APPENDIX COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE CONSULTATION … · APPENDIX 7 – COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE CONSULTATION PERIOD 3RD JUNE TO 29TH JULY 2013 AREA 11: OUTER WEST This document

APPENDIX 7 – COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE CONSULTATION PERIOD

3RD JUNE TO 29TH JULY 2013

AREA 11: OUTER WEST

This document is a copy of all comments received relating to the Outer West Housing Market

Characteristic Area (HMCA). The comments appear in surname order. Comments may appear more

than once if the comment relates to one or more sites and/or to one or more HMCA. There is a

separate page for each set of comments received, with details of the name of the person who made

the comments, and their comments, along with a unique reference number (prefix: PRS) attached to

that particular person, which will be used again if further comments are made at a later stage of the

plan process. This is the Representor Number. Each set of comments made also receives a unique

Representation Number (prefix: REP). We will be contacting individuals to let them know what their

representor number is.

For Data Protection reasons, individual contact details – address, telephone numbers and email

addresses ‐ have been removed.

Comments may not appear exactly as they were originally submitted because they have been

recorded against the relevant questions in each HMCA. In the majority, officers have assumed which

questions the comments related to. Officers have removed comments that could be considered

offensive and/or racist.

The questions as they appear in the Issues and Options documents for Outer West are listed overleaf

for reference purposes.

Question List - Outer West

Employment

E1Do you think a site that is not colour coded ‘green’ should have been? If so, please state which site (site ref) this is and why

E2Do you think a site that is not colour coded ‘amber’ should have been? If so, please state which site (site ref) this is and why

E3Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as ‘red’ are not suitable for allocation for future employment or office development?

E4Do you think there are other more suitable sites not shown on the plan that could be considered as future employment or office allocations? If so, please supply details – address and site plan.

EXOther comments

Greenspace

G1Do you have any comments on the proposed boundary amendments, additions and deletions to the greenspace provision in the area as shown on greenspace plan A?

G2Do you think the Council should consider changing the type of greenspace where that type of greenspace is in surplus (ie more than meets the standard) to another type of greenspace that falls short of the standards?

G3Do you think the Council should consider allowing development of any of the greenspace sites where that type of greenspace is in surplus (ie more than meets the standard)? If so, which sites?

G4The quality of many existing greenspace sites in the area falls below the required standard. Do you agree that resources (including commuted sums obtained from planning permissions and legal agreements) should be channelled to improving quality of existing sites?

G5Alternatively, if a site is of poor quality and/or disused, do you think it is better to consider allowing development of that site to generate resources to invest in greenspace elsewhere?

G6Do you agree that, where opportunities arise, new greenspace provision should be provided in areas that fall below accessibility distance standards, to ensure residents have adequate access to different types of greenspace?

G7Have you any other comments/suggestions about greenspace provision in the area?

G8 Part of the existing UDP N6 (playing pitches) designation at The Manor, Stony Royds, Farsley has been put forward as a possible housing site

(Site ref 308, see page 9). Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (protected as playing pitch or another greenspace typology) or released for housing in whole or in part?

G9 Part of the existing UDP N1 greenspace designation at Coal Hill Recreation Area, Coal Hill Lane, Rodley has been put forward as a possible

housing site (Site ref 1085, see page 11). Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (in one of the identified typologies) or released for housing?

G10 Part of the existing UDP N1 greenspace designation at Kilburn Road, Farnley has been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 1342,

see page 14). Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (in one of the identified typologies) or released for housing?

G11 The existing UDP N6 (playing pitches) designation and wider outdoor sport facilities identified in the Open Space Audit at Wortley High School,

Blue Hill Lane, Wortley have been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 4007, see page 18). Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (protected as playing pitch, outdoor sport or another greenspace typology) or released for housing?

G12 The existing UDP N1 greenspace designation at Heights Drive, Armley has been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 4038, see page

18). Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (in one of the identified typologies) or released for housing?


G13 Part of the existing UDP N1 greenspace designation at Raynville Road, Bramley has been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 4042,

see page 19). The site has been identified as amenity greenspace in the Open Space Audit. Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (in one of the identified typologies) or released for housing?

G14 Part of the existing UDP N6 (playing pitches) designation at Dick Lane, Pudsey has been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 4044,

see page 19). The site has been identified in the Open Space Audit but classified as natural greenspace rather than outdoor sport. Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (protected as playing pitch or another greenspace typology) or released for housing?

G15 The existing UDP N1 greenspace designation at Hill Top, Armley has been put forward as a possible housing site (Site ref 4051, see page 19).

Do you think this land should be retained as greenspace (in one of the identified typologies) or released for housing?

GXOther comments

Housing

H1Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as ‘green’ represent the most suitable sites to consider allocating for future housing development?

H2Which sites do you disagree with and why? (Give site ref and reason)

H3Do you think a site that is not colour coded green should have been? If so, please give site ref no. and reason

H4Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as ‘amber’ represent sites with potential for allocating for future housing development?


