverting the running the old mills in Yeadon Gill low scale industry that started in beck to his own mill he was therefore likely led to the preservation of around Yeadon Gill and gave the subsequently sued and ordered to the landscape around Nether Yeadon area some of its first mechanised Temple Mill, Marshall Street. reinstate the flow, such was the industry. (Leodis) 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
153 of 199 Left: The mid twentieth century saw the encroach- ment of new housing from the Guiseley direction to the north of Gill Lane. Also no- ticeable is the possible gas line running from the gas works and heading south west. Right: The Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Company, founded in 1845 but to be- come a landmark through- out the 20th century. This appraisal shows why the industrial area of Holbeck has a special character Below: The modern OS map shows the old routes and appearance, recognised by its in yellow and the urban designation in 1991 as a conservation form of the area today. area. It sets out which features make the area special in order to encourageLeft and below: their The retention. It also shows wheretangible there difference are opportunities to enhancebetween the Henshawarea. The conservation area wason New enlarged Road in Side 2006 to more accurately coverand thethe morearea of rural preservation of special architectural or historicNether Yeadon. interest. Two distinct character areas but cut from the same cloth. Boston Spa / Thorp Arch . CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL
September 2009
154 of 199 evidence for the birth of industry in Character Analysis Yeadon.
Spatial Analysis Due to the lack of space, power, viability, or due to the excellent Settlement form productive farmland the mills around Yeadon Gill never evolved The character of the Nether Yeadon into the large enterprises and were Conservation Area is very much of two eventually overtaken by the heavy distinct halves. One being the green mills in the area. As a result Nether belt land, farmhouses and country lanes Yeadon escaped much of the 19th south of New Road and the other being century industrial development with the tighter grain and denser the focus for any new development development of Henshaw. Both being in the tight cluster around historically and socially linked but now Henshaw Lane where the majority very different in character. of any commercial and industrial activity continued. The majority of the Conservation area is focussed around the important spaces Later suburban expansion to the and visual and physical links between north has retained the semi rural the listed farmsteads and cottages to Templecharacter Mill, of much Marshall of the Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy the south west of New Road. The Conservation area due to the Henshaw side contains positive groups topography and woodland but of buildings that cluster around what distant views are encroached upon was likely the northern end of the significantly by the mass of housing medieval village green including the around Greanlea Road when seen Woolpack pub and the church of St from Apperley Lane. John. Selected infill has affected the Activity and grain setting of some important historic buildings but the overall condition of The earliest buildings within the area the conservation area is still one of are associated with the farmstead of Above: Map of the Conservation Area two homogenous character areas with The views of High Fold Farm are also High Fold (17th century), the cottages a common origin. showing positive buildings in blue. and houses around Gill Lane and Warm distinctive and reinforce the isolated Lane and of course Low Hall (17C). character of the Nether Yeadon Key views and vistas farmsteads. High Fold Farm is an The Woolpack likely has an 18th trees, and the views over the space century date but could also be earlier important local landmark and is reliant There are significant views both into between Gill Lane and Warm Lane. The upon this isolated setting and views and has likely been remodelled at a and out of the Conservation Area. The row of cottages of Ghylroyd facing the later date. The Yeadon Gill mills are across open fields as key components of most attractive of these being the space are important buildings and its setting and distinctive character. also likely to have some antiquity and quintessential rural views along Gill provide a focal point for the settlement. mayTemple provide Mill, interesting Marshall archaeological Street. Lane with its steep banking and mature 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 155 of 199 Landmarks
High Fold Farm and Ghylroyd are the most impressive landmarks but there are other ones, including buildings to the corner of Henshaw Lane and New Road, that define the corner of these streets and appear to have been built in order to specifically relate to the turn- pike road. The Woolpack pub is also important for retaining the form of where Nether Yeadon green was once located. Low Hall is an important listed The spaces alongside building within the Conservation Area Warm Lane allow a set but cannot be seen from the public back to the built form that realm, but the impressive gateposts are contributes significantly to a landmark in their own right. the character of the Con- servation Area and the Open Spaces open area to the front of TempleGhylroyd, Mill, between Marshall Warm Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy The character of much of the Conserva- Lane and Gill Lane, is ex- tion Area is defined by its delicate bal- tremely significant in rein- ance between open, agricultural spaces, forcing the rural identity of gardens and buildings much of which is this part of Nether Yeadon. washed over by the Green Belt. Unfor- tunately the last remaining element of The open aspect of the what was likely the medieval village church yard in Henshaw green in Henshaw was lost in recent provide a welcome relief to years to development but some of the the higher densities in this trees still remain and the Woolpack pub part of the Conservation still presents an active frontage to this Area and reflect 19th cen- space. tury urbanisation. of the open space, and the woodland The Urban Design Analysis map of Public footpaths over the open spaces The most important green spaces there- surrounding Yeadon Gill. Nether Yeadon/Henshaw that are still convenient and provide a valua- fore include the land between Gill Lane highlights some of the area’s im- ble local amenity for residents and the and Warm Lane, the open fields sur- The hedgerows around Gill Lane and portant features, green spaces and many historic routes and footpaths con- rounding the listed High Folds Farm, the Warm Lane are also important as they buildings. This map should be used tribute to the residents’ quality of life, area of smallholding land in front of are likely ancient hedgerows that are as a tool to guide and manage any as well as their sense of history. Greenside Farm and Warm Lane that important not only for their historical future change in the Conservation provides a welcome semi domestication associations, but also for their biodiver- Area. This map is replicated on Temple Mill, Marshall Street. sity value. page 26. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 156 of 199 Listed and Positive Buildings
Character Analysis
Positive buildings
The buildings coloured blue on the map (previous page) make a positive contri- bution to the character of the conserva- tion area. The buildings with yellow stars are considered important and are of landmark quality or contribute signifi- Above: This unusual building pro- cantly to the character of the Conserva- vides a bookend to Ghylroyd. Its tion Area. This contribution may be in history is unclear but it probably one or more of the following ways: Above: The interesting angled buildings dates from the early 17th century. This appraisal shows whythat the turn industrial the corner between Henshaw This building and the row of cottages Landmarkarea buildings of Holbeck has a specialLane and character New Road that provide a good adjoining are incredibly valuable and may provide suitable candidates for Buildings whichand provide appearance, evidence of recognisedexample of bymodest its scale domestic 19th century architecture. Top right: Low Hall future listing. the area’s designationhistory and development in 1991 as a conservation area. It sets out which featuresshowing make the porch the reputedly from Esholt Buildings of architectural merit Priory. And below: High Fold Farm, an Buildingsarea with speciallocal historical in order associ- to encourageimportant collection their of 17th century ations retention. It also shows wherefarm buildings. there are Buildings whichopportunities exemplify local ver-to enhance the area. nacular stylesThe conservation area was enlarged in Groups2006 of buildingsto more which accurately together cover the area of make aspecial positive architectural contribution to the or historic interest. streetscape
There should be a presumption in fa- Above: The Woolpack pub, its unu- vour of the retention of positive struc- sual angle reflecting the location of Boston Spa / Thorpthe old village greenArch and Below: the tures in all but exceptional circumstanc- blocked up arch behind the pub. es. Any application to demolish a posi- tive building will require justification CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL taking into account the considerations at paragraph 133 in the National Plan- ning Policy Framework (2012). September 2009
157 of 199 Listed Buildings: 1-6 Greenside, Warm Lane, Nether
Low Hall, Gill Lane (1135627) Yeadon, Grade II Chalfont House, Warm Lane, 26 & 24 Gill Lane, (1204072) Grade Nether Yeadon, II
High Fold 1 Warm Lane, (1135594) 1-8 Apperley Lane, Nether Yeadon, Grade II
High Fold, 2 and 3, Warm Lane Layton Cottage, Apperley Lane, (1135595) Grade II Nether Yeadon,
High Fold This4 and appraisal 5, Warm Lane shows why the industrial area of Holbeck has a specialAbove character and below: Some notable Listed Buildings within Nether 4-6 Ghyllroyd, Warm Lane, Nether (1204358) Grade II and appearance, recognisedYeadon. Above by its right: High Fold Farm No. 3 (Grade II id 18th centu- Yeadon designation in 1991 as ry)a conservation and left High Fold Barn (Grade II 17th century), Below: Low Hall Barn attached at south end of (Grade II 17th century) and one of it’s stained glass windows depict- area. It sets out which featuresing Elizabeth make I.the 43-46 Warm Lane, Nether Yeadon, number 3 areaHigh Fold,special Warm in order to encourage their Lane (1135596)retention. Grade It II also shows where there are opportunities to enhance the area. 37,39 & 41 Gill Lane, Nether The conservation area was enlarged in Yeadon High Fold, 6 and 7, Warm Lane 2006 to more accurately cover the area of (1204364) Grade II special architectural or historic interest. 26 & 24 Gill Lane, Nether Yeadon
The Old Rawdon Manse, Ap- Symcroft, Gill Lane, Nether perley Lane (1135626) Grade Boston Spa / ThorpYeadon, Arch II
CONSERVATION AREAAll of APPRAISALthe above buildings add The Positive Buildings area: greatly to the character of the The Barn Cottage, Apperley Lane, Nether Yeadon Conservation Area Nether Yeadon, September 2009 and should be preserved
Brooklands, Apperley Lane, Nether Yeadon, 158 of 199 with stone “slates”, while later buildings settlement. Such expanses of Character Analysis use dark Welsh slate. Clay roof tiles are agricultural land help isolate and very rarely used, and synthetic roofing therefore define the character of the Built Environment materials are not in keeping with the Conservation Area and preserve its conservation area. special architectural and historic The building fabric in interest. Views into and across such Nether Yeadon/Henshaw exhibits all the Streetscape and public realm open spaces are important and provide architectural characteristics of a typical a visual link between these well spaced West Yorkshire village. Buildings are The streetscape of Nether Yeadon collections of buildings. In Henshaw, mostly domestic or agricultural in maintains its rural quality with modest gardens provide the historical continuity function and two storey in height. footpaths, hedges or stone walls. There of the area and views through and Many buildings however date from the are few traditional paving materials along Gill Lane, around Greenside Farm 17th or 18th century and therefore have Mullion and drip mould remaining apart from lower down Gill and into fields around and beyond are a more interesting architectural history characteristic of the 17/18th century Lane where the stones of an original distinctive of the area. The view from than other domestic buildings in the packhorse trail still remain but these are Gill Lane alongside the Low Hall vicinity. These include mullioned located within the Bradford district. northern boundary is an attractive windows with drip moulds above, Most streets are tarmac with few areas space and contributes significantly to ornate doorways, low eaves lines and of original paving left. the rural character of the area. some high status building features such as ornate chimneys and doorways. Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by JosephHistoric Bosomyboundary walls are gritstone or sandstone with coping stones, and Materials provide attractive settings for several buildings within the area. Gateposts The predominant building material in W o o l l e n are also important to retain and add the Conservation Area is local sandstone interest to the built environment. and Yorkshire gritstone, locally quarried Characteristic stone slate roof. And possibly from quarries near Little ornate chimney. The boundary wall to the front of London, which had greater seams of Ghyllroyd and the gates of Low Hall are The defining greenscape and sense sandstone. Large, regular blocks are the very important, as are the surviving dry of place created by the delicate re- norm, evenly coursed and pointed in a stone and field boundary walls where lationship between clusters of light brown or grey lime mortar. they survive. buildings and open, Green Belt landscape. Below: The important Window lintels, sills and mullions are In several places ancient hedgerows view off Gill Lane looking north. predominantly monolithic gritstone or remain on the banks of historic sunken sandstone and are sometimes lanes and these landscape elements decorated. The retention of surviving contribute to the character of the area. stone mullions is to be encouraged, as they are an important contributor to the Greenscape character of the area. Timber window High Fold. Almost a village in its frames are traditionally painted white The area is characterised by its own right reflecting the self suffi- throughout the conservation area. Roofs relationship to the agricultural and older Temple Mill, Marshall Street. ciency of migrant workers that of early buildings are generally covered landscape that surrounds the 1842 by Joseph Bosomy would have lived here in the past.
