sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arthington, Brotherton, City of Leeds, Dunkeswick, Kirk Deighton, Leathley

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF WEST

THE CITY OF Boundaries with:- & ()

HARROGATE

BRADFORD SELBY

REPORT NO.606 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO 606 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton

MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals

Mr G Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr C W Smith

Professor K Young THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

REVIEW OF THE AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH HARROGATE AND SELBY IN NORTH YORKSHIRE

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to announcing our intention to undertake a review of Leeds as part of our review of the of West Yorkshire and its Metropolitan Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan District Councils; the County and District Councils bordering the Metropolitan County; Parish Councils in the adjoining districts; the Local Authority Associations; Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities and statutory undertakers which might have an interest, as well as to the English Tourist Board, the local- press, and the local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The Metropolitan District Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other principal authorities, to assist us in publishing the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers, so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The Councils were also asked to ensure that our consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those involved with services such as the police and the administration of justice. 3. A period of seven months from the date of our letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding districts, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views on whether changes to the City's boundary were desirable and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US

4. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987 we received representations from Leeds City Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Council and North Yorkshire County Council. We also received representations from other interested bodies, and residents of the local authorities concerned.

5. We also received submissions suggesting changes to Leeds' boundaries with , and . These have been or will be considered separately as part of our reviews of those areas.

6. We consider that, taken as a whole, the present area of Leeds is apt for securing effective and convenient local government, and we have decided not to make any proposals for major change to its boundaries. Our proposals relate only to the minor realignments.described in this report.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

RADICAL CHANGE

7. A member of the public had suggested the creation of a new district comprising the former Borough of , currently in Leeds, and the former Urban Districts of and , currently in Bradford. 8. We felt that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the present pattern of boundaries was not conducive to effective and convenient local government, or that there was any strong local support for such a change. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of this suggestion.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND HARROGATE

(a)

9. The Wetherby and District Study Group had suggested the transfer of Wetherby District Ward, containing nine parishes, from Leeds to Harrogate in North Yorkshire. The Study Group stated that the villages in the vicinity of Wetherby have a close affinity with it, and that the current boundary severs communities. It also claimed that Harrogate is easier to reach than Leeds; that local health authorities allow residents to go to Leeds; and that rate increases in Harrogate are lower than in Leeds. The Study Group also criticised Leeds in respect of its housing, education, planning and social services functions; it stated that Leeds had not built any council houses in Wetherby ward since 1974, and that the Leeds education system was biased towards its urban population, at the expense of rural areas. It also felt that North Yorkshire authorities had a better understanding of consultation procedures in respect of planning matters, and that funding of social services in Leeds was politically influenced.

10. The Study Group's suggestion was supported by Wetherby Town Council (by a majority of one) and two members of the public. It was opposed by seven parish councils in Wetherby ward, the Wetherby Labour Party and eleven members of the public. The main grounds of opposition were, first, that Wetherby's affinities lay with Leeds in terms of employment, housing, and health and social services and, second, the possible loss of concessionary fares on public transport should Wetherby Ward transfer to Harrogate. 11. The Elmet Conservative Association submitted an alternative suggestion which would involve the transfer of six parishes, said to have an affinity with Wetherby, from Harrogate to Leeds.

12. We gave very careful consideration to the Study Group's suggestion. However, we noted the lack of widespread public support for the suggestion and were impressed by the case put forward by those who had opposed it, and who had emphasised Wetherby Ward's links with Leeds. We also noted that seven out of the nine parish councils which would be affected by the suggestion were against it, and that Wetherby Town Council itself had only voted by a majority of one to support it. Accordingly, we concluded that there was no evidence of any general dissatisfaction with the services provided to the area by Leeds. We also concluded that there was no evidence to justify endorsing the Elmet Conservative Association's suggestion. We- considered whether it would be feasible to transfer the more rural part of the Wetherby ward to Harrogate, leaving the town in Leeds. However, as this would involve splitting a parish, which we did not feel would be conducive to effective and convenient local government, we did not pursue it. On the evidence before us, therefore we took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of Wetherby Ward.

(b) The A1(T)

13. We considered the possible use of the A1(T) north of Bramham as a boundary between Leeds and Harrogate. However, we felt that while the Al would produce a good boundary, its use would not significantly improve effective and convenient local government. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal.