H6Do you think a site that is not colour coded amber should have been? If so, please give site ref and reason

H7Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as ‘red’ are not suitable for allocation for future housing development?


H9Do you think a site that is not colour coded red should have been? If so, please give site ref and reason

H10Do you think there are other more suitable sites not shown on the plan that could be considered as future housing allocations? If so, please supply details – address and site plan.

H11The Site Allocations Plan will need to also identify phasing of housing allocations (see Volume 1 page 18). The phases are:Delivery/development in the short term, 0-5 yearsDelivery/development in the medium term, 5-10 yearsDelivery/development in the long term, 10 + years

Do you think any particular sites should be developed in the short, medium or long term? If so, please state Site ref of site and phase (short, medium or long term) and why.

H12Do you think that any sites being considered in this area could be suitable for gypsy and traveller site use? Please state reason, and list site ref of any specific sites.

H13Do you think there are other more suitable sites not shown on the plan that could be considered for future gypsy and traveller site use? If so, please supply details – address and site plan.


H14Do you think that any sites being considered in this area could be suitable for use solely or in part for elderly housing accommodation? Please state reason, and list site ref of specific sites.

H15Do you think there are other more suitable sites not shown on the plan that could be considered for elderly housing accommodation? If so, please supply details – address and site plan.

HXOther comments

RetailRVol1In order to help retain large units for larger scale stores, do you think the plan should contain a policy to protect large stores from being subdivided? If so, what would you consider a reasonable definition of a large store?

R1Do you have any comments on the proposed centre and Primary Shopping Area (PSA) boundary? Please state the centre/s to which your comments relate.

R2Do you have any comments on the proposed frontage designations? Please state the centre/s to which your comments relate.

R3Do you have any comments on the ‘call for sites’, sites coming forward for retail uses within the plan period.

R4Do you have any other sites to suggest for retail development ?(please provide details and plans)

RXOther comments

Outer West Comments

PRS02095

S Akeroyd

Representor No:

Name:

Representation ID: REP04312

2123 Amber –Red, field off Low Moor Side Lane new Farnley. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

1 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00510

Audrey Aldersley

Representor No:

Name:


1201 – I object to any building on site 1201.This is green belt land on the borders of Leeds and Bradford. If built on this would become an urban sprawl. The traffic in this area is horrendous. The A647 is congested and it is impossible to leave Sunnybank Lane to join the A647 at times. To build 196 houses together with Morrisons Head Office, joining the A647 would be a nightmare. The wildlife habitat would be destroyed. This area has groups of ramblers and horse riders who use this area each week, also a mountain bike club use the area, all this would have to go leaving a concrete jungle. Surely wildlife and people have a right to a quality of life without building and destroying the hedge rows. There are plenty of brown field sites.

H1Question Ref:

2 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02731

Georgina And Gary Alexander

Representor No:

Name:


Already disagreed with this site being built on a few years ago. Poor access on a very busy Owlcotes Road and a busy Galloway Lane on a morning. People vising the doctors would fid it difficult with traffic coming from all angles. 70 houses on that site= at least 70cars. All coming out of a very busy spot. This site connects with the ones above Owlcotes farm and the wood. Deers are seen on this site with a fawn lots of wild animals live in this area. (There is already over 300 houses being built in this area, we don’t need anymore)

H1Question Ref:

This should be Green belt. I strongly disagree that it should be built on. Impact on traffic already a problem. Queues on Owlcotes Road down onto Galloway Lane are to capacity. Lots of wildlife, foxes, hedgehogs, bats in the area. This area was changed to green without any of us knowing it is the highest point in Pudsey with wonderful views for everyone to enjoy. This will be lost if given to a few houses. Everyone will lose out , walkers, families, dog walkers and the wild life. Don’t let anyone spoil this area.

H1Question Ref:

We storngly disagree. This should be green belt. 1.Impact on traffic which is already a problem on a morning with cars queueing down Owlcote Road dowm on to Galloway Lane. 88 houses on this site, there would be at least 88 more cars to add to the problem.2.Impact on local schools which are already to capacity. Already on Waterloo Road 30 new houses, Cemetry road 164 new houses, Waterloo Mount 22 new houses to be built, Marsh 5 new houses, Inghams Avenue 45 new houses, Delph End 27 new house, Bradley Lane 13 new houses of which = over 300 houses =at least 300cars already. Enough new builds in this area 3. Impact on wild life foxes, hedgehogs, bats which are protected need a bat survey, Deers in the woods next to this field, woodpeckers, owls, frogs, it should be a nature reserve. The walls on the Bridle path and fields are 100s of years old, a piece of history. One of the highest poinys in Pudsey with a wonderful view for all to enjoy walkers, dog walkers lots use this area to enjoy the countryside. Use other sites that don’t offer nature at its best

H4Question Ref:

