Selection of Sites Allocated for Development

Matter 7 Hearing Statement – Selection of sites allocated for development

Our ref 50765/JG/JCx Date 25 August 2017

Subject Leeds: Site Allocations Plan (SAP) - Public Examination Matter 7 Selection of Sites Allocated for Development - Hearing Statement on behalf of Persimmon Homes West Yorkshire Issue – For each Housing Market Characteristic area, are the individual sites selected sound?

1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Hearing Statement has been prepared by Lichfields on behalf of Persimmon Homes West Yorkshire (PHWY) and responds to all questions set by the Inspector in relation to Matter 7. In addition, it provides responses to site-specific questions in relation to the Outer South and Outer South East Housing Market Characteristic Areas (“HMCAs”).

2.0 Main Issue 1 – for each Housing Market Characteristic Area, are the individual sites selected sound?

Q1 – Are the selected sites justified having regard to the site selection methodology and process, paying particular attention to the deliverability of the allocated sites?

2.1 For the most part, yes. Throughout the preparation of the SAP, the adopted methodology has continued to appraise and sift potential sites to ensure that the most suitable and appropriate allocations are taken forward. This process has been subject to scrutiny via public consultation, thus ensuring that it has been undertaken in a robust and objective manner.

2.2 As part of this process, the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal has considered alternative sites and strategies (also taking into account any potential scope for mitigation measures to be adopted), using a scoring mechanism in order to consider different sites against individual sustainability objectives in a consistent manner. This approach is considered to be entirely appropriate and one which has commonly been used by other Local Planning Authorities in the production of plans that have subsequently been identified as sound at Examination. 2.3 Notwithstanding the above, we consider that the deliverability of certain sites – an example being Site HSG-124 – have been appraised in an overly-optimistic manner. Our response to Matter 2 provides further details on this, with our recommendation being that further sites are allocated in order to ensure that the SAP is flexible and resilient enough should identified and / or allocated sites fail to deliver at the pace envisaged.

Q2 – Are sufficient sites identified in the HMCA consistent with the CS? 2.4 No, we do not consider this to be the case. Whilst this is set out in further detail in our response to Matter 2, the HMCAs where there is currently a shortfall could be made consistent with the CS through the allocation of additional suitable and available housing sites. For example,

Pg 1/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

PHWY’s site at Barwick Road, Garforth (SHLAA ref. 2516, 1226, 3114 & 1165) has been identified as a site that is suitable and available for allocation within the Outer South East HMCA. Similarly, sites at Cemetery Lane, Lofthouse (SHLAA ref. 3085) and Warm Lane, Yeadon (SHLAA ref. 2162 & 1104) have been demonstrated as suitable and available for development within the Outer South and Aireborough HMCAs, respectively.

Q3 – On identified sites where planning permission has expired, is there very convincing written or verbal evidence that the intentions of the owners/developers have changed? (Please see schedule 1)

2.5 Whilst schedule 1 does not provide a list of sites where planning permission has expired (rather, it provides a list of sites where no planning permission exists), we can confirm that all sites which are in control by PHWY are ones where housing is being proactively promoted and there is a clear intent for a future planning application for new housing development to be submitted. With reference to schedule 1, these sites include sites MX1-26 (East of Otley, Off Pool Road) and HG1-288 (East Leeds Extension).

Q4 – Is the proposed mix of uses on mixed use allocated sites justified?

2.6 The only site within PHWY’s control that this question is relevant to is Site MX1-26 (East of Otley, Off Pool Road), where the latest masterplan for the site (see Annex 1) proposes the following mix of uses:

• 550 dwellings;

• Provision of a relief road (East Otley Relief Road);

• Relocation and provision of sports pitches;

• A new two-form entry primary school;

• Elderly persons accommodation;

• 5 hectares of employment land; and

• Public open space.

2.7 PHWY’s masterplan therefore accords with the mix of uses identified within the SAP which, in turn, will ensure that a sustainable form of development is delivered on this strategic site.

Q5 – Where the development of a site relies on the delivery of critical infrastructure (e.g. new roads, new water and waste water infrastructure, significant pre-commencement work), does the evidence support that the infrastructure will be in place to support the timely development of these sites? 2.8 Yes, in most cases. The East Otley Relief Road can be provided in a timely manner to support the planned delivery of the proposed East Otley (MX1-26) allocation and the park and ride infrastructure at Stourton which is required to enable the Haighside, Rothwell (HG2-173) site to come forward, is already in place.

2.9 The Northern Quadrant of the East Leeds Extension (HG1-288) is capable of being brought forward before the delivery of the East Leeds Orbital Route, as access could be achieved from the A58 as demonstrated in the current planning application (ref. 16/05095/FU).

Pg 2/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

2.10 However, there is an over-reliance on certain allocations coming forward when the implementation of these developments is subject to the delivery of critical infrastructure. The outcome of the highways modelling work for the Parlington and Stourton Grange allocations will not be available until October 2017 and therefore, the extent of the highways infrastructure required is not yet clear. As a result, additional flexibility needs to be built into the SAP in order to ensure that the type and amount of development anticipated within the CS is delivered, in the event that certain allocations don’t deliver either in full or in part during the plan period. Consequentially, additional sites need to be allocated in the Outer South East HMCA, such as at Barwick Road, Garforth (SHLAA refs. 2156, 1126, 3114 & 1165).

Q6 – Are the identified Protected Areas of Search site justified? 2.11 To an extent, yes, as they help give much needed flexibility to the SAP, should the delivery of certain sites not be forthcoming in full or in part during the plan period. 2.12 As stated in our response to Matter 2, however, we have expressed concerns as to the deliverability of Sites HG-124 and MX-32 during the plan period. This is highly significant given that both of these sites make up the majority of the identified housing supply within their respective HMCAs.

2.13 Given the above concerns, it would be prudent for Site HG3-18 (Selby Road, Garforth) to be brought forward as a Phase 1 housing allocation within the outer south east HMCA, rather than held back as safeguarded land.