159 of 199 obvious and maintains a relatively rare Character Analysis collection of 17th and 18th century farms and other buildings important to Character Areas the history of the Yeadon area.
The Nether Yeadon Conservation Area encompasses two distinct, but inter- related communities. Namely Nether Yeadon, whose focus was always to the southern end of the area focussed around Warm Lane and Gill Lane, and Henshaw, which was focussed on the north side of Gill Lane. New Road effectively splits these areas in character terms now and as such the conservation area can be divided into sub-areas known as character areas.
Each area has a different qualities and distinct built forms, generated by the period of its development and the Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy function of the buildings and spaces. A Part of the frontage of what is shared palette of construction materials believed to be part of the 19th and landscape generally unifies both century Henshaw Mill. character areas although to the south the survival of older buildings is more
Map of the Character Areas. Positive buildings shaded in blue.
Properties on Gill Lane. Note the A distinguishing character feature removal of mullions on the right of Character Area 1 are the The old barn at the Listed High winding, ancient lanes of Gill Lane hand property. The view along what is clearly a Temple Mill, Marshall Street. Fold farm complex. and Warm Lane. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy ‘new road’ with the 19th century cottages turning the corner. 160 of 199 Character Analysis Area 1: Nether Yeadon Green
Character area 1—Nether Yeadon Green One of the many views This area encompasses the most showing 18th century buildings distinctive settlement form that defines within their established and the Conservation Area and is designated managed landscape setting. as Green Belt. It represents the historic birthplace of mill-based industry within the Yeadon area and, through its built The reason why development halted is form, preservation and special likely economic as the mills, that once characteristics, tells the story of early served the population on a local scale, rural industrialisation that later ceased were superseded by the large heavy and left the area almost ‘preserved in industry of Yeadon and Guiseley. The aspic’ as heavy industrial development Templearea is now Mill, focussed Marshall upon Street. notable 1842 and by Joseph Bosomy and mass urbanisation moved highly distinctive groups of buildings elsewhere. within their rural/semi rural settings. The open spaces that surround these The result is an almost intact 18th and built forms still act to isolate them and early 19th century settlement whose maintain a strong sense of place. character was the precursor to the later development of several other Key characteristics: settlements within the Rawdon and Yeadon areas. The 17th century Characteristic triangular open space Mainly 17th and early 18th century Retention of characteristic built form farmsteads, country lanes, modest rows possibly related to the pre enclosure built form with some later buildings within clear plots and landscaping. of early terraces and the open spaces Nether Yeadon Green that forms the providing a modest evolution of Retention of stone slate roofs and are all what would have been found core identity of the village. buildings and use. chimneys, original windows, mullions within places like Rawdon Little London Sense of enclosure through and Little Moor, prior to the and drip moulds amongst other boundary walls, field boundaries, construction of mass workers’ housing Key ways to retain character: architectural features. hedgerows and landscaping. in the mid to late 19th century. They Retention of positive active frontage Isolated groups of buildings and also represent an urban form that Manage development to maintain and low walls to open spaces. In would have been recognisable to much farmsteads that sit comfortably the overriding landscape setting of particular to the front of Ghyllroyd. within their landscape setting. earlier generations and as such this the area. Management of trees and new Coursed sandstone and gritstone delicate balance of urban and rural is Use of (local) materials as planting to ensure tree coverage in veryTemple important. Mill, Marshall Street. with roof slate the predominant predominant construction material the future. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy building materials 161 of 199 Character Analysis
Character area 1—Nether Yeadon Green images
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
Images of Character Area 1 showing the overriding character, details and distinc- Temple Mill, Marshall Street. tiveness. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
162 of 199 Character Analysis Area 2: Henshaw
Character area 2—Lower Henshaw
There is a clear character change when crossing New Road into the area that we now define as Henshaw, but The higher density and tighter historically these two areas were urban grain is obvious in interrelated and once both shared the Henshaw, but the origins of the outlook onto Nether Yeadon Green. area are related to character area 1. Gill Lane continues from area 1 but becomes immediately more urban as buildings increase and began to cluster Henshaw also had its own mill that around the new turnpike road in the dated to the early 19th century, part of 19th century. The character of which can still be found on Henshaw Henshaw is therefore very much that of Lane. The evolution continued however other settlements in the area that have Templeas later Mill, 19th Marshall century Street. terraces 1842 and by Joseph Bosomy developed from rural landscape to a cottages filled in some of the gaps. The higher density urban form characteristic corner buildings of 12-14 New Road and of a working West Riding mill village. 102-108 Henshaw Lane are highly distinctive and represent the change of The quality of the buildings, although fortune that the new road and local mainly domestic and often later than economy brought. area 1, do have synergies with St John’s Church tucked away Although there are some examples character area 1 and the evolution of Finally St John’s church was built on land owned by the Barwick/Marshalls around the backs of properties but of render this is generally a much the area can be ‘read’ through its built later characteristic. form. and created the first church in this area occupying higher ground. that served (and interred) many notable The remnants of Nether Yeadon Retention of built form that relates The Woolpack Inn, before the building families from both sides of the road. Green reflected in the street pattern to historic streets and older, of the New Road turnpike, fronted onto and protected trees between Gill ingrained field boundaries. what was part of Nether Yeadon Green. Key characteristics: Lane, Henshaw Lane and New Road. Retention of original features such The orientation of the pub still reflects A diverse mix of uses and local as windows, shopfronts and other this and the open space associated with Tighter groups of buildings built services that create a vibrancy and architectural detailing. the green remained undeveloped until around the old street pattern of Gill sense of community. Retention of positive active frontage very recently. Lane and Henshaw Lane with some and mix of uses. later buildings changing orientation Key ways to retain character: Management of trees and new The cottages of 20 –28 New Road are to focus on New Road. planting to ensure tree coverage in alsoTemple highly Mill, reflective Marshall of Street. the rows of Use of (local) materials as the future. cottages1842 by to Joseph be found Bosomy in parts of area 1. predominant construction material. 163 of 199 Character Analysis
Character area 2 — Henshaw Images
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
Images of Character Area 2 showing the overriding character, details and distinc- Temple Mill, Marshall Street. tiveness. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 164 of 199 21st century and addressing Protect surviving historic Tree management Management Plan contemporary issues such as architectural forms sustainability and climate change. Conservation area designation affords Although generally well preserved, there some degree of protection to mature O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Successful new development in historic has been some incremental loss of trees. areas should: traditional architectural detailing in the management and conservation area. Replacement of Mature trees make a great contribution enhancement Relate well to the geography and windows, doors and roofing materials to the character of the conservation history of the place and the lie of the with inappropriate materials and area and contribute significantly to the Nether Yeadon is a unique and land designs is a negative feature that special character and open spaces of attractive place. However, there are Sit happily in the pattern of existing affects individual buildings and the Nether Yeadon. wider streetscape. This cumulative threats that can affect this special development and routes through and change is particularly noticeable in older Action: character. Addressing these issues around it offers the opportunity to enhance the buildings and in some terraced rows, In order to retain the character of Respect important views and open where the original uniformity has been existing trees, any mature trees conservation area. Positive spaces. conservation management will ensure weakened. Retention of stone window lost to age, damage or disease Respect the scale of neighbouring t h e o n g o i n g mullions is particularly important in should be replaced to retain the and positive buildings protection of the retaining the historic character of the completeness and character of the area’s special Respect historic boundary walls and area. landscaping in the longer term. retain historic hedgerows and Opportunities should be taken to character for future Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy generations. gardens Action: plant new trees when possible and Use materials and building methods Surviving historic features should a strategy to ensure new trees of To be successful, which are as high in quality as those be retained and sympathetically all ages are retained should be any future used in existing buildings repaired in the first instance. prepared to ensure that continuity of trees continue into the future. development within Create new views and juxtapositions the conservation which add to the variety and texture area needs to be of their setting. mindful of the local Use appropriate construction character whilst at techniques that enhance and do not the same time being distinctly of the harm historic buildings (i.e lime instead of cement pointing)