We storngly disagree. This should be green belt. 1.Impact on traffic which is already a problem on a morning with cars queueing down Owlcote Road dowm on to Galloway Lane. 88 houses on this site, there would be at least 88 more cars to add to the problem.2.Impact on local schools which are already to capacity. Already on Waterloo Road 30 new houses, Cemetry road 164 new houses, Waterloo Mount 22 new houses to be built, Marsh 5 new houses, Inghams Avenue 45 new houses, Delph End 27 new house, Bradley Lane 13 new houses of which = over 300 houses =at least 300cars already. Enough new builds in this area 3. Impact on wild life foxes, hedgehogs, bats which are protected need a bat survey, Deers in the woods next to this field, woodpeckers, owls, frogs, it should be a nature reserve. The walls on the Bridle path and fields are 100s of years old, a piece of history. One of the highest poinys in Pudsey with a wonderful view for all to enjoy walkers, dog walkers lots use this area to enjoy the countryside. Use other sites that don’t offer nature at its bestWe strongly agree that it is not suitable for building houses not only because it slopes steeply and problems with access. As stated above the impact on wildlife foxes, bats which are protected, hedgehogs, birds such as woodpeckers, owls and deers that live in the woods next to the field. These animals use the fields and bridle path which is lined with trees which the bats fly past. It is a beautiful area with cows in there at the moment. People all enjoy walking down the Bridle path with friends, dogs, kids, for a country walk. This area should have been kept a Greenbelt but was changed in recent years by people who want to make money and not care about the animals and nature

H7Question Ref:

3 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02092

M Ali

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

4 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01679

Dorothy Ambridge

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Amber to Red, Low Moor Side Lane New Farnely. I strongly object to any building in the field. (Arrived via petition)

H4Question Ref:

5 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03209

Norman Arnison

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

a) Unsuitable for private housing.b) Increasing an already traffic congested major road junction.c) Wildlife and green area between developments.d) Local services already overstretched.e) Illegal use of land be-quested for recreation purposes.f) Restricted access for

emergency vehicles during initial construction.

H1Question Ref:

Site 2120 – Hillfoot Farm – Proposed 70 dwellings.The above site is a strip of land between the existing Hillfoot Estate and the railway line / Tunnel and has electricity power line issues and noise issues from the proximity of the Leeds to Bradford rail traffic and would make the area not

suitable for private housing development.It acts as a natural passage for wildlife to travel between various habitat sites and a mini conservation area for local wildlife. To build on this land would be detrimental to the natural environment of the area.A housing development on this site

would need access to Galloway Lane at its junction with Owlcotes Road. This T-junction is a nightmare now for local residents who need road access to get from Hillfoot Estate or the Hillfoot surgery at peak times, and when any traffic problems are experienced around the Leeds outer ring

road Galloway lane is used as a “Rat Run” by motorists travelling to or from Leeds.The area around this junction can be bottle necked at peak times of day, the addition of a further 70 houses in the area would be a major problem for emergency services and for residents on any urgent

business.How are local services going to cope with such a proposed development? It takes about two weeks to get a doctors appointment at Hillfoot Surgery at the moment, this development will only act to make matters worse for local residents.When this land was sold or given to

Leeds council by George Duckells the farmer and previous owner of this land, he stipulated that the land, which extends down to the Leeds outer ring road could only be used for recreational purposes. Surely there could be legal issues to be resolved before any development rights could be

granted?Sites 3440 (38 dwellings), 1073a (88 dwellings) and 1073b (56 dwellings) The above-proposed sites are in a small concentrated area around Site 2120 and will only compound the problems with traffic issues and the overloading of diminishing public services available in the area for local residents. These developments together would mean a virtual link up of housing leaving no green spaces between residential

developments, which I thought was part of the Leeds Council Philosophy on housing planning for the future developments around Leeds.During the building stages of any of the above developments essential services would require major road works to provide water, sewerage and electricity supplies together with the increase in heavy vehicles and wagons. All this on top of the current problems associated with the traffic around the

Owlcotes road and Galloway lane junction.

H2Question Ref:

Site 2120 should not be green.Reasons previously stated in H2.

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

Possible future consideration.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

6 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04917

David Atkins

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

why can we not keep some areas as the site listed below as green spaces for the well being of future leeds tax payers.only part build on site as stated below

H1Question Ref:

ref. 4007, former site of wortley high schoolthe roads in the area are overloaded with traffic from existing housing especially on bluehill lane & building more housing on existing wortley high school would make the situation worse especially leading onto silver royd hill & tong road.on the

existing site at the bottom end of the site is an excellent playing pitch used by wortley football club, this is an excellent facility & must be kept for future generations.if housing is to be allocatted to former site only build on what was the school building area & leave the green open spaces as it has always been.why can we not keep some area as green spaces for the well being of leeds tax payers

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

ref. 4007should be part housing on what was school building area

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

yes ref 4007, would be an excellent site for elderly housing accommodation

H14Question Ref:

yes ref 4007, old wortley high school site

H15Question Ref:

please listen to people who are going to be affected by your plans, & not not ignore their views