3.0 Main Issue 2: For each site, are the policies and specific site requirements sound?

3.1 Our response to the following questions reflects views on the sites within our client’s control (in whole or in part). These are listed in Table 1 as follows:

Table 1 Proposed allocation sites controlled by PHWY

HMCA Area Site Ref. Site Description Outer north west MX1-26 East of Otley, Off Pool Road East Leeds HG1-288 East Leeds Extension Outer north east HG2-226 Land to the east of Wetherby

HG1-288 East Leeds Extension Outer south HG2-173 Haighside, Rothwell Outer south east HG3-18 Land south of Selby Road, Garforth Outer south west HG2-150 Churwell (land to the east of) LS27

HG2-149 Lane Side Farm, PAS Morley

HG2-153 Albert Drive, Morley

HG1-514 Albert Drive – Lower Moor Farm, Morley

HG1-351 Owlers Farm PAS, Wide Lane, Morley

Pg 3/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

Q1 – Are the general policies and site requirements relating to all sites positively prepared, justified and effective (are they clearly expressed so that they can be applied in day to day decision-making?) and consistent with national policy? 3.11 Yes. These appear to be consistent with policies set out in the adopted Core Strategy. Given that the Core Strategy has been confirmed as sound at a separate Examination in Public, it follows that the general policies and site requirements within the SAP are also positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. 3.12 Q2 – Are the site specific requirements relating to individual sites justified and effective (are they clearly expressed so they can be applied in day to day decision- making?) and consistent with national policy? 3.13 MX1-26 – we support the allocation of this site and consider it to be justified and effective on the basis that the site is suitable and available for development. 3.14 HG1-228 – we support the allocation of this site and consider it to be justified and effective on the basis that the site is suitable and available for development.

3.15 HG2-226 – the site requirements clearly express the need for a comprehensive development on this site. PHWY agree with this and the illustrative masterplan included in Annex 2 shows one such way that a comprehensive, sustainable development could be realised on the allocation site. To ensure its effectiveness, however, additional wording should be added to the site requirements of HG2-226, requiring a phasing plan to be agreed by all three landowners which ensures that the entirety of the site is delivered within the plan period in an appropriate and timely manner.

3.16 HG2-173 – PHWY concurs with the site requirements and note that they reflect the findings of previous technical work that has been undertaken and submitted to the Council as part of previous representations (ref. PDE02864). We note, however, that comments on the local highway network suggest that “it is considered that development should wait until completion of public transport improvements such as park and ride at M1 Junction 7 (Stourton)”. Given that the park & ride became operational on 19th June 2017, there is no justification for the delivery of the site to be held back until Phase 2. In order to ensure that the allocation is ‘justified and effective’, the above text should be removed from the SAP and the site re- categorised as a Phase 1 housing allocation.

3.17 HG3-18 – as stated in our response to Matter 2, we do not consider the inclusion of this site as safeguarded land to be justified when there is a clear need for additional housing sites to be allocated. Notwithstanding this, Policy HG3 should – as a minimum - provide additional wording as to how Site HG3-18 could be brought forward for development should it be necessary to do so if identified and / or allocated sites fail to deliver at the level and pace envisaged.

3.18 HG2-149 - a resolution to grant outline planning permission for 550 dwellings on this site was made at planning committee on 16th March 2017, subject to the signing of S106 Agreement (ref. 16/02988/OT). Given that the S106 Agreement is it an advanced stage of being agreed, the site’s inclusion as a Phase 2 site is not justified. The proposed allocation should therefore be amended so that it is identified as a Phase 1 site, with the site capacity updated to reflect the permitted 550 units. 3.19 HG2-150 – the site specific requirements include the retention or reprovision of allotments within the site; the provision of a school and; the delivery of access improvements on to the

Pg 4/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

A643. Whilst PHWY considers these requirements to be justified, they are likely to compromise the ability of the site to deliver new housing at its full potential. Accordingly, the boundary of the site – as shown on the supporting map – should be extended into neighbouring land to the south-east in order for the site to be able to accommodate more housing (see Annex 3). This should particularly be the case if the proposals for a new railway station adjacent to the Arlington Business Centre are to come forward, allowing the site to capitalise on its close proximity to sustainable transport, in line with paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

3.20 In the absence of any barriers to the early delivery of housing on this site, we do not consider the site’s identification as a Phase 2 allocation to be justified. The SAP should, therefore, be amended to include the site as a Phase 1 allocation. 3.21 HG2-153 – PHWY supports the site’s identification as a Phase 1 allocation, reflecting previous representations that have been submitted in relation to the draft SAP (ref. PDE01734). These have demonstrated that the site is available, suitable and achievable for development now and verify that the site’s inclusion as a Phase 1 site is justified on this basis.

3.22 HG1-514 – PHWY supports the site’s identification as a Phase 1 allocation. Given, however that outline planning permission (ref. 14/07352/OT) has been granted for 200 homes on the site, its capacity should be updated to reflect this within Policy HG1.

3.23 HG1-351 – PHWY supports the site’s identification as a Phase 1 allocation and confirm that the site is actively being built out to delivery 114.

Q3 – Does the evidence demonstrate that the deliverability and viability of the allocated sites is not prejudiced by the site requirements, particularly those that have been subject to additional / revised requirements as result of consultation during the plan process?

3.24 As set out above, in the case of Site HG2-150, the identified site requirements are likely to undermine the site being able to deliver housing to its full potential. The boundary of the site should therefore be extended southwards to remedy this.

3.25 As a general point, where multiple landownerships apply to allocated sites (such is the case at HSG-226) decision makers should be allowed sufficient flexibility with regard to the application of individual policies within the SAP so as not to prevent what would otherwise be sustainable development from proceeding.

Q4 – Some sites are identified as being suitable for older persons / independent living.

(a) Whilst a preference is highlighted on some sites, it does not appear to be expressed as a requirement. Will Policy HG4 therefore be effective in the delivery of this type of housing? (b) Is the identification of these sites justified?

3.26 We consider that the identification of certain sites for older persons / independent living provides a useful guide for future developers as to the suitability of a particular site for this type of housing.