(c) Throstle Nest

14. Leeds had suggested amending its boundary with Harrogate in the vicinity of Throstle Nest Close, with the object of uniting an area of continuous residential development in Leeds. 15. Objections to the suggestion were received from Harrogate Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council and the Shipton and Conservative Association. The grounds given were that the majority of residents in the affected area wished to remain in Harrogate.

16. We felt that as most of the development was already in Leeds, it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to unite the area within that authority. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal.

(d) St David's Road/Carr Bank

17. Both Leeds and Harrogate suggested realigning the boundary at St David's Road and Carr Bank to unite two housing developments in Leeds.

18. We considered that as the larger parts of both developments are already in Leeds it would be sensible to unite them in that authority. We decided therefore to adopt the joint suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor amendment to remove a stretch of defaced boundary.

(e) Riverside Park

19. Leeds had suggested realigning the boundary in the Riverside Park area, to unite an area of continuous housing development in Leeds.

20. Objections to the suggestion were received from Harrogate Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council and the and Ripon Conservative Association. The objectors claimed that the residents affected by the suggestion•wished to remain in Harrogate. 21. We felt that, as the larger part of the development was already in Leeds, it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government from the point of both service delivery and electoral representation to unite it within the City. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor amendment to remove a stretch of undefined boundary.

(f)

22. Leeds had suggested changes to its boundary with Harrogate in several places, realigning it to the main course of the River Wharfe. The suggestion was supported by Harrogate and North Yorkshire County Council.

23. We noted that the boundary in this area generally follows the River Wharfe and felt that it would be sensible to realign the boundary along the existing course of the river. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to following a centre of river realignment.

(g) Dunkeswick Moor

24. Leeds had suggested transferring Dunkeswick Moor to Harrogate by realigning the boundary along the course of the River Wharfe. The suggestion was supported by Harrogate.

25. We noted that, for the most part, the boundary in this area follows the River Wharfe and felt that the river would also provide a good boundary in the vicinity of the moor. We decided therefore to adopt Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal.

(h) Rivers Estate/Autumn Avenue/Deerstone Ridge

26. Leeds had suggested realigning its boundary with Harrogate in the Rivers Estate area to unite gardens with houses and to unite a residential area in Leeds. That part of the suggestion relating to Deerstone Ridge was supported by a member of the public.

27. Harrogate made a similar suggestion. However, it varied from Leeds' by suggesting that the boundary in the west be tied tightly to the curtilages of the properties on the Rivers Estate, thereby transferring an area of open land to Harrogate, but excluding the Bar House on . Harrogate's suggestion was supported by North Yorkshire County Council, but opposed by Parish Council, which suggested excluding Autumn Avenue and South View from the area to be transferred.

28. Having considered all the proposals and evidence submitted to us, we felt that Leeds' suggestion appeared to offer the best solution, in terms of effective and convenient local government, to the boundary anomalies in this area. We therefore decided to adopt it as our draft proposal,

(i) Thorpe Arch Trading Estate

29. Leeds had suggested realigning its boundary with Harrogate in the vicinity of the Thorpe Arch Trading Estate, to unite the whole of an operational tip within its area. This suggestion was supported by North Yorkshire County Council.

30. We felt that it would be logical to unite the tip area with the estate it serves, and decided to adopt Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND SELBY

(a) The Al

31. We noted that both Leeds and Selby had suggested the realignment of several stretches of boundary to the Al. We agreed that the Al appeared to form a major barrier in this area and felt that it would provide a clear, long-lasting boundary between the two authorities. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to use the Al as1 the Leeds/Selby boundary south of Bramham Crossing, as far as Ledsham.

(b) Papyrus Paper Mill

32. Leeds City Council had suggested realigning its boundary with Selby so as to unite the Papyrus Paper Mill in Selby. This suggestion was supported by North Yorkshire County Council.

33. We felt that as most of the mill is already in Selby it would be sensible to transfer the remainder to that district. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds suggestion as our draft proposal.

(c) Fairbum

34. Leeds had suggested realigning its boundary with Selby in the vicinity of Fairburn Ings, so as to unite an operational coal tip in Leeds. The suggestion was supported by North Yorkshire County Council.