Action: New development must be based upon thorough analysis and respond sensitively and creatively to the local historic environment. The loss of mullions and insertion of UPVC causes a cumulative adverse impact in the historic Temple Mill, Marshall Street. environment and causes a loss of 1842 by Joseph Bosomy character. 165 of 199 the Historic Environment Record Protection of Country Lanes Green Belt Examples of and have regard to the potential for archaeological finds. The character of Gill Lane and Warm Much of the Conservation Area is opportunities for Lane in Character Area 1 are highly ‘washed over’ as designated Green Belt. enhancement of the Agricultural Landscape distinctive and any interventions to This designation offers substantial create accesses or widening should be protection for the open landscape that conservation area The relationship between agricultural very carefully designed or resisted defines and contributes to the character landscape and the farms and buildings where not absolutely necessary. of the Conservation Area. Protect archaeological remains of Nether Yeadon is a defining Development within the Green Belt will characteristic. Field boundaries, ancient Action: therefore need to meet the tests and Nether Yeadon likely harbours some hedgerows and trees all contribute to Minimise interventions that could requirements under the relevant evidence related to the early industry this landscape. However the land is still harm the character of the rural planning policies and the NPPF. of the Yeadon area. As such there is a productive resource and as such the lanes around Gill Lane and Warm scope for archaeological remains agricultural economy will dictate certain Lane. Vehicular access splays, especially along the line of Yeadon Gill. aspects of land management. widening or footpath Actions: Relevant policies for There is also archaeology both below enhancements could harm the development within the Green Belt ground and within existing structures Action: special character and a balance should be applied and responded that may inform the archaeological Encourage the rebuilding of dry between practicality, safety, to in order to protect the openness record. Development, which may stone field boundary walls whilst necessity and sensitive design and character of the Green Belt. disturb archaeological remains, may enabling the agricultural economy needs to be found to avoid such Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy require a watching brief to ensure the to be sustained. Ensure domestic harm. preservation of archaeological finds. boundary treatments also respect this and trees and green spaces are Action: protected or replanted where Development which involves below possible. -ground excavation must consult
The majority of the Conservation Area is within the Green belt and therefore the requirements of The character of Gill Lane and The 17th century roof forms now Little Moor Park area the core of development in the Green Belt Warm Lane could be seriously hidden within encased stone the village. Note the appropriate will need to meet the relevant harmed by ill thought out new planning policy as well as the Templestructures Mill, are Marshall extremely Street. valuable black coated street light. access or widening. guidance within this document. 1842to the by archaeological Joseph Bosomy record. 166 of 199 redevelopment of the former gasworks the relevant Green Belt policy, see Examples of site on Gill Lane. This development above. Any development in or around Nether attempts to recognise some elements of Yeadon which may affect the setting of opportunities for character but still fails to pick up on the Action: the conservation area, should have enhancement of the important elements of form, space and Any development proposing the regard to views into and out of the design that are so important to the infill of a site, or the subdivision of area, the setting of positive and listed conservation area character of the Conservation Area. a plot, should respond to the scale, buildings and the character of the Other infill has eroded the setting of massing, hierarchy, materials, landscape and spaces that contribute Street lighting some historic farmhouses, especially layout and setting of positive positively to the character of the area. around Apperley Lane where once elements within the Conservation Appropriate design and materials should Street lighting within the Conservation isolated farmhouses are now Area as well as the special be used in development adjacent to the Area should conform to the Council’s surrounded by infill housing that erodes considerations within Green Belt conservation area and any development PFI contract where lampposts and their dominance. The amount of policy. should be based upon thorough signage are powder coated black. development alongside New Road also contextual analysis and respond Street lighting should be unobtrusive erodes the wider setting of the appropriately to context. and minimise its visual impact. Conservation Area. Development affecting the setting Action: Action: Intensification of development which of the Conservation Area The impact of development on the Any forthcoming proposed street disrupts the character of the character and appearance of the lighting should respect the historic conservation area should be resisted. The majority of the Conservation Area is conservation area should be Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy streetscape. The scale, massing, details and within Green Belt and therefore much considered. This applies equally to proportion of buildings as well as the development in or around the area will development outside the Paving and surfacing spaces between them are important in need to demonstrate that it conforms to conservation area if it is likely to retaining the character of the the relevant Planning policy. affect its setting. Development There are few remnants of historic conservation area. Where appropriate It is also very important that adjacent to the area will need to be paving or streetscape within the development should also have regard to development around the conservation of the highest quality and design. Conservation Area but boundary walls, area does not harm its wider setting. open spaces and the orientation of buildings all contribute to creating a positive experience to the pedestrian and visitor.
Action: Retain and enhance historic paving where remaining and consider materials palate for any future work within the public realm.
New buildings in the conservation Infill development The Pennythorn infill development The open landscape and long area should respond to the to the former Gasworks site. views contribute to the The most obvious infill development in Could this be anywhere? context of the site like the Temple Mill, Marshall Street. character of the conservation recent years has been the example above. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy area. 167 of 199 Examples of Some ways in which development can Top: A sketch model of be successfully integrated are shown on an existing scheme in opportunities for the following pages. New housing Leeds where the development does work within historic hierarchy of buildings, enhancement of the and sensitive areas where the housing sense of enclosure and is based upon local character in terms response to context is conservation area of vernacular or local forms, materials exemplified. Centre: and details. Often such houses are ‘non photo of the above standard’ housetypes but sometimes, scheme as built. Bottom: New Development with some thought, standard houstypes the development at can be modified to integrate well. Pennythorn drive in One of the main risks to the character Nether Yeadon that and appearance of the Conservation Modern forms are not to be precluded does not fulfil its Area is the potential for further housing from historic areas but proportions, potential despite using development within the immediate area. materials, forms and details are equally good materials. Such development can represent an as important. opportunity and can be economically Landscape and Highways and socially beneficial as long as it is Our historic environment has always sited, designed and functions developed gradually as and when the Green infrastructure and the retention appropriately. If such development fails need arose and a phased approach to of mature trees and green spaces also Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy in this respect however it can seriously development should be considered. contribute significantly to enabling harm the special character that we development to succeed, as does the value. Therefore all new development Traditionally development was investment in highway quality. Within should have a regard to the advice integrated through the use of simple Nether Yeadon there is a delicate within this guide and endeavour to forms that are similar to what already balance between the open spaces and integrate and become part of the exists. In Leeds there are some buildings and new development should overriding character of the conservation successful examples of new respect these spatial attributes. Screen area. developments where such an approach planting has its place but the loss of has been undertaken. These open aspects and landscape settings Design Guidance developments, although often modest in that buildings sit within are difficult to numbers, use the existing forms as mitigate in this way. However keeping Good design will be key to any new inspiration and the result is a collection open spaces, vistas and retaining development and should be based upon of new buildings that blend with the mature trees around and within a thorough and robust analysis of the overriding character but are still of their developments will enable the character character of the Conservation Area. time. to be better retained. Important green Highway visibility splays should be Often the historic environment can spaces within the Conservation Area minimised or sensitively designed in provide inspiration and solutions for When development is within or adjacent should be left free from development. cooperation with relevant officers. new development that integrates it well, to the Conservation Area this approach Often the ‘standard’ highway approach and this takes time and effort in order should be considered at the very least. Such initiatives as minimal highway to visibility splays will harm the historic to succeed. Such effort is however Such an approach can provide a ‘buffer’ widths, quality surface materials, environment and extra thought should necessary if development is to be between the historic environment and minimal signage or shared/simplified be given to how such developments can Temple Mill, Marshall Street. successful. other housetypes. streetscenes (where streets become be mitigated through sensitive design. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy more informal) should also be pursued. 168 of 199 lanes of Gill Lane or Warm Lane Examples of is especially sensitive. opportunities for Stone walls should provide the enhancement of the dominant primary boundary treatment for new development. conservation area Rumble strips of York stone Development within or affecting the should be used on highway setting of the Nether Yeadon access and around focal points. Conservation Area should: Shared space areas should be of a high quality finish. Be based upon a thorough analysis and understanding of the Private in curtilage car parking to character, evolution and be discreet and non dominant appearance of the Conservation within the streetscene. Area. Mature landscape, historic walls, New Buildings should respond trees and hedges should be well in terms of form, scale, retained and managed with new Top: Above view of a materials and details to the Templetree Mill, planting Marshall conformingStreet. 1842 to by Joseph Bosomy positive buildings within the guidance on distance to trees. development that responds to vicinity. context and creates a successful Open spaces are important to the development within a Modern architectural design is not character of the Conservation Conservation Area. Right: The unreasonable within the Area and the setting of buildings same development based upon Conservation Area but should be should be respected by leaving existing forms, scale and materials contextual and based upon a space around them (spaces within the Conservation Area. and character analysis of proportion, should be managed through Bottom: a sketch scheme relating detail and materiality that can be appropriate management forms to character . found within the locality. agreements).
Dominant materials include York Views and vistas identified within stone and gritstone, stone slate the Conservation Area Appraisal or natural slate roofs and timber should be respected and windows. (see page 14) enhanced.