3.27 However, in order to maximise flexibility – in line with paragraph 50 of the NPPF – we do not consider that the SAP should attempt to express older persons / independent living accommodation as a specific requirement for particular sites. This should not undermine the

Pg 5/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

effective delivery of HG4 given that Policies H4 and H8 of the Core Strategy require the provision of such housing types to be taken into account, reflecting local need.

4.0 Outer south Q1 – In relation to HG2-173 in the light of land instability is the site deliverable? Are the site requirements clearly expressed?

4.1 Yes. As set out in Annex 4, land stability matters are not uncommon within this part of the district and PHWY has taken into account the need for the potential mitigation in their appraisal as to the deliverability of the site. It should also be noted that PHWY is actively building-out there other sites within a 5 mile radius of HG2-173, where similar land stability considerations have been applicable.

5.0 Outer south east Q2 - Is HG2-124 deliverable in light of claims that mine and mineral rights will not be relinquished?

5.1 We would question the deliverability of the site on this basis and, indeed, we have already expressed concerns as to the deliverability of the site in terms of other matters, such as its reliance on the delivery of substantial supporting infrastructure (see Matter 2).

5.2 Given these uncertainties and the fact that the site’s delivery provides such a significant source of housing for the outer south east HMCA, we would recommend that the SAP adopts a precautionary approach as to its delivery; seeking to allocate more sites and facilitating the early delivery of sites where it is achievable to do so.

Pg 6/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

Annex 1: East Otley Draft Concept Masterplan (Allocation Ref: MX1-26) – (drawing number: IL50386/01-002 Rev G, dated 21-06-17)

Pg 7/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

Key KEY

Boundary of Study Area Boundary of Study Area Residential Area (High ResidentialDensity) Area (High Density)

ResidentialResidential Area Area (Low (Medium Density) Density) Potential Additional Land for 2 Form Entry Primary School (dual Relocated Sports Residential Area (Low Density) Pitches Sports use recreation) Pitches 2 Form Entry Primary School Potential Employment/Commercial (dual use recreation) - East Otley Gateway

Potential Pool Road Potential Employment Employment/Commercial - East Otley Gateway Open Space Potential Employment East Busk Lane Trees Open Space Future Open Space Trees Stream Future Open Space

Indicative new access roads Indicative New Access Roads

Phasing boundaries Phasing Boundaries PHASE 2 PublicPublic Right Right of Way of Way

CyclewayCycleway

ProposedProposed Sustrans Sustrans Long Long Distance CyclewayDistance Cycleway

St Clair Road PHASE 1

Project East Otley Lisker Drive Title

Client Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Date

Scale NTS N Drawn by .

Leeds Road '( / LR34

Based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her 5L L © ! !

Annex 2: Land to the East of Wetherby (Allocation Ref. HG2-226) – Illustrative Masterplan (drawing ref. P16 5043 08, dated 14.02.17)

Pg 8/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

Annex 3: Land East of Churwell (Allocation HSG2-150) - Barton Willmore drawing (ref. RG-M-07, dated 26-07-17)

Pg 9/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured R L ARK A R Revision Date Drn Ckd R ---- D L K O Allocation Boundary L (Ref HG2-150) K A V N U E A R E 10.64Ha/26.29Ac

A N

D D P E Approximate Development A 3 O W Area: 8.64Ha/21.35Ac

R A R Railway embankmentH Approximate School Area: YA O S S Potential location forM 2FEN L 2.00Ha/4.94Ac C A H L Primary School on existing I O Lowest part of site. Approximate Allotment Area: O allotments site M L Potential for attenuation basin 0.84Ha/2.08Ac S T Station car park Emergency/ Service access to station 1 Pocket Parks 2 Existing Footpaths Potential location for 3 Vehicular Access D 2 A new station adjacent to O LITTLELITT LA existing underpass Indicative dwelling numbers LE L (subject to site survey and A 1 technical information) COTEROYDCOTE AVE OTEOTTTEROYDR 259 units @ 30dph AVEAVE 3 2 N 345 units @ 40dph E E R Railway Embankment G 1 K PWW Relocation of Allotments Project Churwell N (Land to the East) Drawing Title 2 Layout Option 3 - Primary School L at current allotments site A P Area to accommodate Date Scale Drawn by Check by P 26.07.17 1:2,500@A3 KD MA R open space requirements O Project No Drawing No Revision A C 2 25384 RG-M-07 - H 20 60 100m Proposed woodland blocks to 04080 2 define development edge

D Planning ● Master Planning & Urban Design ● Architecture ● Landscape Planning & Design ● Environmental Planning ● 2 Graphic Communication ● Public Engagement ● Research bartonwillmore.co.uk

Certificate FS 29637 Offices at Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Ebbsfleet Edinburgh Leeds E Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No 100019279. J:\25000 - 25999\25300 - 25399\25384 - Churwell (Land To The East)\A4 - Dwgs & Registers\M Planning\25384 - RG-M-07 - Layout Option 3.dwg - (1-2500@A3) London Manchester Newcastle Reading Birmingham Southampton

Annex 4: Haighside, Rothwell HG2-173 – Review of Mining Issues, Lithos Consulting Letter (dated 11.08.17)

Pg 10/10 Lichfields.uk 14709144v2

004/2837/REG

11th August

Mr J Parkin Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire) Ltd Registered in England 07068066 3 Hepton Court Parkhill York Road Wetherby Leeds West Yorkshire LS22 5DZ LS9 6PW T 01937 545 330 www.lithos.co.uk

Dear James

HG2-173, Haigh Side, Rothwell – Review of mining issues

Further to your recent enquiry, we understand the planning inspector has queried whether, in the light of land instability, this site is deliverable. It is understood that this query has arisen following objections to the scheme from the public based on concerns over disused mines.

We are currently preparing a comprehensive preliminary (desk-based) geoenvironmental appraisal report which will include, in addition to other ground-related issues, a mining risk assessment in accordance with Coal Authority guidance. This letter has been drafted in advance of that report in order to provide reassurance that coal mining legacy issues can be readily dealt with and this site can be safely developed with housing.