General commentQuestion Ref:

7 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00978

Allan & Jean Bailey

Representor No:

Name:


We wish to comment with respect to the consideration of the position of Kirklees Knoll, Farsley as part of the forthcoming review of the Leeds Local Development Plan. 1) Conservation of buildings and conservation of the natural environmentWe live in Calverley Lane, and have lived here all our married life (over 40 years) and raised ou rdaughter here. Calverley Lane is a quiet road on the edge of the village. We are verging on green land on either side of Calverley Lane (Kirklees Knoll). This keeps Farsley distinct from both Calverley and Rodley, and provides delightful walks to both villages. Part of what was a lovely public right of way from Calverley Lane to Rodley has already been partially ruined by the Bagley Lane Bellway development.We are surrounded by wildlife (including bats, hedgehogs, jays, various species of tits and finches), due to the fact that the trees and hedgerows close to us are mature and undisturbed. Development of Kirklees Knoll could not but damage this situation. Trees and hedgerows on the Knoll have been in situ and undisturbed for many years. Even if potential developers were to replant these, the rich variety of wildlife would inevitably bedisturbed and disrupted. It has to be doubtful that the same wildlife would ever return. There is very little farmland/green space left in Farsley, and the land in question falls within a conservation area. The land is still used for agriculture, and is clearly not "scrub land".We have regularly seen bats in the area (plus the local cats have been known to catch them!). In this country, it is illegal to disturb or destroy the roosting site of any species of bat, even if the bat is not present at the time. Were the Knoll ever to be developed, this is precisely what would happen.2) Effect on trees and the landscapeSee comments at 1). If the Knoll were to be developed, on the basis that any developer undertook to plant new vegetation, it would be many decades before the mature trees and plants could be replaced. The fields and grassland in which the trees and hedgerows currently stand cannot ever be replaced once they have been covered by housing.3) Effect on the character of an areaHistorically, Farsley, Calverley and Rodley have been distinct communities with very distinct characteristics. Development of Kirklees Knoll would to all intents and purposes merge Farsley with Rodley, and would take a step further to merging Farsley with Calverley. Farsley is, and always has been, an independent village. At times of celebration (Christmas and, most recently the Jubilee and Farsley Festival), Farsley, Rodley andCalverley have their own individual celebrations, which work due to the small size of the villages, and the community spirit. Local people and traders work together to support the local community in producing truly memorable festivities. Should the three villages be welded in one large urban sprawl, this community spirit would be lost for ever. 4) Impact on highway safety and trafficWere Kirklees Knoll be developed, it is inevitable that this would massively increase trafficon the Ring Road between Dawson's Corner and Rodley, Farsley Town St, Calverley Lane (leading from the Ring Road into Farsley), and Bagley Lane. The Ring Road along this stretch is already requently seriously congested, and the road simply cannot accommodate extra traffic.Farsley Town St is also a serious bottleneck, and quite simply cannot take extra traffic. The problems with traffic along Calverley Lane are well documented. There have been numerous accidents and near misses during the time that we have lived here. More recently, traffic calming measures have been introduced, including road narrowing, which have had a limited effect The problem is that traffic leaves the Ring Road at a speed which is inappropriate to conditions on Calverley Lane, and cannot reduce their speed quickly enough.Traffic issues along both Calverley Lane and Bagley Lane have been an ongoing priority issue for the Community Policing Team., and the local police accept that there is an existing problem.In a recent planning application for part of the Knoll, much was much made of encouraging potential residents to make use of public transport. We have to be realistic here. The majority of people in the area still use their vehicles to get to work; many people do not work in areas directly accessible from a train or bus route, and many more drive because it is quicker and more convenient. Based on experience, even parents just taking their children to the local school tend to use their car rather than walking! If residents were to use New Pudsey Station, they still have to get there. It is not within easy walking distance, therefore, most people would drive there, meaning that they would use either the RingRoad or Calverley Lane/Farsley Town St., meaning that even if residents used the train, it is likely that this would not ease congestion along the Ring Road/Farsley Town St. Extra traffic on Farsley Town St, Bagley Lane and Calverley Lane would be a potential safety risk to the significant numbers of children walking to homes throughout Farsley from local schools (primarily Springbank, Priesthorpe and Pudsey Grangefield).5) Noise, disturbance and odourWere the Knoll to be developed, the inevitable significant increase in traffic, associated emissions and noise would have a permanent and unacceptable effect on the quality of life for the residents of Calverley Lane.There have been well-documented issues with anti-social behaviour on The Rec and in the portion of Calverley Lane leading from Farsley village centre to The Rec in the recent past, and the Police have worked hard to control this. A significant increase in the local population (which would be the obvious consequence if development of Kirklees Knoll were to occur), would almost certainly result in this problem re-surfacing. Current policinglevels struggle to deal with existing problems, without new ones being created. A second concern is that the only route from the Calverley Lane side of Kirklees Knoll to the pubs and bars of Farsley is along Calverley Lane. There have already been numerous examples of criminal damage to our houses and cars, and violent incidents in the road outside our houses (documented in reports to the police). It is almost inevitable that this problem would re-surface, and logic would dictate that it would be worse than it ever has been.6) Effect on living conditionsAside from the issues already detailed, there are others which need to be considered, mainly concerning local infrastructure and its inability to cope with such a sizeable increase in the population of Farsley.Both the local primary and secondary schools are oversubscribed, and have been for a number of years. Children would need to travel further and outside the local community to attend school. None of the local dental surgeries are taking (NHS) patients, and there are only two GP practices in Farsley, so it is unlikely that they could absorb a significant increase in the population.There is a natural barrier between Farsley and Calverley, starting with the Recreation Ground, which clearly cannot be developed. Any evelopment of Kirklees Knoll would hence be automatically and unavoidably separated from the main community of Farsley; it would not simply be a natural extension of the village, but would be a new and separate community. On one of my regular walks to Calverley, I noticed a new sign at the top of Calverley Lane, stating "Farsley — historic village". Were Kirklees Knoll to be developed, this would need to be replaced by one saying "Farsley — once historic village, now extended housing estate".The site allocations plan document on the LCC website states: "The UDP Review Inspector commented that the urban edge of Farsley is clear and well defined and this area forms part of a an important tract of open land and could contribute to Green Belt purposes. The Inspector was clear that these factors should be considered at plan review as part of a comprehensive assessment of potential sites".On the basis of the above, we would strongly request that you return all land at Kirklees Knoll to green belt, and by doing so the protect conservation area, safeguard local wildlife, including protected species, and preserve the character of the local community and its infrastructure.Officer comment - I have assumed sites 1110, 1114 ,2121 as representation not specific and comments could be referring to all three.

