Wetherby Civic Society

Change No.1: We disagree with the whole concept of “Broad Locations for Growth (Broad Locations)”. There is no mention of “Broad Locations” in the Core Strategy This is merely avoiding the Council having to rethink its plans and will cause planning blight in those locations over many years until the Council admits it does not require them for building housing. These areas should be deleted from the plan and no plans for building on them should be included.

Change No.3: The original Core Strategy identified the need for 74,000 new homes (see 2.26 of the SAP), which after assuming windfall sites at a rate of 500 p.a., reduced to 66,000. This creation of “Broad Locations” deletes only 6,454 houses from the Plan, leaving a total of 61,363.

The government suggested overall figure for required new homes is 42,000 and the Council’s consultant’s own figure gives a range of 49,600 – 64,000. We would think that a more sensible target figure would be mid-range of the consultant’s report, i.e. 57,000. Policy H1 anticipates a 500 dwellings per year as being windfall sites, yet in the 12 months 1/4/16 – 31/3/17, an additional 1,480 houses were windfall sites. We would anticipate that the number of windfall sites is more likely to be in the region of 1,000 per annum. Taking account of last year’s windfall sites and a further 10 years of 1,000p.a. windfall sites, the target should reduce to 45,520.

Thus the number of “Broad Locations” is understated by about 17,000. As stated above existing “Broad Locations” should all be deleted from the Plan plus a further 17,000 allocated houses.

Change No 8; We disagree with the whole strategy of “Broad Locations”. Greenbelt in the Leeds City Council area is designed to ensure that the original Leeds City does not have urban sprawl. Wetherby did not need a greenbelt since it is contained within natural boundaries; county boundaries to the north and west, a 6 lane motorway to the east and the outer edge of Leeds Greenbelt to the south. Yet Leeds wishes to build houses on the other side of the 6 lane motorway!

The Site Allocation Plan recognises this problem in paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35 of the Site Allocation Plan and “designates the UDP area of Rural Land as Green Belt, as part of the Review process”, yet the planned site off Racecourse Way is not included as a “Broad Location”, nor as a Greenfield site.

Exclusions from the Plan should look at all the major planned developments, on all types of land and decide whether they are sensible; not on some simplistic mantra of “Greenbelt”. This whole addition should be deleted.

Change No. 10: We see no need to delete this table. The priorities provided are very sensible.

Change No 15: Not needed. All reference to “Broad Locations” should be deleted throughout the document

Change No 19: Should be rewritten to take account of fewer houses needed.