Summary: Details of the local geology and coal mining are provided below, but in essence we consider: a) Ground conditions beneath this site are common throughout Yorkshire. b) There is no shallow coal (<30m below existing ground level) beneath the area of interest, and consequently no risk to surface stability associated with the collapse of unrecorded mineworkings. c) There are known deep (>90m) workings, but mining ceased in 1983, and any ground movement associated with these workings should have ceased many years ago. d) There are 8 known mine entries (shafts) associated with these deep workings. The Coal Authority (and NHBC) discourage development over or adjacent to shafts (within a line drawn at 450 back from where the shaft intersects rockhead), and consequently such shafts typically result in localised “no-build” sterile zones. e) A ground investigation will be required in advance of development, and this will include works to locate each of the known shafts, with drilling of those which have not yet been capped.

Details (geology & mining): In July 2011, the Coal Authority (CA) formalised their requirements in relation to planning applications and introduced some new terminology relating to coal mining development areas.

The majority of this site is located within a Coal Mining Development Low Risk Area - within the defined coalfield, but no known defined risks have been recorded by the Coal Authority. However, there are 4 localised areas of High Risk; these are areas associated with specific mining legacy risks to the surface, including mine entries; shallow coal workings etc.

The High Risk areas are all associated with former mine entries (shafts), of which there are a total of 8 within the site’s boundary. The location of these shafts and associated High Risk areas are shown on Drawing 2837/8 in Annex A.

Mine entry data (included in Annex B) has been obtained from the CA and is summarised:

Mine Entry Ref Depth/m Diameter/m Treated? Remarks Filled 1967; ‘Low Shops Upcast Shaft’. BGS 433428-001 227.6 ? capped 1981 record available – BHSE32NW15 Filled 1967; All associated with 433428-002 139.0 ? ‘Old Engine Shaft’ capped 1981 Low Shops Colliery – active from mid- Filled 1928; 433428-011 137.2 2.3 ‘New Engine Shaft’ 1800s, until around capped 1981 1950 Filled 1967; 433428-013 ? 2.0 ‘Sal Shaft’ capped 1981

432428-011 ? ? ? ‘Rainbow Pit’ Not shown on any 432428-012 ? ? ? OS plans.

432428-009 ? ? ? ‘Bridge Pit Shaft’ Grame Pit; only 432428-010 ? ? ? ‘Bridge Pit’ shown 1854 OS plan Off site, on north side of Wood Lane. 432429-013 95.0 Filled 1967 ‘Brick Pit Lowry Shaft’ Labelled air shaft on OS plans

There are many other mine entries within 250m of the site, including several in the vicinity of Low Shops Lane to the north and Rothwell Victoria Junior School to the north-east.

The 1:10,000 geological map (SE32NW) indicate that the site is underlain by Thornhill Rock (a major Coal Measures sandstone), likely to overlain by a veneer of glacial sand & gravel in the east. No coal seams are shown to outcrop within 400m of the site’s boundaries, but in theory the shallowest seam should be the Joan Coal (0.1 to 0.4m thick); it is shown to outcrop about 400m to the north of the site’s most northerly boundary.

However, a BGS borehole record (SE32NW15, for Shaft 433428-001; (copy included in Annex C) suggests the Joan Coal is absent beneath this site. The following coal seams are recorded on this log: x Flockton Thick Coal (c. 0.8m thick) at a depth of around 45m; x Flockton Thin (c. 0.5m) at 60m; x 1st Brown Metal Coal (c. 0.3m) at 75m; x 2nd Brown Metal Coal (c. 0.5m) at 90m; x 3rd Brown Metal Coal (c. 0.4m) at 95m x The Middleton Little (c. 0.9m) at 110m; x Middleton Main (or West Yorkshire Silkstone) Coal (c. 1.6m) at 140m; x Middleton 11-Yards (c. 0.8m) at 155m; x Blocking Rider (c. 0.2m) at 170m; x Beeston Coal (c. 1.3m) at 220m; x Better Bed (0.7 to 1.1m) at 300m.

Contours shown on the geological map for deep mineworkings in the Middleton 11-Yards seam, suggest strata in this area dip at around 1o to the south-east. Consequently, in the north-west of this site where the above seams should be shallowest, the Flockton Thick is likely to lie at depths in excess of 30m. Even if there were unrecorded mineworkings in the Flockton Thick, at the depths anticipated collapse of these workings would not pose a risk to surface stability.

Page 2 of 3

A CA mining report (copy included in Annex B) states that: x The property is in a surface area that could be affected by underground mining in 8 seams of coal at 90m to 300m depth, and last worked in 1983. Any movement in the ground due to coal mining activity should have stopped. The shallowest of these is likely the 2nd Brown Metal, and the deepest the Better Bed. x The property is not within a surface area that could be affected by present underground coal workings. x The property is not in an area for where the Coal Authority has plans to grant a licence to remove coal using underground methods. x Within, or within 20 metres of, the boundary of the property there are 9 mine entries. 8 of these lie within the site itself. x The Coal Authority is not aware of any damage due to geological faults or other lines of weakness that have been affected by coal mining. This confirms the absence of any known significant geological faults below the site. x The property is not within the boundary of an opencast site from which coal has been removed by opencast methods. x The Coal Authority has no record of a mine gas emission requiring action. x The property is in an area where notices of to withdraw support were given in 1976 & 1977.

Summary: The only mining legacy issues affecting this site which require further consideration are 8 known mine entries (shafts) associated with the mining of deep (>90m) coal seams. Shafts are common throughout Yorkshire, and beyond; indeed, there are many other mine entries within 250m of this site. Consequently, the presence of shafts should not influence deliverability of this site for housing.

The Coal Authority (and NHBC) discourage development over or adjacent to shafts, resulting in localised “no-build” zones.