H4Question Ref:

8 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01782

S Baldwin

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

9 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00378

Trudi Barker

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I feel there is too much traffic already through New Farnley the pot holes are increasing by the day also the schools are already oversubscribed to even local children are not getting into local schools and travelling to Gildersome and Drighlington. No bus service, no shopping facilities in area. To my knowledge this is green belt area and should be kept as green belt.

H4Question Ref:

10 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00378

Trudi Barker

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

11 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05093

Geoffrey Barker

Representor No:

Name:


we wish to register our protest as to the proposed building of New houses at the fieldsat the end of Hill Top Lane, Tingley WF3 1HT.the reasons are -- 1 destruction of woodland, wild -life habitat.2 increased traffic a danger to residents, especially to children3 access from Batley Road would be dangerous , due to bad bend inBatley road4 near to school, increased traffic a danger for school children5 parking on road a problem now for school attenders, would beworse if road upgraded

H1Question Ref:

we wish to register our protest as to the proposed building of New houses at the fieldsat the end of Hill Top Lane, Tingley WF3 1HT.the reasons are -- 1 destruction of woodland, wild -life habitat.2 increased traffic a danger to residents, especially to children3 access from Batley Road would be dangerous , due to bad bend inBatley road4 near to school, increased traffic a danger for school children5 parking on road a problem now for school attenders, would beworse if road upgraded

H7Question Ref:

12 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02970

Maggy Barnes

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 14 July 2013 22:17To: LDF LeedsCc: Carter, Cllr Andrew; Wood, Cllr RodSubject: Housing site allocations consultationDear SirRe: Site 4046 - Daleside Road, PudseyI would like to express my concerns regarding the potential proposal to build 89houses on the above site.There are several reasons for my concerns, and these relate to vehicular access.Daleside Road, and all the other roads nearby are narrow, and 2 cars canonly just pass on the straight parts.Many houses on Daleside Road to not have driveways, and therefore thereare many cars parked on the road, making access even more difficultAccess would be even more difficult for construction trafficExit from Daleside Road is either onto the Ring Road (dual carriageway) orvia Daleside Grove. Exiting onto the Ring Road is quite dangerous as youhave to pull out onto a road where traffic is often travelling at 40mph, andthe view of the road is limited, due to the position of buildings andsometimes parked vehicles. Daleside Grove and the other local roads wouldbe badly affected by increase in volume of traffic and could pose a furtherhazard when children are going to and coming from the local school.In winter, the local roads are rarely gritted. Over the last few winters, wehave only been able to get up the hill thanks to 2 or 3 local residents whohave spent hours digging out the snow, and putting their own grit and saltonto the hill. The flat roads turn into something similar to ice-rinks. Addingadditional traffic to this could potentially be even more dangerous.Regards[x]

H4Question Ref:

13 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03767

Les Barnes

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Increase in housing will create several issues: schooling, medical, traffic, encroachment on leisure spaces - issues which are currently under great pressure.