Highway infrastructure should be All new development should have sensitively designed so that it a regard to wider urban design preserves or enhances the guidance to be found within character of the Conservation Leeds City Council’s TempleArea. Mill, Any Marshall access Street. from the rural “Neighbourhoods for Living” Supplementary Planning 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 169 of 199 Document. Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Joseph Bosomy
170 of 199 References Leeds City Council, 2006, Leeds Unitary Victorian Society (West Yorkshire Group), Claremont, 23 Clarendon Road Leeds LS2 9NZ Copyright Development Plan (Review 2006), Vol (postal address only) Publications: 1:Written Statement, Vol 2: Appendices West Yorkshire Archaeology Service, Newstead Road, Wakefield WF1 2DE Tel 01924 The maps are based on Ordnance Humphries, J. Yeadon Enclosure Map sources 306810 email: [email protected] website: Survey material with the permission of Award Map. 1806 1807— Yeadon Enclosure Award www.arch.wyjs.org.uk the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Palliser, James, H. Rawdon and 1850 – Ordnance Survey 1:10, 000 West Yorkshire Archive Service, Chapeltown Road, Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery its History. 1914 1892 – Ordnance Survey 1: 2,500 Sheepscar, Leeds LS7 3AP. Tel 0113 214 5814 Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised 1893 – Ordnance Survey 1:10, 000 email: [email protected] website: Pickering, Oliver. The Yorkshire www.archives.wyjs.org.uk reproduction infringes Crown copyright Puritan Ancestry of Bishop 1908 – Ordnance Survey 1: 2,500 and may lead to prosecution and/or civil Jeremy Collier. Wordpress. 2013 1938 – Ordnance Survey 1:10, 000 Acknowledgements proceedings. The map data, derived Price. Roy. A History of Yeadon. 1956 – Ordnance Survey 1:10, 000 from Ordnance Survey mapping, 1980 Internet sources included within this publication is provided by Leeds City Council under Giles, C. Rural Houses of West The preparation of this report was made Access to archives - www.a2a.org.uk licence from the Ordnance Survey in Yorkshire 1400-1830 London possible through funding by the Well- order to fulfil its public function to 1986 English Heritage Images of England, Being Fund of the Outer North West publicise local public services. Leeds Giles, C & Goodall, I.H. Yorkshire listed building photographs and Area Committee of Leeds City Council with the support of the local Ward City Council Licence No. (100019567) Textile Mills. HMSO London 1992. descriptions - www.imagesofengland.org.uk Members and the support and 2015. Pevsner,N. West Riding of Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by Josephendeavours Bosomy of the Nether Yeadon © Leeds City Council 2015 Historic Ordnance Survey maps - Yorkshire,, London 1974 residents. RCHME. Rural Houses of West www.old-maps.co.uk West Yorkshire Archive Service and Yorkshire, 1400—1830. HMSO, Leeds City Council online historic West Yorkshire Archaeological Advisory London 1989. photograph archive - www.leodis.net Service. Wilcock, D.C. A History of Secret Leeds - www.secretleeds.com Rawdon. 2000. Local guidance during the preparation of the appraisal was provided by the Policy and strategy documents Sources of further local Ward Members and local residents to whom grateful thanks are given. National Planning Policy Framework information 2012. HMSO Many thanks to Mr Nigel Wilson who submitted extra historical information Cabe and English Heritage, 2001, that proved useful to this appraisal. Building in context Central Library (Local & Family History Section), The Headrow, Leeds LS1. Tel 0113 247 8290 Understanding Place: Conservation email: [email protected] website: www.leeds.gov.uk/library Area Designation, Appraisal and Leeds Civic Trust, Leeds Heritage & Design Management. HMSO 2010 Centre, 17-19 Wharf Street, Leeds LS2 7EQ Tel: 0113 243 9594 Department of Culture, Media and Email: [email protected] website: Sport, 2007, Heritage Protection for the www.leedscivictrust.org.uk Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 21st century 1842 by Joseph Bosomy 171 of 199 Finding Out More Generally, higher standards of should not be taken to imply that it is of Posters were placed around the design apply for new buildings and no interest. conservation area directing residents alterations to existing ones. Planning policy context towards the information on-line and the public meeting which took place Change is inevitable in most What is a conservation area? This appraisal should be read in on at conservation areas and it is not the conjunction with the wider national, Press releases were distributed. A conservation area is ‘an area of intention of the designation to prevent regional and local planning policy and special architectural or historic interest the continued evolution of places. The guidance. Relevant documents include: A public meeting at St John’s Church the character or appearance of which it challenge within conservation areas is in Henshaw. is desirable to preserve or enhance’. to manage change in a way that Planning (Listed Buildings and A presentation and supplementary Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings maintains, reinforces and enhances the Conservation Areas) Act 1990 public meeting with the Aireborough and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. special qualities of the area. Leeds City Council, Unitary Civic Society. Development Plan Review 2006, What does conservation area What is the purpose of this particularly Chapter 5 Environment status mean? appraisal? and Appendices A3 Building Design, The consultation responses were Conservation and Landscape Design evaluated and, where appropriate, the Conservation area status provides the This appraisal provides the basis for and A4 Archaeological Policies appraisal was amended in light of opportunity to promote the protection making informed, sustainable decisions comments received. The open panel and enhancement of the special in the positive management, protection Leeds City Council, Core Strategy report to Planning Board sets out the character of the defined area. and enhancement of the conservation 2014. comments received and the actions Designation confers a general control area. Temple Mill, Marshall Street. 1842 by JosephCommunity Bosomy involvement and taken as a result. This appraisal was over development that could damage It provides a clear understanding of the adoption formally adopted following approval at the area’s character. The details are special interest of Little Moor by: the Planning Board meeting of 21st complex but can be summarised as: A draft version of this appraisal went April, 2015 and will become operational assessing how the settlement has through a public consultation process, as non statutory planning guidance Most demolition requires permission developed between 26th January 2015 and the 9th and will be resisted if the building March, 2015. from the 1st July, 2015. It is a material analysing its present day character makes a positive contribution to the consideration within the planning and process. area. I d e nti fied stakeholders and identifying opportunities for Some minor works to houses is no interested parties being notified. enhancement longer "permitted development" and Direct mailing to all properties within This document is available to view will require planning permission. This appraisal follows the current the proposed boundary of the and download on the Council’s Examples are rear dormer windows, guidance set out by English Heritage in conservation area. website - www.leeds.gov.uk/ external cladding and most satellite the 2010 publication: “Understanding The appraisal and response form conservation dishes on front elevations. Place: Conservation Area Designation, being made available through the Appraisal and Management”. HMSO Advertisement controls are tighter. Council’s website. 2010 Most work to trees has to be notified Information in Rawdon Community to the Council who has six weeks in The appraisal is not intended to be Library. which to decide to impose comprehensive and the omission of any restrictions. particular building, feature or space
Temple Mill, Marshall Street. Adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, 1st July, 2015 by Conservation Team, Sustainable Development Unit, Leeds City 1842 by Joseph Bosomy Council, The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street, Leeds LS2 8HD 172 of 199
Appendix 7 – HS2 Proposals HG2-179 ¯
173 of 199
Appendix 7 – HS2 Proposals HG2-179 ¯
174 of 199 Appendix 8
Report author: S Pentelow Tel: 24 74792
Report of the Head of Governance Services and Scrutiny Support
Report to Scrutiny Board (City Development)
Date: 21 December 2016
Subject: Leeds Site Allocations Plan – Budget and Policy Framework
Are specific electoral Wards affected? Yes No If relevant, name(s) of Ward(s):
Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and Yes No integration?
Is the decision eligible for Call-In? Yes No
Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? Yes No If relevant, Access to Information Procedure Rule number: Appendix number:
1 Purpose of this report
1.1 The purpose of this report is advise the Scrutiny Board about the Budget and Policy Framework and how this relates to the Leeds Site Allocations Plan.
2 Main Issues
2.1 The matter of the Leeds Site Allocations Plan requires Scrutiny consideration. This process is in accordance with the council’s Budget and Policy Framework (Article 4 of the council’s Constitution) and the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules (Part 4e Rules of Procedure) which identifies specific plans and strategies which will be referred to Scrutiny for consideration and advice.
2.2 The purpose of Scrutiny is not to duplicate the work commissioned by the Executive Board, the role of the Development Plans Panel or the role of the Planning Inspector, but to consider the information provided and the process so far, making comments or providing advice/recommendations as deemed appropriate to inform the process further when it is submitted to the Executive Board in February 2017.
2.3 To support this process the Scrutiny Board is provided with a report from the Director of City Development and appended supporting information, including the draft Site Allocations Plan.
175 of 199 3. Recommendations
3.1 Members are asked to:
a) Note the advice provided in this report
4. Background papers1
None
1 The background documents listed in this section are available to download from the Council’s website, unless they contain confidential or exempt information. The list of background documents does not include published works.
176 of 199 Report authors: David Feeney (0113 378 7660), Lois Pickering (0113 378 7649) Martin Elliot (0113 378 7634)
Report of the Director of City Development
Report to Scrutiny Board (City Development)
Date: 21st December 2016
Subject: Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP)
Are specific electoral Wards affected? Yes No If relevant, name(s) of Ward(s): All
Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and Yes No integration?
Is the decision eligible for Call-In? Yes No
Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? Yes No If relevant, Access to Information Procedure Rule number: Appendix number:
Summary of main issues
1. The Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) forms part of the Local Plan for Leeds (also known as the Local Development Framework (LDF)). The scope of the SAP was approved by Executive Board on 16th May 2012, to provide site allocations for Housing, Employment Green Space and Retail. These requirements are set within the context of the Leeds Core Strategy, which was adopted by the City Council on 14th November 2014.
2. The SAP has been prepared in accordance with the LDF Regulations (specifically, the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012). This has entailed three separate rounds of public consultation: Issues and Options (2013), Publication draft (2015) and revised Publication draft proposals for Outer North East (2016). It is also intended to advertise a set of consolidated Pre- submission Changes to the Plan (in February 2017), subject to consideration by Executive Board, prior to the formal submission of the Plan for independent examination in April. The Plan is now therefore at an advanced stage and it is crucial that the City Council maintains the momentum behind the process, in order to satisfy Central Government objectives to secure full Development Plan coverage across the country by 2017, to provide certainty for communities and investment decisions and to ensure that Leeds has a sufficiency of land supply to meet the Core Strategy and Best Council Plan requirements.
177 of 199 3. Whilst securing opportunities to meet housing need, promoting job growth through the identification of employment sites and the protection of Green Space, the preparation of the SAP has been a challenging and complex process for the Council (including ward members), local communities and stakeholders. In helping to oversee this process, the Development Plan Panel has performed a crucial role in providing an initial oversight regarding the scope of the Plan, the identification of emerging allocations (and rejected sites) to derive site Issues and Options, the preparation of a Publication draft and via the consideration of Pre-submission changes to the Publication Plan, in response to issues raised via the Publication draft consultation process. The evolution and preparation of the Plan, has been underpinned also by the preparation of a comprehensive evidence base and technical information in support of its proposals. This has entailed considerable cross service and corporate working across the City Council and with external agencies and stakeholders.
4. Notwithstanding the stages of public consultation described above and the preparation of pre-submission changes, a number of matters raised by representors are outstanding and will therefore need to be addressed via the examination process. These include, challenges to the City Council’s evidence base (such as the scope of the Green Belt Review) and objections to the inclusion of particular sites (by some local residents concerned about local impacts, or by landowners/developers who are promoting alternative sites). These matters and their merits will therefore need to be considered on an HMCA and site specific basis through the examination process. It is not therefore appropriate at this stage, through Scrutiny to consider the merits of individual sites or to rehearse the Council’s detailed position prior to examination.
5. The Plan is now at a very advanced stage and it should be emphasised, that once the SAP has been formally submitted for Examination, the City Council will have no power to formally withdraw the document, without the consent of the Secretary of State (Section 22 (2) Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004). Moreover any required modifications at this time will be recommended by the Planning Inspector via the examination process.