Proposals to treat shafts will need to be discussed with both the Local Authority (most notably Highways), the Coal Authority and NHBC well in advance of starting work on site. However, at this stage, it should be expected that any shafts not yet capped will require investigation (drilling) and ultimately treatment (likely to comprise construction of a reinforced concrete cap at rockhead).

Should you require any further information, please contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Mark Perrin Director for and on behalf of LITHOS CONSULTING LIMITED

Page 3 of 3

Annex A

Drawings The Site SE 331 286

Reproduced from OS Explorer map 1:25,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100049696.

CLIENT JOB TITLE DRAWING TITLE DRAWN DATE ENGINEER 11 08 2017 PERSIMMON CHECKED DATE HAIGH SIDE, SITE LOCATION REG 11 08 2017 HOMES WEST STATUS ROTHWELL PLAN FOR COMMENT DRAFT [email protected] YORKSHIRE FOR APPROVAL FINAL www.lithos.co.uk SCALE SHEET DRAWING NO. REVISION Tel 01937 545330 1:25,000 A4 2837/1 GP

73.9m LB Shelter

429200 Tank

WOOD LANE 432429-013

72.4m Shelter 251

73.3m 73.2m ETL 73.9m

34 to 54

Posts 56 213 1 429100

209 32 77.4m 30 207

14 to 28 to 14 201

WOOD LANE 2 78.6m 199 72 197

GARDENS 12 Trees

69.9m 1

74 2 CASTLE LODGE 48

10 to 22 2 68 3 23 to 30

1 1 CASTLE LODGE GARTH

CASTLE LODGE AVENUE 38 Castle Lodge

60 Square

CASTLE LODGE AVENUE 2 101

El Sub 6 8

Sta 14

86 16

40 to 46

28 92

429000

CASTLE

89 26 9 to 1

24 10 9

LODGE CASTLE LODGE AVENUE

9 81 AVENUE 11

19 to 35 to 19

37 57

69 CASTLE LODGE 2 22

68.7m

17 9

16 2

15 3

1 8 El 23 Sub Sta 11

25 to 41 21

CASTLE LODGE MEWS 32

16 11 2

13 29

432428-009 15 1 2 to12 2 1

428900

66.8m 17 24 to

2 14 CASTLE LODGE COURT 31 12

19 5 432428-010 1 42

37 26

The Bungalow 25

21 HAIGHSIDE

Track

4 42 LOW SHOPS LANE

HAIGHSIDE DRIVE

CASTLE LODGE WAY 47

11 35 24

50 15 54

33 35 26 11

15 23

37 54

44 43 43 1 6

428800 11

15 25 2 59

10 37

34 2

HAIGHSIDE WAY 1 WOOD MOUNT WOOD 68 El Sub Sta

432428-011 2 1

WOOD DRIVE

2 12

67.9m 22 Tank

ETL 10 ETL Haigh Beck WOOD HILL 432428-012 28

Track WOOD CLOSE

Path (um) 30

10 11

66.1m 11

11 12

31 18

Track

428700

Path (um) 19

Haigh Side Farm ROSE GROVE 2 15

433428-011 13

Path

124

1 122 432800 432900 433000 433100 433200 433300 433400 433500 433600 433700

68.9m

433428-002 157

Track

433428-001 153 79

428600 120

433428-013 147 118

MANOR

Haigh Beck 59.4m

CRE Pond SCENT Sinks

58.2m

Haigh Beck

KEY NOTES STATUS CLIENT JOB TITLE DRAWING TITLE APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY FOR COMMENTFOR APPROVAL DRAFT FINAL

DRAWN DATE ENGINEER 11 08 2017 PERSIMMON 433428-001 CA KNOWN MINE ENTRY (SHAFT) HAIGH SIDE, CHECKED DATE HOMES WEST MINE ENTRIES & HIGH RISK AREAS REG 11 08 2017 ROTHWELL CA HIGH RISK AREA [email protected] YORKSHIRE SCALE SHEET www.lithos.co.uk 1:1500 A1 Tel 01937 545330 OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY LINES DRAWING NO. REVISION 2837/ REV. DESCRIPTION DATE 8

Annex B

Coal Authority data &210 1RQ5HVLGHQWLDO 0LQLQJ5HSRUW

/2:6+236/$1( 527+:(// /(('6 :(67<25.6+Ζ5(

'DWHRIHQTXLU\ $XJXVW 'DWHHQTXLU\UHFHLYHG $XJXVW ΖVVXHGDWH $XJXVW

2XUUHIHUHQFH

7KLVUHSRUWLVEDVHGRQDQGOLPLWHGWRWKHUHFRUGVKHOGE\WKH&RDO $XWKRULW\DQGWKH&KHVKLUH%ULQH6XEVLGHQFH&RPSHQVDWLRQ%RDUG V UHFRUGVDWWKHWLPHZHDQVZHUWKHVHDUFK

&OLHQWQDPH /$1'0$5.Ζ1)250$7Ζ21*5283/Ζ0Ζ7('

(QTXLU\DGGUHVV /2:6+236/$1(527+:(///(('6:(67 <25.6+Ζ5(

+RZWRFRQWDFWXV

8. ΖQWHUQDWLRQDO $SSUR[LPDWHSRVLWLRQRISURSHUW\ /LFKILHOG/DQH 5HSURGXFHGE\SHUPLVVLRQRI 0DQVILHOG 2UGQDQFH6XUYH\RQEHKDOIRI 1RWWLQJKDPVKLUH +062k&URZQFRS\ULJKWDQG 1*5* GDWDEDVHULJKW$OOULJKWV UHVHUYHG ZZZJURXQGVWDELOLW\FRP 2UGQDQFH6XUYH\/LFHQFHQXPEHU FRPSDQ\WKHFRDODXWKRULW\ WKHFRDODXWKRULW\ FRDODXWKRULW\