H1Question Ref:

1123A - An already busy route at peak times - and difficult/impassable in winter conditions - housing development would further subject people in the current local area to even greater problems. Any increase in traffic along Woodhall Lane/Road and its junction with Leeds-Bradford Road is

not desirable.1193A - Further building in this area will increase traffic problems for residents on an already 'tight' site. Road widths and access to the Leeds-Shipley route are already under stress, especially if the 'Sandos' site is redeveloped.Any development in

Calverley risks damaging the ambience of the village and will put unbearable pressure on local schools and medical facilities. parking is already an impossible task for many residents and visitors.

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

11171123b1193bReasons already stated.

H7Question Ref:

As above.

H8Question Ref:

1123aReasons stated above - in particular difficult access to Woodhall route and increased local traffic.

H9Question Ref:

None

H11Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

No

H14Question Ref:

No

H15Question Ref:

The map colours/quality did not make interpretation easy and the consultation form is not immediately clear.


14 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06088

Jonathan Barrow

Representor No:

Name:


2123New Farnley’s infrastructure cannot support any more new houses. The schools, doctors etc are already full, the roads cannot cope even now.

H4Question Ref:

1171A2159This is green belt and this development would spoil our views. Whitehall Road is already congested and the infrastructure of New Farnley and the surrounding area cannot cope with any additional houses.

H7Question Ref:

34581273New Farnley’s infrastructure cannot support any more new houses. The schools, doctors etc are already full, the roads cannot cope even now.


15 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03457

William Barton

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Some open spaces if allocated as green are fundamental to space of Rawson village and there must be more brown field sites

H1Question Ref:

Rawson billingLayton laneKnott lane

H2Question Ref:

Rawson billingLayton lane

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Rawdon billing Layton lane

H5Question Ref:

Environmental; pressure on open space; pollution;

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Kirks tall forgeWood side quarryClariant

H10Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

Probably

H14Question Ref:

Don't take account of fact that Rawson is a villageIgnores importance of open spaceNot enough schools, dentists, doctorsWill massively increase traffic congestionIncrease pollutionWill absorb Rawson into horsforth and thus leeds


16 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04509

Clive Beard

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

West Leeds is over developed and over crowded. There is not a border between Leeds and Bradford (just housing/Roads/shopping developments etc). Further building will add to the congestion to the over crowded roads. Our children and future children need green fields to play on and other leisure activities close to their homes. Building on this land will not only effect the value of our property but will also add further

pressure on amenities such as schools/shops/doctors etc.Brown field sites would be a better use of available land.

H1Question Ref:

3440 + 2120, above is why we object to this development

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1073A,We strongly object to this as a development and this should be a RED site.Our house backs onto the public bridle/foot path that has been left off the planning map.This path is well used by many local people The development seems to show that this will encompass the said bridle

path. There would also be poor vehicular access from Owlcoats Lane.

H4Question Ref:

See previous sections!

H5Question Ref:

None

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1073B, Access is very poor, it is on a steep hill, close to a local wood and would encompass to Bridle path.

H7Question Ref:

sites 1073A + 1073B should both be RED. Not suitable for building.

H8Question Ref:

See above!

H9Question Ref:

None

H10Question Ref:

No!

H11Question Ref:

NO!NOT SUITABLE

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

If there is to be a site then 2120 close to the doctors/chemist and shops on Galloway Lane, and on the level ground.

H14Question Ref:

See above

H15Question Ref:

17 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04509

Clive Beard

Representor No:

Name:


We strongly object to further development in the Pudsey Hillfoot area.


18 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01840

Betty Bell

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

19 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03034

Matthew Bell

Representor No:

Name:


I am concerened about the proposed developments on Kirklees Knoll Farsley, this area of agricultural land has been moved from greenbelt and is underthreat of housing development even though the local infrastructure is seriously lacking to cope with any more traffic, water run off, sewage or provision of education, nhs cover and dentistry.

G1Question Ref:

y

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:

Retained for greenspace

G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:

Released for housing

G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

20 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01674

A Benett

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

21 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02558

I Bentley

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1114 Kirklees Knoll, Site 2121 Calverley Lane, Farsley, Site 1110 Land at Rodley, Leeds Amber to RedI am writing to you with regards to the good quality agricultural land and the planning application for the above mentioned site, lodged by Thornhill Estates. This site I understand is included in the councils consultation on the Local Development Plan. I would therefor officially request the council to return the land at Kirklees Knoll to the green belt. This is where it belongs and where it should never have been removed from. It is the last green buffer between Farsley village & Rodley. It seperates Farsley Rodley and Calverley and protects against urban sprawl which is destroying communities around Leeds. I therefor urge the council to return the land to the green belt. If this isn’t possible, and I don’t see why not if councillors really want to protect the city and its environs as pleasant places to live then at least the land at Kirklees Knoll should be left as it is currently designated as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of the new councils development plan i.e between 17 & 20 years, and to be reconsidered again in the subsequent council development plan. I must stress that my preference and that of many residents of both Farsley & Rodley is for Kirklees Knoll to be returned to green belt land. However my second preference of leaving it as safeguarded land would at least give it some protection. I would urge you to do all you can to protect our last remaining green spaces and prevent urban sprawl and ensure building is restricted to only brownfield sites in future. We have really suffered with increased housing over past years here in Farsley. We have certainly had more than our fair share compared to other areas. A massive ‘over 300 houses’ are to be built in nearby Rodley, admittedly on mainly brownfield land and this should now be enough for this area. Any further building on green land should now be halted. Traffic in Farnley is already horrendous. To allow building on this land at Kirklees Knoll etc will persuade, actually drive, people out of Farsley & Rodley. Return this land to green belt.It has now come to my attention that the land opposite Kirklees Knoll is also now being proposed for a housing development. I will just summarise to say that this piece of land should as part of the local development plan, be returned to 'greenbelt'.In the event of this being impossible, but I believe it is not, this piece of land should be left as it is currently designated, as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of the new council's development plan. Ie between 17 and 20 years and to be reconsidered in the subsequent council; development plan.I would like to stress my first preference is for it to be returned to 'green belt'.I missed this portion of land , by mistake thinkimg it was covered by Kirklees Knoll (Site 1114). I feel that this land should be returned to the greenbelt under the local development plan.If this is not possible, and I do not see why, I feel it should be left as it is currently designated, as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of the new council's development plan, ie between 17 and 20 years and to be reconsiderewd in the subsequent council development plan.My preference of course is the 'green belt' option, thereby halting urban sprawl between Farnley and Rodley.

H4Question Ref:

22 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05875

Ann Biddiscombe

Representor No:

Name:


1124 - I am writing to express my concern regarding housing development proposals within the Calverley area. I wholly support the views of my local councillors, Mr Andrew Carter and Mr Ron Wood. I am especially concerned about 1123b and 1123a with regard to the excess traffic any proposed development will cause. I am also concerned with area 1124. This is extremely close to the doctors surgery, which is already very busy coping with the current demands of Calverley residents and any increase would be intolerable. Calverley is a small village that would not cope with the proposed developments. I urge you to listen to the views of our local councillors who have our interests at heart.

H1Question Ref:

1123A -I am writing to express my concern regarding housing development proposals within the Calverley area. I wholly support the views of my local councillors, Mr Andrew Carter and Mr Ron Wood. I am especially concerned about 1123b and 1123a with regard to the excess traffic any proposed development will cause. I am also concerned with area 1124. This is extremely close to the doctors surgery, which is already very busy coping with the current demands of Calverley residents and any increase would be intolerable. Calverley is a small village that would not cope with the proposed developments. I urge you to listen to the views of our local councillors who have our interests at heart.

H4Question Ref:

1123B -I am writing to express my concern regarding housing development proposals within the Calverley area. I wholly support the views of my local councillors, Mr Andrew Carter and Mr Ron Wood. I am especially concerned about 1123b and 1123a with regard to the excess traffic any proposed development will cause. I am also concerned with area 1124. This is extremely close to the doctors surgery, which is already very busy coping with the current demands of Calverley residents and any increase would be intolerable. Calverley is a small village that would not cope with the proposed developments. I urge you to listen to the views of our local councillors who have our interests at heart.

H7Question Ref:

23 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03055

Stuart Bissitt

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

The identified green sites I believe will have a detrimental effect to the wildlife, house prices in the area and cause massive congestion. The addition of houses in these area will obviously bring along more children which would mean a greater strain on the local schools that are already

finding it difficult to cope with the number of required places.There are also many dog walking areas around the area this would remove many of those leaving the roads as the only option, or a car journey to find a suitable walk, which just adds pollution to the environment!

H1Question Ref:

Site 2120: This site holds a number of wildlife, including a number of fox and dear families, along with many other smaller animals such as squirrels and rabbits. The trees on this site also acts as a noise barrier for the noise from Galloway lane and obviously with houses being built there would be a detrimental affect to the house prices on the Hillfoot Estate. At the moment we are not overlooked with a nice open aspect, that

would no longer be the case.Galloway lane is also the main route out of Pudsey and incredibly busy during the morning and evening, any building works on this road, which would be extensive with a new estate would increase this congestion ten fold and make the commute much

much longer.The schools in Pudsey are full and most of them oversubscribed, there have already been a number of new sites in the area and increased housing in the area would make it impossible for the schools to cope with the demand leaving many parents struggling with school

options.This site has been detailed as green belt in the past and I feel should stay that way, it would not be beneficial to the local community in anyway to add another estate in this area.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 1073A is a local wildlife area and used extensively for walking of dogs etc... There is a great deal of congestion on the main road past this site and would cause chaos during the morning and evening commutes. As previously the schools are oversubscribed and more housing would just increase this problem.

H4Question Ref:

Site 2120: As detailed previously.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Site 2120, 3440 and 1073A - reasons as detailed previously. wildlife considerations, congestion, school place issues, noise pollution.