Recommendations
Scrutiny Board are Recommended to:
i) consider the proposals that are to be referred to the Executive Board ii) report any deliberations and conclusions to the Executive Board
178 of 199 1.0 Purpose of this Report
1.1 This report provides an overview regarding the scope and preparation of the Site Allocations Plan (SAP). The SAP is now at an advanced stage, having been through three stages of public consultation (the most recent of which has resulted in a set of proposed pre submission changes, subject to Executive Board approval) and due to be advertised for comment in February 2017). The Development Plan Panel has provided oversight of the plan making process since 2012. The Development Plan Panel has made recommendations at all the plan making stages, which have subsequently been endorsed by the City Council’s Executive Board (except for Outer North East – see paragraph 1.3 below).
1.2 The Publication Draft SAP documents run to nearly 1,000 pages. The Publication Draft SAP (over 600 pages) comprises several individual sections. Sections 1 and 2 are the introduction and overview of the Plan and are attached as Appendix 2. Section 3 covers the eleven individual Housing Market Characteristic Areas (HMCAs). These are available to view on-line at the link below:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Site-allocations-plan-publication.aspx
A Non-Technical Summary of the Sustainability Appraisal is also attached as Appendix 2a. The full Sustainability Appraisal (running to over 300 pages) is available on-line from the link below:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/SiteAllocationMaps/SAP%20and%20AVL%20Documents/1 4%20Site%20Allocations%20Plan%20Publication%20Stage%20SA%20Report%20 Sept%202015%20Final.pdf
Members should note that Publication Draft Revised proposals for Outer North East (2016), are available separately. The revised Section 3 individual HMCA chapter is available from the link below:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/SiteAllocationMaps/SAP%20ONE%20Revised%20Publicati on%20Draft/Revised%20Publication%20Draft%20(Section%203%20Area%20Prop osals)%206.%20Outer%20North%20East.pdf
A Sustainability Appraisal Addendum for Outer North East is available from the link below:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/SiteAllocationMaps/SAP%20ONE%20Revised%20Publicati on%20Draft/Sustainability%20Appraisal%20Addendum- %20SAP%20Revised%20PD%20ONE.pdf
1.3 Development Plan Panel agreed Pre-Submission changes to the Publication Site Allocations Plan for the approval of Executive Board (February 2017) during June and July 2016. A summary of these changes is attached as Appendix 3, which reports on changes agreed by Development Plan Panel on 14th and 28th June and 19th July 2016 relating to the Publication Draft Plan 2015 Sections 1, 2 and 3 (excluding Chapter 6 for the Outer North East) and the Sustainability Appraisal.
179 of 199 1.4 Development Plan Panel will consider Pre-Submission changes arising from the recent consultation on Revised Publication Site Allocations Plan for Outer North East, for the approval of Executive Board (February 2017) at their meeting on January 10th 2017. A summary of these changes will be made available for reference at the Scrutiny Board meeting. In addition Development Plan Panel will also consider further consequential changes and updates to the remainder of the Plan at the same meeting. These will also be made available for reference at the Scrutiny Board meeting.
1.5 Scrutiny should note that the Pre-Submission Changes comprise: detailed technical changes to sites e.g. site requirements, planning status, capacities and boundaries in response to representations received and updating new and deleted sites following consultation.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 The key stages in the preparation of the SAP have been as follows:
1. Scope of the SAP (Agreed by Executive Board, 16th May 2012), 2. Issues & Options Public Consultation (3rd June – 29th July 2013) (Agreed by Executive Board, 9th May 2013), 3. Publication Draft Consultation (22nd September – 16th November 2015) (Agreed by Executive Board, 15th July 2015), 4. Publication Draft, Revised Proposals for Outer North East (26th September – 7th November 2016) (Agreed by Executive Board, 21st September 2016), 5. Pre-submission Changes (Advertised for comment, anticipated February 2017), 6. Plan submission to the Secretary of State (anticipated April 2017, following Full Council approval).
2.2 Initial work on the SAP and the scoping report to Executive Board, coincided with the preparation of the Core Strategy, which in May 2012 was at an advanced stage and subsequently submitted for independent examination in April 2013. The purpose of this overlap, was to ensure that the SAP could quickly follow on from the adoption of the Core Strategy (November 2014), to ensure that site allocations could be put in place as quickly as possible, as a basis to meet the requirements of the Core Strategy and to ensure that Leeds MD has the benefit of an up to date development plan in place, for local decision making and compliance with national planning guidance (the National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF).
2.3 The preparation of a statutory Development Plan is a challenging process. In a District the size and complexity of Leeds MD, this is compounded. In addition, the ‘plan-led’ system must be underpinned by a robust evidence base, meet a series of legal requirements (including the preparation of a Sustainability Appraisal reflecting the requirements of the Directive and Regulations governing Strategic Environmental Assessment of plans and programmes, Habitats Regulation Screening Assessment and the Duty to Cooperate) and incorporate key stages of public consultation. Consequently, the preparation of the SAP (and the preparation of Development Plan Documents more generally in Leeds), is a highly resource intensive and technically complex process.
180 of 199 2.4 Public consultation and engagement are integral aspects in the evolution and preparation of the Plan. Central to this approach also is the need for a robust and comprehensive evidence base. Consequently, the preparation of the SAP is underpinned by a series of Background Papers. In turn, these address a range of technical and evidential issues and provide further explanation and clarity on the approach taken and conclusions drawn. These include issues in relation to Housing including the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies and Travellers, Employment, Green Belt Review, managing Flood Risk, Nature Conservation, the Duty to Co- operate, Retail and Infrastructure. These are available to view on the Council’s web-site from the link below:
For the Publication Stage Draft Site Allocations Plan
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Site-allocations-plan-publication.aspx
Addendums for the Revised Publication Stage Draft Plan for the Outer North East
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Site-Allocations-Plan-Revised-Publication- Draft-Outer-North-East.aspx
3.0 Main Issues
Leeds Core Strategy & Site Allocations Plan 3.1 Following reforms to the Planning system, the Local Development Framework (LDF), was introduced via national legislating in 2004. A key dimension of the ‘new’ system was to promote flexibility in the preparation of Development Plans. In 2008, following further changes to national planning guidance, local authorities were urged to focus on Core Strategies, as lead documents to set out spatial priorities for regeneration and growth (as part of a wider vision for the ‘place making’ and ‘place shaping’ of an area). Central to this approach, was the imperative to identify housing and employment requirements for the plan-period, together with addressing economic, environment and social issues via appropriate planning Policies.
3.2 In terms of the Leeds context, following the conclusion of the UDP Review process (adopted in 2006), initial work was undertaken under the LDF, on a series of Area Action Plans (to help deliver regeneration and growth priorities), with work commencing on the Core Strategy in tandem with the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Within this overall planning context, the RSS set a housing requirement for the Yorkshire & Humber Region, apportioned to each local authority District. Within this framework and following the ultimate revocation of the RSS, evidence base work was undertaken in Leeds through a range of technical studies including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), together with an Employment Land Review (ELR), to inform the overall housing and employment land requirements for Leeds for the plan period 2012-2028.
3.3 Within this overall strategic planning context and in reflecting the flexible approach advocated under the LDF, the Local Development Scheme (LDS) for Leeds (i.e. the programme and timetable of development plan documents to be prepared by a local authority), Executive Board approved the preparation of the Core Strategy (with
181 of 199 allocation Plans to follow on). Initial work on the Core Strategy commenced in 2008, with the Plan finally Adopted by the City Council on 14th November 2014.
3.4 Consistent with this approach, as part of an overall Spatial Development Strategy, the Core Strategy sets out a series of Strategic and Thematic Policies for Housing, Employment Green space and Retail. This includes an overall housing requirement of 70,000 new homes for the plan period (with 66,000 to be delivered via site specific allocations), together with an employment (industrial and warehousing) land requirement of 493ha. Whilst it is for the Core Strategy to set these overall requirements, the key purpose of the SAP is to identify site specific allocations for Housing, Green space and Town & Local Centre boundaries, to meet these policy requirements.
3.5 Within the context of the overall housing requirement for Leeds, the Core Strategy (under Spatial Policy 10), sets out the scope and parameters for a Green Belt Review, to be undertaken via the preparation of allocation Plans. The Policy specifically notes that, “A review of the Green Belt will need to be carried out to accommodate the scale of housing and employment growth identified in Spatial Policy 6 and Spatial Policy 9, as well as an additional contingency to create Protected Areas of Search….”.
3.6 Under this ‘two stage’ approach, the role of the Core Strategy therefore is to set the overall scale and distribution of regeneration and growth across the District, with the SAP and the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan (AVLAAP), identifying site specific allocations to deliver these strategic requirements. Given the scope of the SAP, it is not therefore possible to revisit strategic matters (such as the overall housing requirement), as part of the allocations Plan. As a consequence, such matters need to be addressed via a review of the Core Strategy and related evidence.
3.7 In parallel to the progression of the SAP, Development Plan Panel on 22nd November 2016 has considered the scope of a Selective Review of the Core Strategy. This is a consistent with the approach of the plan-led system, to monitor the effectiveness of the Plan and the evidence base upon which it has been derived. In para. 153, the NPPF states that, “…each local planning authority should produce a Local Plan for its area. This can be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances”. Central to the Council’s considerations, have been revised population projections (which point to lower and slower population growth), since the Core Strategy has been prepared and the implications for these for the overall housing requirement. On this matter Government guidance states that national projections are the starting point for evidence on the identification of objectively assessed needs (OAN) and the focus of a review of these requirements needs to be via a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The purpose of this evidence in deriving OANs, is to take into account a wide range of economic and social factors, as well as demographic projections. At this stage, it is anticipated that initial public consultation on the scope of the review will take place in spring 2017, with a view to the submission of the Plan for examination in winter 2017.
3.8 Since 2012 housebuilding in Leeds has not met the Core Strategy requirement of 3,660 per annum and the Council has recently been adjudged (by the Secretary of
182 of 199 State in his appeal decision on land at Grove Road, Boston Spa, May 2016) not to have a five year housing land supply. This leaves the Council in a difficult position regarding pressure (via planning applications) for the development of sites on an ad hoc basis (including safeguarded land), to ‘remedy’ the five year land supply position. As part of a plan-led approach, a means of strengthening the land supply position is to ensure that the District has up to date allocations plans in place. Within this context the AVLAAP was submitted for independent examination in September 2017 and as outlined in paragraph 2.1 above, the SAP is now at an advanced stage. This follows three stages of public consultation and with pre- submission changes to be Advertised in February, subject to Executive Board approval. At this stage, it is anticipated that the SAP will be submitted for independent examination in April 2017, following consideration by full Council.
Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) & Forthcoming Public Examination
3.9 The SAP has been in production since 2012 and has followed a rigorous process of briefings with local ward members and consideration via Development Plan Panel (see Appendix 1). Moreover, there have been three formal periods of public consultation, agreed by Executive Board, including specific local events and briefings (see Appendix 1). In the evolution of these proposals, a number of factors have been central to concerns raised by members and the delivery of sites. These include: desire to maximise the use of brownfield/previously developed land in meeting overall requirements, need to ensure a clear and consistent approach to the release of greenfield/Green Belt sites, need to ensure that proposals are supported by the necessary infrastructure (including schools, public transport, managing flood risk and health), need for local site choices need to ensure that allocation proposals take into account local community identity and distinctiveness
3.10 As a consequence, the above considerations have been integral to the preparation of the SAP, through its various stages and the presentation of the individual allocations has been a synthesis of these considerations. Within this context, an important aspect of the SAP is the identification of sites for new schools (in meeting the needs of housing growth identified in the Plan) and the incorporation of “site requirements” for specific allocations, to reflect these issues where relevant. In underpinning and driving this approach, the planning service has worked across City Council services (and with external providers), to facilitate and deliver a ‘joined up’ approach. This has been underpinned also, with a series of background papers, technical work and assessments, which help provide a comprehensive evidence base and a mechanism for identifying the Council’s preferred approach. These documents include: Sustainability Appraisal Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment Individual Site Assessments Background Papers for: Infrastructure (including schools), Housing, Employment, Green space and Retail, Green Belt Review, Flood Risk Sequential Test, Duty to Co-operate, Nature Conservation
183 of 199 3.11 At the heart of the 2004 reforms to the Development Plan system, is the requirement to embed public consultation and engagement, as a key dimension of a ‘front loaded’ iterative plan-making process. The focus of this approach therefore, is to help support the positive role of planning, to facilitate ‘place-shaping’ and ‘place- making’, in partnership with a wide community of interest. Within this context, initial consultation is focussed upon “Issues and Options”, prior to formulating “Publication draft” proposals as part of a sound Plan. In Leeds, representations received at both Issues & Options and Publication draft stages, have therefore informed the SAP for submissions (prior to independent examination). This process has added value in a number of respects. These include: reaffirming or challenging sites for inclusion (and highlighted alternative choices for consideration), which has led to the need for further clarity or the need to strengthen the evidence base and identifying areas where additional site requirements have been able to respond positively to issues raised. The process has therefore resulted in the discounting of alternative approaches and the narrowing down of the matters which will need to be considered through the subsequent public examination. It is inevitable however for an area the size of Leeds Metropolitan District and the scale, complexity and range of interests involved, that objections to the Plan remain. Consequently, the purpose of the public examination by an independent Planning Inspector is to consider the merits of these outstanding representations and their implications or not for the soundness of the Plan.
3.12 Following public consultation on Issues and Options (June – July 2013), further technical work was undertaken on the Plan, with the Publication draft SAP subject to public consultation in September – November 2015. At Publication Stage, a local authority is required to promote a Plan it considers to be “sound”. At this stage, representations were therefore invited on the soundness of the SAP, namely whether or not consultees consider that it is: Positively prepared Justified Effective Consistent with national policy.
3.13 In response to this consultation, the City Council received over 10,000 responses, which related to 45,000 individual representations. A number of these representations are concerned with wider strategic matters or points of principle (such as site phasing or the development of sites currently in the Green Belt), whilst many other relate to issues concerning individual sites. These include comments from local residents expressing concern about the development, representations from site owners/developers promoting the merits of sites for development, together with responses from statutory bodies – including Historic England. As a result of the analysis of all representations received, the City Council has identified a number of areas where issues raised can be addressed and objections resolved either wholly, or in part. In relation to these, the City Council is advocating a series of pre- submission changes (i.e. suggested modifications to the Plan prior to submission) as a basis to tackle issues of soundness.
3.14 Notwithstanding the stages of public consultation described above and the preparation of pre-submission changes, a number of matters raised by representors
184 of 199 are outstanding and will therefore need to be addressed via the examination process. These include, challenges to the City Council’s evidence base (such as the scope of the Green Belt Review) and objections to the inclusion of particular sites (by some local residents concerned about local impacts, or by landowners/developers who are promoting alternative sites). These matters and their merits will therefore need to be considered on an HMCA and site specific basis through the examination process. It is not therefore appropriate at this stage, through Scrutiny to consider the merits of individual sites or to rehearse the Council’s detailed position prior to examination.
3.15 It should be noted also that following the withdrawal of the Headley Hall new settlement proposal (following Executive Board approval for the Publication draft Plan and prior to formal consultation), the City Council has recently concluded a further consultation of revise Publication draft proposals for the Outer North East (ONE) Housing Market Characteristic Area (HMCA). Due to the need to resolve a number of technical matters, the outcome of this consultation is due to be reported to the Development Plan Panel on 10th January 2017, together with any further pre- submission changes for ONE. Following this, the material will then be presented to Executive Board in February 2017, to seek approval of the consolidated set of pre- submission changes (to be Advertised for comment) prior to Plan submission for independent examination.
Neighbourhood Plans
3.16 Measures included in the Localism Act 2011 are intended to give communities more of a say over planning in their area. This includes a system for the promotion of Neighbourhood Plans which, as and when adopted, form part of the development plan. Key considerations of a Neighbourhood Plan are that they must have regard to national policy and be in general conformity with strategic policies in the Local Plan. In this respect NPs cannot be used to undermine the preparation of the Local Plan. However, a NP can seek to do something different (including allocating more development if they provide sufficient evidence). There are 35 plans being prepared in Leeds currently at various stages of preparation. The most advanced Plan, at Linton, has passed the referendum stage and has survived a legal challenge.
3.17 Of the 36 designated Neighbourhood areas in Leeds there are 5 different types of NP in preparation: a) those used to provide policy guidance for sites that the Council is allocating, b) those seeking to do something different, c) inner area plans that are as concerned with promoting neighbourhood stability and community cohesion as they are about ‘traditional’ land use planning, d) small village plans seeking to allocate sites for local specific needs, e) small village plans promoting design polices for development.
3.18 Given this context there have been key issues to be aware of through the progression of the SAP: The existence of exemplar plans which set good examples for others to follow Plans which have policies that will directly help to shape large and small site allocations
185 of 199 There may be some NP policies that are seeking to do something different, for example by allocating different sites which may need to be reflected in the SAP The need for the alignment of local and strategic evidence and policies which may be addressed via the Examination The emergence of locally distinctive policies which help the implementation of the SAP
3.19 Through the preparation of neighbourhood plans we are working with local communities in a different way. One of the outcomes of this has been a greater sense of trust with local communities which has resulted in measures such as communities commissioning the council to work on their behalf in preparing their plans.
Infrastructure Provision
3.20 As a basis to help define requirements, prioritise and to guide investment decisions, the adopted Core Strategy is underpinned by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The SAP is also accompanied by an Infrastructure Background Paper. This also includes Background papers for ‘School Provision and the Implications for School Places’ and Transport. These are clearly very complex issues and subject to change but the approach set out in the documentation is intended to help co- ordinate the scale and timing of investment decisions, to support the sustainable delivery of allocations.
3.21 Within the scope of this overall approach the Infrastructure Background paper, sets out the following elements:
Infrastructure Delivery a) Site Specific Requirements b) Neighbourhood Plans c) The Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 Agreements d) Leeds City Region Deal and the West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund e) Other Funding Sources Physical Infrastructure i) Transport a) Public Transport Major Schemes b) Buses c) Railways d) Cycling e) Pedestrians f) Airport g) Highways ii) Utilities a) Energy – Electricity, Gas, Renewable Energy, District Heating b) Water and Waste Water c) Broadband iii) Flood Defences iv) Waste Management v) Minerals
Social and Community Infrastructure i) Education a) Early Years b) Primary Education c) Secondary Education
186 of 199 d) Further and Higher Education ii) Health iii) Community Centres and Libraries iv) Emergency Services a) Police b) Fire and Rescue c) Ambulance Service
Green Infrastructure and Green space
The Leeds Infrastructure Schedule April 2013 Infrastructure Delivery Plan Projects Now Completed, Planned Infrastructure Projects 2015 Onwards
3.22 A focus of representations has been around the provision of schools, doctors and roads to help support new housing.
Schools Provision
3.23 It is important that the plan ensures that there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of an expanded population. Children’s Services have been involved throughout in the preparation of the plan. Demand for school places in both the primary and secondary sectors arising from population growth is known as existing demand or ‘Basic Need’. Children’s Services have considered, in addition to existing demand, the needs arising from the housing allocations (both identified sites (sites with planning permission) and proposed new allocations). As a result of this the plan allocates and identifies requirements for school provision arising from the proposed housing.
3.24 Where part of a housing allocation is needed to be retained for provision of a new school (or extension to an adjacent school) this is detailed under the site specific requirements in section 3 of the SAP document and identified the supporting plans (hatched yellow). These plans can be accessed via the links included in para. 1.2 above, copies of the document will also be available at the meeting. Some sites that are not allocated for housing also need to be reserved for future school use. The School Provision Background Paper (Appendix 2 of the Infrastructure Background Paper) gives full details of this process.
Health Services
3.25 The provision of health facilities falls within the remit of NHS England and at a local level, Leeds’ 3 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Officers have met with representatives from these over the course of the plan preparation, and agreed with them the information and details on health provision provided in the Infrastructure Background Paper and the Site Allocations Plan itself. The amount of new housing identified for Leeds up to 2028 would equate to on average 5-6 new GPs a year across Leeds based on a full time GP, with approximately 1800 patients.
3.26 The Site Allocations Plan cannot allocate land specifically for health facilities because providers plan for their own operating needs and local demand. Existing practices determine for themselves (as independent businesses) whether to recruit additional clinicians in the event of their practice registered list growing. Practices can also consider other means to deal with increased patient numbers, including
187 of 199 increasing surgery hours. Practices consult with the NHS about funding for expansion, however funding is limited. Notwithstanding this, proposals for health facilities - including doctors and dentists surgeries - will be supported subject to need, site constraints and location in relation to planning policy. In particular, where development briefs are produced (see paragraph 3.29 below) there will be an opportunity to consider specific health needs on specific sites.