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH 6XPPDU\

+DVWKHVHDUFKUHSRUWKLJKOLJKWHGHYLGHQFHRUSRWHQWLDORI

3DVWXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ

3UHVHQWXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ 1R

)XWXUHXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ

0LQHHQWULHV

&RDOPLQLQJJHRORJ\ 1R

3DVWRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 1R

3UHVHQWRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 1R

)XWXUHRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 1R

&RDOPLQLQJVXEVLGHQFH 1R

0LQHJDV 1R

+D]DUGVUHODWHGWRFRDOPLQLQJ 1R

:LWKGUDZDORIVXSSRUW

:RUNLQJIDFLOLWLHVRUGHU 1R

3D\PHQWVWRRZQHUVRIIRUPHUFRS\KROGODQG 1R

ΖQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKH&KHVKLUH%ULQH6XEVLGHQFH&RPSHQVDWLRQ%RDUG 1R

)XUWKHUUHFRPPHQGHGUHSRUWV

0LQHHQWU\LQWHUSUHWLYHUHSRUW

0LQHHQWU\SODQDQGGDWDVKHHWV

)RUGHWDLOHGILQGLQJVSOHDVHJRWRSDJH

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH 'HWDLOHGILQGLQJV

3DVWXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\LVLQDVXUIDFHDUHDWKDWFRXOGEHDIIHFWHGE\XQGHUJURXQGPLQLQJLQVHDPVRIFRDO DWPWRPGHSWKDQGODVWZRUNHGLQ

$Q\PRYHPHQWLQWKHJURXQGGXHWRFRDOPLQLQJDFWLYLW\VKRXOGKDYHVWRSSHG

3UHVHQWXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWZLWKLQDVXUIDFHDUHDWKDWFRXOGEHDIIHFWHGE\SUHVHQWXQGHUJURXQGPLQLQJ

)XWXUHXQGHUJURXQGFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDZKHUHWKH&RDO$XWKRULW\KDVSODQVWRJUDQWDOLFHQFHWRUHPRYHFRDO XVLQJXQGHUJURXQGPHWKRGV

7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDZKHUHDOLFHQFHKDVEHHQJUDQWHGWRUHPRYHRURWKHUZLVHZRUNFRDO XVLQJXQGHUJURXQGPHWKRGV

7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDOLNHO\WREHDIIHFWHGIURPDQ\SODQQHGIXWXUHXQGHUJURXQGFRDO PLQLQJ

+RZHYHUUHVHUYHVRIFRDOH[LVWLQWKHORFDODUHDZKLFKFRXOGEHZRUNHGDWVRPHWLPHLQWKHIXWXUH

1RQRWLFHVKDYHEHHQJLYHQXQGHUVHFWLRQRIWKH&RDO0LQLQJ6XEVLGHQFH$FWVWDWLQJWKDW WKHODQGLVDWULVNRIVXEVLGHQFH

0LQHHQWULHV :LWKLQRUZLWKLQPHWUHVRIWKHERXQGDU\RIWKHSURSHUW\WKHUHDUHPLQHHQWULHVWKH DSSUR[LPDWHSRVLWLRQVRIZKLFKDUHVKRZQRQWKHHQTXLU\ERXQGDU\SORW

2XUUHFRUGVGLVFORVHWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ ZDVILOOHGLQDQGFDSSHGLQ

1RWUHDWPHQWGHWDLOV

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH 1RWUHDWPHQWGHWDLOV

ZDVILOOHGLQDQGFDSSHGLQ

1RWUHDWPHQWGHWDLOV

ZDVILOOHGE\WKHVLWHRZQHUVDWWKHWLPHLQXQGHUVXSHUYLVLRQRIWKH1&% $UHD&LYLO(QJLQHHU

ZDVILOOHGLQDQGFDSSHGLQ

7KHUHPD\KRZHYHUEHPLQHHQWULHVDGGLWLRQDOPLQHHQWULHVLQWKHORFDODUHDZKLFKWKH&RDO $XWKRULW\KDVQRNQRZOHGJHRI

)RUDQDGGLWLRQDOIHHWKH&RDO$XWKRULW\FDQSURYLGHD0LQH(QWU\ΖQWHUSUHWLYH5HSRUW7KHUHSRUW ZLOOSURYLGHDVHSDUDWHDVVHVVPHQWIRUWKHPLQHHQWU\HQWULHVUHIHUUHGWRLQWKLVUHSRUWΖWJLYHVDQ RSLQLRQRQWKHOLNHOLKRRGRIPLQLQJVXEVLGHQFHGDPDJHFDXVHGIURPJURXQGPRYHPHQWDVD FRQVHTXHQFHRIWKHPLQHHQWU\HQWULHVΖWDOVRJLYHVGHWDLOVRIWKHUHPHGLHVDYDLODEOHIRU VXEVLGHQFHGDPDJHZKHUHWKHPLQHHQWU\ZDVVXQNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKFRDOPLQLQJ

3OHDVHQRWHWKDWLWPD\QRWEHSRVVLEOHWRSURGXFHDUHSRUWLIWKHPDLQEXLOGLQJWRWKHSURSHUW\ FDQQRWEHLGHQWLILHGIURP&RDO$XWKRULW\SODQV LHIRUGHYHORSPHQWVLWHVDQGQHZEXLOG

)RUIXUWKHUDGYLFHRQKRZWRRUGHUWKLVDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHYLVLW ZZZJURXQGVWDELOLW\FRP

&RDOPLQLQJJHRORJ\ 7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\LVQRWDZDUHRIDQ\GDPDJHGXHWRJHRORJLFDOIDXOWVRURWKHUOLQHVRIZHDNQHVV WKDWKDYHEHHQDIIHFWHGE\FRDOPLQLQJ

3DVWRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWZLWKLQWKHERXQGDU\RIDQRSHQFDVWVLWHIURPZKLFKFRDOKDVEHHQUHPRYHGE\ RSHQFDVWPHWKRGV

3UHVHQWRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\GRHVQRWOLHZLWKLQPHWUHVRIWKHERXQGDU\RIDQRSHQFDVWVLWHIURPZKLFKFRDOLV EHLQJUHPRYHGE\RSHQFDVWPHWKRGV