35. We felt that as the major part of the coal tip was already in Leeds, it would be sensible to unite it in that Council's area by transferring the remainder to that City. We therefore decided to adopt Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor technical amendment.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISION

36. The letter announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions was published on 17 September 1990. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. The City of Leeds, the , the District of Selby and North Yorkshire County Council were asked to publish a notice giving details of our decisions, and to post copies of it at places where public

8 notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 12 November 1990.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS OUR FINAL PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS

37. In response to our letter of 17 September 1990, we received comments from the City of Leeds, the Borough of Harrogate, Selby District Council, North Yorkshire County Council, and from the Parish Councils of East Ke'swick; Mid-; Lower Washburn; ; Weeton; Kirk Deighton; ; and ; and Lotherton cum Aberford. Comments were also received from Town Council, Mr Robert Banks MP, Mr MP, Dr Keith Hampson MP, four local organisations and sixty five members of the public.

38. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us and set out below our final proposals.

RADICAL CHANGE

39. Leeds supported our interim decision not to propose the creation of a new district based on Pudsey. However, it was opposed by the Pudsey Civic Society, the Pudsey and District Chamber of Trade, and seventeen members of the public. The objectors all claimed that Pudsey has a separate identity from the rest of Leeds and that there was considerable local support for its separation from Leeds.

40. We did not consider that the objectors had provided evidence to show that the creation of a new district would produce any improvement in effective and convenient local government in the area. We have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND HARROGATE

(a) Wetherby

41. Both Leeds and Parish Council supported our interim decision not to propose the transfer of Wetherby ward from Leeds to Harrogate. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(b) The A1(T)

42. Leeds supported our interim decision not to propose the use of the A1(T) as the Leeds/Harrogat'e boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(c) Throstle Nest

4 3. Leeds, Dr Keith Hampson MP, and the North West Leeds Conservative Association all supported our draft proposal to unite a housing development in Leeds. However, it was opposed by Harrogate, North Yorkshire County Council, Otley Town Council, Mid-Wharfedale Parish Council and twenty two residents of the area. The objectors claimed that the area has a greater affinity with Harrogate than it does with Leeds, and that it does not form part of a larger housing development in Leeds.

44. We remain of the opinion that the area is clearly part of a continuous residential area, the majority of which is already in Leeds. The area concerned is also isolated from other built up areas in Harrogate by large open spaces. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final, believing it to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

(d) St David's Road/Carr Bank

45. Leeds, North Yorkshire County Council, the North West Leeds Conservative Association, and two members of the public all

10 supported our draft proposal to unite a residential development, currently split by the existing boundary, in Leeds. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(e) Riverside Park

46. Leeds, Dr Keith Hampson MP, and the North West Leeds Conservative Association all supported our draft proposal to unite in Leeds a housing development. However, the draft proposal was opposed by Harrogate, North Yorkshire County Council, Lower Washburn Parish Council, Councillor F Hodge, who enclosed a petition containing eighty two signatures, and twenty one residents. The objectors all claimed that the area has more affinity with Harrogate than with Leeds.

47. As with Throstle Nest above, we remain of the opinion that the area is clearly part of a continuous residential area within the community of Newall, the major part of which is in Leeds. The area concerned is isolated from other built up areas in Harrogate. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final, believing it to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

(f) River Wharfe

48. Leeds, Harrogate, North Yorkshire County Council, and the Harrogate Conservative Association all supported our draft proposal to realign the Leeds/Harrogate boundary to the mid course of the River Wharfe. Harewood Parish council, while supporting the principle of the draft proposal, requested that Harewood Bridge should remain in Leeds; it explained that the bridge was a listed building which it believed should be under the control of a single local authority, Leeds.

49. We felt that as responsibility for other bridges over the River Wharfe would be divided between two authorities, there was no reason to make an exception for Harewood Bridge. We noted that

11 there is adequate provision under the Local Government Act 1972 for the authorities concerned to reach agreement over the future ownership of the bridge. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(g) Dunkeswick Moor

50. Leeds supported our draft proposal to transfer Dunkeswick Moor to Harrogate, and to realign the boundary to the River Wharfe. Both Harrogate and Weeton Parish Council supported the principle of the draft proposal. However, they requested that the area in question be transferred to Weeton Parish, rather than Parish as we had proposed.