Highways
3.27 A separate report is being presented to Development Plan Panel on 10th January 2017 on Highways modelling which has been used, and updated to consider the cumulative impacts of proposed developments in the SAP on the highway network. The Publication Draft Infrastructure Background Paper (Sep 2015) included a Transport Background Paper (Appendix 3) which outlined the forecast transport impacts of the Site Allocations Plan and Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan. This work directly influenced the addition of specific site requirements relating to the local highway network for 77 allocated sites in the Site Allocations Plan (SAP). Transport modelling is an ongoing process, and recent updating work has included consideration of pre-submission changes proposed to the plan, updated employment growth forecasts, the cancellation of the NGT trolleybus scheme and the growth aspirations of neighbouring authorities and the impacts of these on cross boundary routes. This has resulted in further work being carried out to update the Transport Background Paper and specific site requirements.
CIL and other sources of funding.
3.28 The Infrastructure Background Paper explains that S106 legal agreements can still be used to deliver on site benefits, such as affordable housing and green space, but the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) provides a source of funding for delivery of some of the infrastructure needs as a result of the allocations in the SAP. CIL cannot deliver all the infrastructure required however, and other funding sources are outlined in Leeds Infrastructure Schedule, including the Department of Transport, rail operators, Yorkshire Water, grants etc. The Government has also recently announced in the Autumn statement that housing delivery and provision of affordable housing is a priority and it will be publishing a National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline and make funding for infrastructure available. The operation of CIL has also been the subject of an independent review and changes to the system may well result from this.
3.29 In addition to the above and as a basis to complement a range of City Council initiatives to promote regeneration and growth, the Development Plan Panel at the 22nd November 2016 meeting have also considered a paper regarding Models of Housing Delivery. The focus of this approach sets out what additional areas the City Council can facilitate, ‘to assist in bringing forward housebuilding in the context of creating strong and sustainable communities in line with the LDF as a whole – providing the right tenure, mix and affordability of new housing which is well served by infrastructure’. Central to this approach is the preparation of Development Briefs (for key allocations identified in the SAP and Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan), to be developed in conjunction with site owners/developers and local communities.
188 of 199 Sustainability Appraisal
3.30 Sustainability appraisal has been carried out to inform all main stages of plan preparation and to comply with the SEA Directive. This identified the reasons for choosing the approach that was adopted and considered reasonable alternatives to that approach, dealt with the main economic, social and environmental effects of the plan and suggested mitigation for any negative effects that were identified. Mitigation was then fed back into the plan for example as site requirements for specific site allocations.
4.0 Corporate Considerations
4.0.1 As noted above, the SAP forms part of the Local Development Framework and as such forms part of the development plan for Leeds. It cannot be considered to be part of the development plan until it has been examined and found sound and will then need to be formally adopted by the Council.
4.1 Consultation and Engagement
4.1.1 The SAP has been subjected to three formal stages number of public consultation exercises as part of its preparation and as required by the LDF Regulations. In addition it is also planned to advertise (for public comment) pre-submission changes for public comment, prior to Plan submission. As highlighted in para. 3.13 above, at Publication stage, the SAP has generated a considerable level of response (45,000 individual representations). For such a Plan and the potential site specific implications for local residents, developers and other stakeholders, so a high level of response is perhaps not unexpected and reflects the level of engagement in the plan-making process in Leeds. It should be noted also, that whilst 45,000 individual representations were received in response to the 2015 SAP consultation, a significant number of these were in relation to sites in particular Housing Market Characteristic Areas of Leeds, with major parts of the District (including the HMCAs for the City Centre and Inner) receiving relatively few representations in relation to the scale of development proposed. In capturing the consultation activity, at each consultation stage and the nature and level of response received, a Report of Consultation will be required for submission of the Plan. This in turn will be tested by an independent examiner to ensure that the plan is legally compliant.
4.2 Equality and Diversity / Cohesion and Integration
4.2.1 An Equality Impact Assessment Screening was carried out on the Publication Draft of the SAP. This report has been updated in the light of further changes to the Plan but has not resulted in any material change to the EIA Screening conclusion.
4.3 Council Policies and City Priorities
4.3.1 The SAP plays a key strategic role in taking forward the spatial and land use elements of the Vision for Leeds and the aspiration to be ‘the best city in the UK’.
189 of 199 Related to this overarching approach and in addressing a range of social, environmental and economic objectives, this Plan seeks to implement key City Council priorities. These include the Best Council Plan (2015-20) (in particular Objective 2: to ‘promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth’) and Leeds Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (2013-2015, currently being updated).
4.4 Resources and value for money
4.4.1 The SAP is being prepared within the context of the LDF Regulations, statutory requirements and within existing resources. Substantial work has been undertaken to ensure that the Plan represents a consensus of all the relevant stakeholders (both internal to the Council and external). This should help to reduce time and money needed for the Council to take the Plan through examination and on to adoption.
4.5 Legal Implications, Access to Information and Call In
4.5.1 The final decision as to whether to submit the SAP to the Secretary of State is being referred to Full Council, this report is being brought before this Scrutiny Board as part of the Budget and Policy Framework.
4.6 Risk Management
4.6.1 The SAP is being prepared in accordance with the LDF Regulations and therefore this reduces the risk of it being unsound. Policies in the Plan are founded on a robust and credible evidence base however, the extent to which an evidence base can be considered to be sufficient is subjective and it will be up to the Inspector to examine this issue. Even after examination by an independent Inspector there is a risk that someone could mount a High Court Challenge however the Council has taken all necessary steps to reduce this risk.
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 Following a substantial period of plan preparation, sustainability appraisal and public consultation in accordance with the LDF Regulations, the City Council is intending to proceed to submit the SAP for independent examination (prior to adoption), following the consideration of pre-submission changes by Executive Board.
6.0 Recommendations
Scrutiny Board are Recommended to: i) consider the proposals that are to be referred to the Executive Board ii) report any deliberations and conclusions to the Executive Board
7.0 Background Documents
7.1 The Main Background Documents comprise:- 1. Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan (2015) 2. Sustainability Appraisal of the Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan (2015) 3. Publication Draft Revised proposals for Outer North East HMCA (2016)
190 of 199 4. Sustainability Appraisal Addendum for Outer North East HMCA (2016)
7.2 The main Publication Documents have been supported by a suite of technical background papers containing the methodology, evidence base and lists of sites (including those discounted by the process), together with site assessments for individual sites. These are available to view on the Site Allocations Plan web-site as follows:- 1. Housing 2. Employment 3. Retail 4. Green space 5. Green Belt Review 6. Infrastructure 7. Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment 8. Flood Risk Sequential Test 9. Duty to Co-operate 10.Nature Conservation
191 of 199 APPENDIX 1: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY MILESTONE DECISIONS BY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PANEL, BRIEFINGS WITH WARD MEMBERS AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENTS
Stage Date Consultation/Milestone Scope of the Site Allocations Plan 6.3.12 Development Plan Panel – scope of plan (SAP) – Retail, Housing, agreed Employment, Green space Scope of the Site Allocations Plan 16.5.12 Executive Board – scope of plan agreed (SAP) Site Assessment Pro-forma agreed 2.7.12 Development Plan Panel Pro-forma presented again under the 7.8.12 Development Plan Panel minutes from the previous meeting Ward member briefing to consider 25.9.12 Calverley and Farsley ward meeting specific sites within ward and initial thoughts on ‘traffic light’ system Member workshop – outlined scope of 25.9.12 Workshop for Dev Plan Panel and Chairs of plan and proposed methodology Plans Panels including ‘traffic light system’ for Issues and Options and green belt review assessment Member workshop – same as above 28.9.12 Workshop – open to all members Ward member briefing (as above) 1.10.12 Otley and Yeadon ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 1.10.12 Adel and Wharfedale ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 4.10.12 Moortown ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 5.10.12 Farnley and Wortley ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 9.10.12 Farnley and Wortley ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 10.10.12 Rothwell ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 15.10.12 Horsforth ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 16.10.12 Wetherby and Harewood wards briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 16.10.12 Kippax ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 17.10.12 Burmantofts and Richmond Hill briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 23.10.12 Guiseley and Rawdon ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 25.10.12 City and Hunslet ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 26.10.12 Morley South ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 29.10.12 Ardsley and Robin Hood ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 29.10.12 Kirkstall ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 30.10.12 Ardsley and Robin Hood ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 31.10.12 Armley ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 2.11.12 Beeston Hill and Holbeck ward briefing Ward member briefing (as above) 5.11.12 Headingley ward briefing Briefing with ward members for the 21.12.12 Outer South HMCA member briefing – not Housing Market Characteristic Area completed – set further briefing date (HMCA) concerned) to review work on Issues and Options prior to Development Plan Panel (DPP) and Executive Board As above 21.12.12 Aireborough HMCA member briefing As above 14.1.13 Outer South HMCA member briefing As above 22.1.13 Outer NW HMCA member briefing As above 31.1.13 Outer NE member briefing As above 15.2.13 Outer SW HMCA member briefing Issues and Options for 3 Housing 25.2.13 Development Plan Panel