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH )XWXUHRSHQFDVWFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHUHDUHQROLFHQFHUHTXHVWVRXWVWDQGLQJWRUHPRYHFRDOE\RSHQFDVWPHWKRGVZLWKLQPHWUHV RIWKHERXQGDU\

7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWZLWKLQPHWUHVRIWKHERXQGDU\RIDQRSHQFDVWVLWHIRUZKLFKDOLFHQFHWR UHPRYHFRDOE\RSHQFDVWPHWKRGVKDVEHHQJUDQWHG

&RDOPLQLQJVXEVLGHQFH 7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\KDVQRWUHFHLYHGDGDPDJHQRWLFHRUFODLPIRUWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\RUDQ\ SURSHUW\ZLWKLQPHWUHVVLQFH2FWREHU

7KHUHLVQRFXUUHQW6WRS1RWLFHGHOD\LQJWKHVWDUWRIUHPHGLDOZRUNVRUUHSDLUVWRWKHSURSHUW\

7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\LVQRWDZDUHRIDQ\UHTXHVWKDYLQJEHHQPDGHWRFDUU\RXWSUHYHQWLYHZRUNV EHIRUHFRDOLVZRUNHGXQGHUVHFWLRQRIWKH&RDO0LQLQJ6XEVLGHQFH$FW

0LQHJDV 7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\KDVQRUHFRUGRIDPLQHJDVHPLVVLRQUHTXLULQJDFWLRQ

+D]DUGVUHODWHGWRFRDOPLQLQJ 7KHSURSHUW\KDVQRWEHHQVXEMHFWWRUHPHGLDOZRUNVE\RURQEHKDOIRIWKH$XWKRULW\XQGHULWV (PHUJHQF\6XUIDFH+D]DUG&DOO2XWSURFHGXUHV

:LWKGUDZDORIVXSSRUW 7KHSURSHUW\LVLQDQDUHDZKHUHQRWLFHVWRZLWKGUDZVXSSRUWZHUHJLYHQLQ

7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDZKHUHDQRWLFHKDVEHHQJLYHQXQGHUVHFWLRQRIWKH&RDOΖQGXVWU\ $FWFDQFHOOLQJWKHHQWLWOHPHQWWRZLWKGUDZVXSSRUW

:RUNLQJIDFLOLWLHVRUGHU 7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDZKHUHDQRUGHUKDVEHHQPDGHXQGHUWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKH0LQHV :RUNLQJ)DFLOLWLHVDQG6XSSRUW $FWVDQGRUDQ\VWDWXWRU\PRGLILFDWLRQRUDPHQGPHQW WKHUHRI

3D\PHQWVWRRZQHUVRIIRUPHUFRS\KROGODQG 7KHSURSHUW\LVQRWLQDQDUHDZKHUHDUHOHYDQWQRWLFHKDVEHHQSXEOLVKHGXQGHUWKH&RDOΖQGXVWU\ $FW&RDOΖQGXVWU\$FW

ΖQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKH&KHVKLUH%ULQH6XEVLGHQFH&RPSHQVDWLRQ%RDUG 7KHSURSHUW\OLHVRXWVLGHWKH&KHVKLUH%ULQH&RPSHQVDWLRQ'LVWULFW

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH &RPPHQWVRQWKH&RDO$XWKRULW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ

7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\RZQWKHFRS\ULJKWLQWKLVUHSRUWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQ XVHGLVSURWHFWHGE\RXUGDWDEDVHULJKW

7KHERXQGDU\SORWVKRZVWKHDSSUR[LPDWHORFDWLRQRIWKHGLVXVHGPLQHHQWU\HQWULHVUHIHUUHGWRLQ WKLVUHSRUW)RUUHDVRQVRIFODULW\PLQHHQWU\V\PEROVPD\QRWEHGUDZQWRWKHVDPHVFDOHDVWKH SODQ

3URSHUW\RZQHUVKDYHWKHEHQHILWRIVWDWXWRU\SURWHFWLRQ XQGHUWKH&RDO0LQLQJ6XEVLGHQFH$FW 7KLVFRQWDLQVSURYLVLRQIRUWKHPDNLQJJRRGWRWKHUHDVRQDEOHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHRZQHURI SK\VLFDOGDPDJHIURPGLVXVHGFRDOPLQHZRUNLQJVLQFOXGLQJGLVXVHGFRDOPLQHHQWULHV$OHDIOHW VHWWLQJRXWWKHULJKWVDQGREOLJDWLRQVRIHLWKHUWKH&RDO$XWKRULW\RURWKHUUHVSRQVLEOHSHUVRQV XQGHUWKH$FWFDQEHREWDLQHGE\YLVLWLQJZZZJURXQGVWDELOLW\FRP

ΖI\RXZLVKWRGLVFXVVWKHUHOHYDQFHRIDQ\RIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVUHSRUW\RXVKRXOG VHHNWKHDGYLFHRIDTXDOLILHGPLQLQJHQJLQHHURUVXUYH\RUΖI\RXRU\RXUDGYLVRUZLVKWRH[DPLQH WKHVRXUFHSODQVIURPZKLFKWKHLQIRUPDWLRQKDVEHHQWDNHQWKHVHDUHDYDLODEOHWRYLHZIUHHRI FKDUJHDWRXU+HDG2IILFHLQ0DQVILHOG7RERRNDQDSSRLQWPHQWSOHDVHULQJ6KRXOG \RXRU\RXUDGYLVRUZLVKWRFDUU\RXWDSK\VLFDOLQYHVWLJDWLRQWKDWPD\HQWHUGLVWXUERULQWHUIHUH ZLWKDQ\GLVXVHGPLQHHQWU\SULRUSHUPLVVLRQRIWKHRZQHUPXVWEHVRXJKW)RUFRDOPLQHHQWULHV WKHRZQHUZLOOQRUPDOO\EHWKH&RDO$XWKRULW\