51. We noted that the main objective of our draft proposal had been accepted by all parties. However, we felt that the question as to which parish the area should be in would best be resolved as part of a parish review of Harrogate. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(h) Rivers Estate/Autumn Avenue/Deerstone Ridge

52. Leeds, the Harrogate Conservative Association and Mr Robert Banks MP all supported our draft proposal to unite gardens with their houses and to unite a housing development in Leeds. However, the draft proposal was opposed by Harrogate, North Yorkshire County Council, and Kirk Deighton Parish Council. Harrogate and North Yorkshire reiterated their previous view that Deighton Bar House should be omitted from the transfer, and Kirk Deighton restated its view that Deighton Bar House, Autumn Avenue and South View should remain in Harrogate.

53. We did not consider that any of the objectors had produced any new evidence to warrant us changing our view on the extent of the area to be transferred to Leeds; they had repeated their original views which we had already considered. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal, which we believe to be in

12 the interests of effective and convenient local government, as final.

(i) Thorpe Arch Trading Estate

54. Both Leeds and North Yorkshire supported our draft proposal to unite an operational tip in Leeds. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(j) Walton Wood

55. Leeds submitted a new suggestion which would involve the transfer of two areas adjoining Walton Wood from Harrogate to Leeds. It stated that the suggestion had been made in order to provide a more rational boundary in this area.

56. We felt that although the suggestion could produce a better boundary, it would not appear to offer any advantages over the existing boundary in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to make no proposal for boundary changes in this area.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND SELBY

(a) The Al

57. North Yorkshire supported the principle of our .draft proposal to use the Al as the Leeds/Selby boundary south of Bramham Crossing as far as Ledsham, but requested that the proposed boundary be moved from the eastern to the western side of the Al.

58. In its response, Leeds had pointed out that the Al is due to be upgraded, with a possible realignment, and suggested that we defer consideration of this boundary until the final route had been fixed. Leeds were also opposed to losing control of the Lotherton Estate which it currently owns and manages, and which

13 under our draft proposal would transfer to Selby. Selby had stated that it had no desire to take over the running of the Lotherton Estate. Objections to the transfer of were received from Mr Spencer Batiste MP and a member of the public.

59. Lotherton-cum-Aberford Parish Council were also opposed to the draft proposal, on the grounds that it would split their community. The Parish Council forwarded thirty eight proformas and a petition containing eighty nine signatures, all opposing the draft proposal. It was supported in its opposition by Parlington and Sturton Parish Council and by two members of the public. Aberford Parish Council supported the principle of the draft proposal, but requested that the whole area be transferred to its parish.

60. In view of the proposed upgrading of the Al, we believe that it would be premature at this time to use it as the basis of a realigned county boundary. We have therefore decided to withdraw our draft proposal and to make no proposals in respect of the Al. We remain of the opinion, however, that it would provide a good, clear boundary once the upgrading work has been completed.

(b) The Papyrus Paper Mill

61. Both Leeds and North Yorkshire supported our draft proposal to unite the paper mill in Selby. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(c) Fairbura Ings

62. North Yorkshire supported our draft proposal to unite an operational' coal tip in Leeds. Leeds supported the principle of the draft proposal but requested the transfer of an additional area which, it claimed, is earmarked for a visitor centre for a nature reserve.

14 63. We took the view that the anticipated development would not affect the objective of our draft proposal, which was to unite a coal tip. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

CONCLUSIONS

64. We commend to you our final proposals and decisions as set out in paragraphs 43-63 above as being in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

PUBLICATION

65. A separate letter is being sent to the City of Leeds, the Borough of Harrogate, Selby District Council, and North Yorkshire County Council asking them to deposit copies of this report at their main offices for inspection for a period of six months. They are also being asked to put notices to that effect on .public notice boards. Arrangements have been made for similar notices to be inserted in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in this matter and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than a period of six weeks from the date our final proposals are submitted to you. Copies of this report, with the attached maps illustrating the proposed changes, are being sent to all those who received our draft proposals letter of 17 September 1990, and to those who made written representations to us.