192 of 199 Market Characteristic Areas (HMCAs) – Aireborough, Outer South and Outer North West Briefing with ward members for the 6.3.13 Outer SE HMCA member briefing HMCA to review work on Issues and Options prior to DPP and Executive Board As above 14.3.13 East HMCA member briefing As above 15.3.13 Outer W HMCA member briefing As above 28.3.13 North HMCA member briefing Issues and Options for 4 Housing 9.4.13 Development Plan Panel Market Characteristic Areas (HMCAs) – Outer South West, Outer North East, Outer South East, Outer West Issues and Options for 4 Housing 16.4.13 Development Plan Panel Market Characteristic Areas (HMCAs) – East, North, Inner area, City Centre Development Plan Panel Site Visits 18.4.13 Site visits by members of Development Plan Panel Site Allocations Plan – Issues and 30.4.13 Development Plan Panel Options Site Allocations Plan – Issues and 9.5.13 Executive Board. Agreed Issues and Options Options plan to go out to public consultation Statutory Public consultation on 3.6.13 to Public consultation Issues & Options 29.7.13 School Requirements Arising from the 12.5.14 Development Plan Panel Site Allocations Plan Briefing with ward members for the 24.6.14 Outer NW HMCA member briefing HMCA to consider representations received at Issues and Options consultation and draft proposals As above 7.7.14 Aireborough HMCA member briefing As above 30.7.14 North HMCA member briefing As above 27.8.14 Outer W HMCA member briefing As above 8.9.14 Outer South HMCA member briefing As above 16.10.14 Outer SW HMCA member briefing As above 29.10.14 Outer SE HMCA member briefing As above 3.11.14 Inner HMCA member briefing As above 4.11.14 City Centre and East HMCA member briefings As above 4.12.14 Outer NE HMCA member briefing Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan 6.1.15 Development Plan Panel – retail, employment and greenspace proposals (principle of) Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan 13.1.15 Development Plan Panel – housing (principle of), and supplementary report – Nepshaw Lane employment sites Publication Draft Plan sites for 11.2.15 Executive Board allocation agreed in principle Preparation of Publication Draft Plan Feb to May/June 2015 - Sites at Weetwood (3378) and 20.5.15 Development Plan Panel
193 of 199 Tingley 1143B) - Strategic housing and employment issues Outer NE
Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan 16.6.15 Development Plan Panel – retail, employment and greenspace proposals Publication Draft Site Allocations Plan 26.6.15 Development Plan Panel – housing (plus outstanding issues from previous meeting – airport) Approval of Publication Draft Plan for 15.7.15 Executive Board public consultation Public consultation on Publication 22.9.15 – Draft Site Allocations Plan, with drop 16.11.15 in events at: 22.9.15 Leeds Civic Hall 2-8pm 23.9.15 Guiseley Methodist Hall 2-8pm 24.9.15 Otley Resource Centre 2-8pm 30.9.15 Pudsey Civic Centre 2-8pm 3.10.15 Horsforth Mechanics Institute 10am – 3pm 5.10.15 East Ardsley Church Hall 2-8pm 13.10.15 St Hilda’s Church Hall, Cross Green 2-8pm 14.10.15 Hunslet Parish Hall 2-8pm 16.10.15 Rothwell Blackburn Hall Community Centre 2-8pm 17.10.15 Morley Town Hall 10am – 3pm 19.10.15 Wetherby Town Hall 2-8pm 21.10.15 Crossgates library 2-7pm 23.10.15 Garforth Miners Welfare Hall 2-7pm 29.10.15 Leeds Civic Hall 2-8pm 30.10.15 Leeds Civic Hall 2-8pm Initial Report of Consultation 19.1.16 Development Plan Panel Verbal update re inputting 1.3.16 Development Plan Panel representations Outer North East – revised proposals 15.3.16 Outer NE member briefing following withdrawal of new settlement at Headley Hall Representations made on retail 5.4.16 Development Plan Panel proposals Representations made and pre- 14.6.16 Development Plan Panel submission changes proposed - City centre - East - Inner - Outer North West - Outer West Representations made and pre- 28.6.16 Development Plan Panel submission changes proposed - Aireborough - North - Outer South - Outer South East - Outer South West - Revised Publication Draft 19.7.16 Development Plan Panel
194 of 199 For Outer North East - Gypsy and Traveller sites - General Issues - Any other outstanding issues for rest of SAP Revised Publication Draft for Outer 21.9.16 Executive Board North East agreed to go to public consultation Statutory public consultation for Outer 26.9.16 to Public consultation for Outer NE only North East revised Publication Draft 7.11.16 only 4.10.16 Wetherby Town Hall drop in 2-8pm 20.10.16 Barwick in Elmet drop in 2-8pm Analysis of representations from Nov 2016 Publication Draft consultation for Outer NE Scrutiny – examination of the process 21.12.16 Scrutiny Board for producing the Site Allocations Plan Pre submission changes for Outer NE 10.1.17 Development Plan Panel and any other changes Agree advertising pre submission 8.2.17 Executive Board changes and to submit plan following this Pre submission changes for whole 13.2.17 – plan advertised 13.3.17 Agree to submit plan to Secretary of 29.3.17 Full Council State
195 of 199 SCRUTINY BOARD (CITY DEVELOPMENT)
WEDNESDAY, 21ST DECEMBER, 2016
PRESENT: Councillor P Truswell in the Chair
Councillors D Cohen, C Dobson, G Latty, S Lay, A Ogilvie, D Ragan, E Taylor, C Towler, P Wadsworth and J Walker
38 Declaration of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
There were no disclosable pecuniary interests declared at the meeting.
39 Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitutes
Apologies for absence were submitted by Cllr P Davey. Cllr P Davey was substituted by Cllr C Dobson.
40 Minutes - 23 November 2016
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting 23 November 2016 be approved as a correct record.
41 Leeds Site Allocations Plan
The Director of City Development submitted report to facilitate scrutiny of Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework.
The following information was appended to the reports:
Appendix 1 – Chronology of Key Milestone Decisions by Development Plan Panel, Briefings with Ward Members and Public Consultation Events. Appendix 2 – Site Allocations Plan, Sections 1 & 2 (Introduction and Overview) and Section 3, Area Proposals, Publication Draft. September 2015 Appendix 3 – Summary of Pre Submission Changed to 10 Housing Market Characteristic Areas in the Site Allocations Plan (Excluding Outer North East) Following Development Plan Panel Meetings on 14th and 28th June and 19th July 2016
The following representatives were in attendance to respond to Members queries and comments:
David Feeney, Head of Strategic Planning Martin Elliot, Group Manager (Policy and Plans) Lois Pickering, Team Leader Local Plans Minutes approved as a correct record at the meeting held on Wednesday, 18th January, 2017 196 of 199 Andrew Hall, Head of Transportation Cllr Richard Lewis, Executive Board Member
The key areas for discussion were:
An overview of the process and key milestones from scoping the SAP to current date including required regulatory stages of the SAP decision making process. Housing requirements contained within the Core Strategy and how that had been determined. The extent to which communities are involved in the decision making process behind both the Core Strategy and SAP, and the extent to which neighbourhood planning influenced the development of the SAP. The whole Council approach to the development of the SAP with the involvement of external partners to ensure the needs of communities are considered, such as highways, schools, health. Concern regarding the continued availability of employment sites across the city. Clarity regarding the green belt review processes and how it was integral within the process when bringing forward site allocations Consultation strategy and public engagement with hard to reach groups. The value of utilising social media during key periods of consultation to direct the public to appropriate information. With regard to transport infrastructure clarity was sought regarding the links between the SAP and evolving Transport Strategy. The Board were advised that the city’s development needs are being taken into account. The influence of flood risk assessments in the development of the SAP. The extent to which both small and large windfall site figures impact on housing targets detailed within the Core Strategy and site allocations. The lack of flexibility for Local Authorities within planning processes and the determination of housing numbers.
RESOLVED – The Scrutiny Board:
a) Considered the proposals that are to be referred to the Executive Board b) Will report Scrutiny Board (City Development) deliberations and conclusions to the Executive Board when next due for consideration. (Currently scheduled February 2017)
42 Financial Health Monitoring City Development - Budget Update Period 7 2016/17 & Budget Proposals for 2017/18
The Head of Governance Services and Scrutiny Support submitted a report to update the Scrutiny Board on the City Development 2016/17 financial position (period 7) and to facilitate consultation on the City Development budget
Minutes approved as a correct record at the meeting held on Wednesday, 18th January, 2017 197 of 199 proposals for 2017/18 in accordance with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework.
The following information was appended to the report:
Executive Board Report 14 December 2016, Financial Health Monitoring 2016/17 – Month 7 Executive Board Report 14 December 2016 - Initial Budget Proposals for 2017/18
The following representatives were in attendance and responded to Members’ queries and comments:
- Martin Farrington – Director of City Development - Ed Mylan, Chief Officer Resources and Strategy - Jill Stuart, Principal Financial Manager
The key areas of discussion were:
The projected underspend on the 2016/17 budget, with further savings made through library services moving across to the Citizens and Communities directorate. Key proposals for 2017/18, planned efficiencies, changes to services and additional income. A net decrease in budget for 2017/18 of £4.8m. Sources of additional income and the overall strategic approach which seeks to minimise the impact on front line service delivery. The recruitment of 25 Highways Engineers to reduce external spend.
RESOLVED
The Scrutiny Board: a) Noted the financial position of City Development period 7 2016/17 b) Considered the initial 2017/18 budget proposals relevant to the Scrutiny Board’s portfolio and did not make recommendation for consideration by the Executive Board in February 2017.
43 Quarter 2, 2016/17 City Development Performance Update
The Director of City Development submitted a report which provided a summary of performance against the strategic objectives for City Development.
The following information was appended to the report:
City Development Performance Summary Quarter 2 2016/17
The following representatives were in attendance and responded to Members’ queries and comments: Minutes approved as a correct record at the meeting held on Wednesday, 18th January, 2017 198 of 199 - Martin Farrington, Director of City Development - Gary Bartlett, Chief Officer Highways and Transportation
The key areas of discussion were:
The trend in KSI’s and not meeting the annual target. The Board was advised that improvements are continually being made to local cycling infrastructure and road safety programmes also continue, in order minimise KSI events particularly involving children. The extent to which the withdrawal of funding for ‘Leeds Let’s Get Active’ will impact upon statistics concerning people active for more than 30 minutes per week. The Board requested further information regarding job growth, particularly with regard to the nature of employment in Leeds and how local employment opportunities have are/have been secured. A report to be brought to the Board early in 2017.
RESOLVED
The Scrutiny Board:
a) Noted the Quarter 2 performance information. b) Requested a report to provide a more detailed overview regarding the nature of employment, employment growth and employment opportunities in Leeds.
44 Work Schedule
A report was submitted by the Head of Governance Services and Scrutiny Support which detailed the Scrutiny Board’ draft work programme for the current municipal year.
The draft Scrutiny Board (City Development) work schedule for 2016/17 and the Executive Board minutes for 16 November 2016 were appended to the report.
RESOLVED – The Scrutiny Board noted the content of the report and agreed the work programme.
45 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Wednesday 18 January 2017 10:30 am (pre-meeting for all Board Members at 10:00am)
The meeting concluded at 12:30pm
Minutes approved as a correct record at the meeting held on Wednesday, 18th January, 2017 199 of 199