7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\UHJDUGOHVVRIUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKRWKHUSXEOLFERGLHVSURYLGH DQHPHUJHQF\FDOORXWIDFLOLW\LQFRDOILHOGDUHDVWRDVVHVVWKHSXEOLFVDIHW\LPSOLFDWLRQVRIPLQLQJ IHDWXUHV LQFOXGLQJGLVXVHGPLQHHQWULHV 2XUHPHUJHQF\WHOHSKRQHQXPEHULV

1RWHWKLV$FWGRHVQRWDSSO\ZKHUHFRDOZDVZRUNHGRUJRWWHQE\YLUWXHRIWKHJUDQWRIDJDOHLQ WKH)RUHVWRI'HDQRUDQ\RWKHUSDUWRIWKH+XQGUHGRI6W%ULDYHOVLQWKHFRXQW\RI*ORXFHVWHU

ΖQYLHZRIWKHPLQLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHVDSUXGHQWGHYHORSHUZRXOGVHHNDSSURSULDWHWHFKQLFDODGYLFH EHIRUHDQ\ZRUNVDUHXQGHUWDNHQ

7KHUHIRUHLIGHYHORSPHQWSURSRVDOVDUHEHLQJFRQVLGHUHGWHFKQLFDODGYLFHUHODWLQJWRERWKWKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQRIFRDODQGIRUPHUFRDOPLQHVDQGWKHLUWUHDWPHQWVKRXOGEHREWDLQHGEHIRUH

k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

$GGLWLRQDOUHPDUNV ΖQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGE\WKH&RDO$XWKRULW\LQWKLVUHSRUWLVFRPSLOHGLQUHVSRQVHWRWKH/DZ 6RFLHW\ȇV&RQ0&RDO0LQLQJDQG%ULQH6XEVLGHQFH&ODLPHQTXLULHV7KHVDLGHQTXLULHVDUH SURWHFWHGE\FRS\ULJKWRZQHGE\WKH/DZ6RFLHW\RI&KDQFHU\/DQH/RQGRQ:&$3/3OHDVH QRWHWKDW%ULQH6XEVLGHQFH&ODLPHQTXLULHVDUHRQO\UHOHYDQWIRU(QJODQGDQG:DOHV7KLVUHSRUWLV SUHSDUHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH/DZ6RFLHW\ȇV*XLGDQFH1RWHVWKH8VHU*XLGHDQGWKH &RDO$XWKRULW\DQG&KHVKLUH%ULQH%RDUGȇV7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQVDSSOLFDEOHDWWKHWLPHWKHUHSRUW ZDVSURGXFHG

'LVFODLPHU 7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\RZQVWKHFRS\ULJKWLQWKLVUHSRUWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQXVHGWRSURGXFHWKLV UHSRUWLVSURWHFWHGE\RXUGDWDEDVHULJKWV$OOULJKWVDUHUHVHUYHGDQGXQDXWKRULVHGXVHLV SURKLELWHGΖIZHSURYLGHDUHSRUWIRU\RXWKLVGRHVQRWPHDQWKDWFRS\ULJKWDQGDQ\RWKHUULJKWV ZLOOSDVVWR\RX+RZHYHU\RXFDQXVHWKHUHSRUWIRU\RXURZQSXUSRVHV

$OWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWV ΖI\RXZRXOGOLNHWKLVUHSRUWLQDQDOWHUQDWLYHIRUPDWSOHDVHFRQWDFWRXUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVWHDP

k7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\ 3DJHRI &2101RQ5HVLGHQWLDO0LQLQJ5HSRUWUHIHUHQFH (QTXLU\ERXQGDU\

.H\ $SSUR[LPDWHSRVLWLRQRIHQTXLU\ ERXQGDU\VKRZQ

'LVXVHGPLQHVKDIW

+RZWRFRQWDFWXV

8. ΖQWHUQDWLRQDO

/LFKILHOG/DQH 0DQVILHOG 1RWWLQJKDPVKLUH 1*5*

ZZZJURXQGVWDELOLW\FRP

FRPSDQ\WKHFRDODXWKRULW\ WKHFRDODXWKRULW\ FRDODXWKRULW\

5HSURGXFHGE\SHUPLVVLRQRI 2UGQDQFH6XUYH\RQEHKDOIRI +062k&URZQFRS\ULJKWDQG GDWDEDVHULJKW$OOULJKWV UHVHUYHG

2UGQDQFH6XUYH\/LFHQFHQXPEHU ,VVXHGE\ 7KH&RDO$XWKRULW\3URSHUW\6HDUFK6HUYLFHV/LFKILHOG/DQH%HUU\+LOO0DQVILHOG1RWWLQJKDPVKLUH1*5* :HEVLWHZZZJURXQGVWDELOLW\FRP3KRQH

/,7+26&2168/7,1*/7' 2XUUHIHUHQFH 3$5.+,//

7KLVUHSRUWLVIRUWKHSURSHUW\GHVFULEHGLQWKHDGGUHVVEHORZDQGWKHDWWDFKHGSODQ 6KDIW3ODQDQG'DWD6KHHWV &$67/(/2'*(&2857527+:(///(('6/6=- ,UHIHUWRWKHHQTXLU\GDWHG$XJXVWUHFHLYHG$XJXVWLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHDERYH

$VUHTXHVWHG,HQFORVHWKHPLQHHQWU\GDWDVKHHW V KHOGIRUWKHPLQHHQWU\HQWULHVUHIHUUHGWR

$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG

6KDIWDGLW 6KDIW 5HIHUHQFH 6RXUFH $ESODQ1( &ROOLHU\QDPH 8QNQRZQ (QWU\QDPH 6DO6KDIW 'DWHDEDQGRQHG 8QNQRZQ 'HSWKRIVXSHUILFLDOGHSRVLWV P 8QNQRZQ 'HSWKRIVKDIW P 8QNQRZQ 'LDPHWHURIVKDIW P 3UREDEOHDGLWD]LPXWK 1RW$SSOLFDEOH 7UHDWPHQWGHWDLOV ZDVILOOHGLQDQGFDSSHGLQ &RQYH\DQFH 1RW$SSOLFDEOH (DVWLQJ 1RUWKLQJ 2WKHULQIRUPDWLRQ 1RQH