15 Signed G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

PROFESSOR K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Secretary 27 June 1991

16 A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW

CITY OF LEEDS AFFECTING BOROUGH OF HARROGATE AND SELBY DISTRICT

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other boundary divisions Proposed other boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM

MAP II BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

SELBY DISTRICT CITY OF LEEDS BOROUGH OF HARROGATE BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

i ^^QQ ',''***l--^- ~~-~~^ i? VT^.T HARROGATE

CITY OF LEEDS HARROGATE BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

^7-*" -• H^

CITY OF LEEDS BOROUGH OF HARROGATE BOROUGH OF HARROGATE HARROGATE

CITY OF LEEDS BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

CITY OF LEEDS BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

CITY OF LEEDS BOROUGH OF HARROGATE

CITY OF LEEDS

®&'" ;\-f. VC&> &J&7& "^A ••; .\'./Op^,vft WX-<- 4->S ^<^^^''''ft^^^-^^ ''•'i'\ \ ^>iAS>^)xpX xk"

CITY OF LEEDS SELBY DISTRICT

OTY OF LEEDS SELBY DISTRICT

CITY OF LEEDS

: i^Li-'rfo.'; ..>-^5-x::":"7;V,;.-i'!\. ^«T:; '.Vi'.V^;M;' ""uum,;'''V';'^, CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM NO. REF. NO. REF. TO

North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire of Horrogate City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds A .Weston CP Otley CP 5 A Leathley CP Pool CP Wharfedale Moors Ward Otley and Whorfedale Ward Wharfedale Moors Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward ED Pateley Bridge ED

West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate A Otley CP Newall with Clifton CP A Pool CP Leathley CP M Otley and Wharfcdole Ward Wharfedale Moors Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward Wharfedale Moors Ward Pateley Bridge ED Pateley Bridge ED 2 6 North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Borough ot Harrogate City of Leeds City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate Newall with Clifton CP Otley CP CP Castley CP Wharfedaie Moors Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward Wharfedale Moors Ward Pateley Bridge ED Pateley Bridge ED

North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate A Otley CP Arthington CP Weeton CP 3 r^ Newall with Clifton CP 7 A Wharfedale Moors Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward Almscliffe Ward Pateley Bridge ED Haverah ED i

North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Ar^ Borough of Harrogote City of Leeds City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate 4 B Farnley CP Otley CP 8 A Harewood CP Klrkby Overblow CP Wharfedale Moors Ward Otley and Wharfedale Ward North Ward Almscliffe Ward Pateley Bridge ED Haverah ED .CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF.

West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County City of Leeds Borough of Harrogate Selby District City of Leeds 8 B Harewood CP Kearby with Netherby CP cum Toulston CP Bramham cum Oglethorpe CP cV> i North Ward Almscliffe Ward Todcaster West Ward Wetherby Ward cont. Haverah ED West ED

13 North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds City of Leeds Selbv District 9 B Kearby with Netherby CP Horewood CP B Bramham cum Ogfethorpe CP Newton Kyme cum Toulston CP Almscliffe Ward North Word Wetherby Ward Tadcaster West Ward Haverah ED Tadcaster West ED

North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds Selby District City of Leeds A Kearby wilh Netherby CP Harewood CP 14 Fairburn CP Ledshom CP Almscliffe Ward North Ward Fairburn with Ward Berwick and Kippax Ward Haverah ED Osgoldcross ED 10 North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds Kearby with Netherby CP East Keswick CP Almscliffe Word Wetherby Ward Haverah ED

A North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County r-\ Borough of Harrogate City of Leeds B Kirk Deighton CP Wetherby CP Spofforth Ward Wetherby Ward Claro ED

North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County • Borough of Horrogate City of Leeds 12 • A Wjghlll CP Walton CP • Marston Moor Ward Welherby Ward • *-. Poppleton ED * /4/V/v/tl X.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES

BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND HARROGATE

Throstle Nest Realignment to Paragraph 43 Map 1 unite a housing development in Leeds

St David's Realignment to Paragraph 45 Road/Carr Bank unite a Maps 2-3 residential development in Leeds Riverside Park Realignment to Paragraph 46 unite a housing Map 4 development in Leeds River Wharfe Realignment of the Paragraph 48 boundary to the Maps 5-7 and mid-course of the 9-10 River Wharfe Dunkeswick Moor Realignment of the Paragraph 50 boundary to Map 8 transfer Dunkeswick Moor to Harrogate Rivers/Estate/ Realignment to Paragraph 52 Autumn Avenue/ unite gardens with Map 11 Deerstone Ridge their houses and to unite a housing development in Leeds Thorpe Arch Minor realignment Paragraph 54 Trading Estate to unite an Map 12 operational tip in Leeds

BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND SELBY The Papyrus Minor realignment Paragraph 61 Paper Mill to unite a Paper Map 13 Mill in Selby Fairburn Ings Minor realignment Paragraph 62 to unite an Map 14 operational coal tip in Leeds