H9Question Ref:

24 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00418

Janet Bone

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I strongly object to this planning proposal on various issues but:I object due to the proposal of the entrance, this is on a narrow road that at the moment accidents do happen with cars and bikes:-I have had minor floods into my garden and garage, so to build on the field, this would make it worse.

H4Question Ref:

25 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01965

P Booth

Representor No:

Name:


2121 - Brown field sites should always be the preferred option for building before considering green field sites.Despite this the developers seem to prefer grabbing as many green field sites as possible. The LocalDevelopment Framework has a duty to identify land for building but this must not take priority over theresponsibility to protect green field sites for future generations. This could be achieved by awarding theland green belt or Protected Area of Search (PAS) status.

2121 Calverley Lane, Farsley (coloured amber) currently PAS land.This land should retain PAS status or be returned to green belt.

H4Question Ref:


1114 Kirklees Knowl, Bagley (coloured amber) currently PAS land.This large area is currently high grade farm land and should not be used for building. It should retain PASstatus or preferably be returned to green belt to protect it from developers who have already submittedplans for housing despite the PAS status remaining until the UDP finishes in 2016. The landowners arenow forcing a decision on their building plans by Public Enquiry in order to prevent the land beingincluded in the LDP review.A Tree Preservation order was made on all the trees at Kirklees Knowl in November 2011. This shouldappear in the summary column for 1114 land but it has been omitted. (It is mentioned for 2 pieces of landat Calverley numbered 1193A and 1193B).The developers who are prematurely trying to grab Kirklees Knowl for housing have also ignored theTree Preservation order and intend to remove trees to create a road. Allowing building on this land wouldbe environmental vandalism.The UDP review Inspector commented that the land (now numbered 2121, 1110 and 1114) defines theurban edge of Farsley, is an important tract of open land and could contribute to Green Belt Purposes. It ispart of a green buffer seperating Farsley from Calverley and Rodley. These factors should be consideredat plan review.

H4Question Ref:


1110 Rodley, Leeds 13 (coloured amber) currently PAS land.This land is adjacent to Farsley Ring Road and access onto this road would not be allowed. It cannot bedeveloped unless it has access through 1114 (see below).It should retain PAS status or preferably be returned to green belt

H4Question Ref:

CFSM051 - Brown field sites should always be the preferred option for building before considering green field sites.Despite this the developers seem to prefer grabbing as many green field sites as possible. The LocalDevelopment Framework has a duty to identify land for building but this must not take priority over theresponsibility to protect green field sites for future generations. This could be achieved by awarding theland green belt or Protected Area of Search (PAS) status.

CFSMO 51 Sunny Bank Mill (coloured green)proposed mixed use - residential, employment, office.This is a brown field site and would be good use of this land.


26 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06257

B Bottomley

Representor No:

Name:


We are writing to object to the proposals for the housing site allocations as described in theLeeds Site Allocations Plan - Outer West, in particular site 1123A and 1123B but also withreference to sites 1117, 1193A&B.The current volumes of traffic both originating from and passing through Calverley createsevere tailbacks at peak times with the A657 coming to a total standstill throughout its lengthbetween the Junction with the A658 at Greengates and the A6120 Outer Ring Road at Rodley.Traffic using Woodhall Road as a shortcut to reach the A647 roundabout at Thornbury barrackshas similarly reached unsustainable levels in recent years. The proposed developments with atotal site capacity exceeding 560 dwellings will have a profound impact upon the traffic densityof the area. Of course this figure is exceeded by some margin when considering the additionaleffect of traffic from the surrounding developments proposed for Rodley, Farsley and Pudseywhich will also demand some routes through Calverley on a daily basis. Access to site 1123Awould be particularly dangerous coming as it would from Woodhall Road, immediately below abend which would give severely restricted views for any traffic entering or exiting the site.The two schools in Calverley are already at full capacity and have been for some time. Asignificant proportion of the new dwellings will have children who would be eligible for theseschools but would face long journeys to alternative educational establishments or wouldrequire additional facilities to be provided in Calverley.The potential permanent loss of amenity to the current and future residents of Calverleycannot be overemphasised. All the sites are currently designated Green Belt and are used andenjoyed by the residents of Calverley and beyond as an oasis of peace and tranquillity betweenthe two busy conurbations of Leeds and Bradford. The fact that agriculture also takes place onthis land greatly adds to its value as an educational opportunity for children who are nowadaysbecoming more surrounded than ever by a monotype of urban development. With sightings ofroe deer, grey partridge, lapwing and red kite the land supports a wide range of fauna, some ofit highly pressured, and just succeeding in clinging on to diminishing pockets of suitable habitat.The encroachment of more developments such as those proposed will inevitably banish thisand other wildlife from within the outer boundaries of the city to the detriment of all.Much is made of the "Green Buffer" between Leeds and Bradford in which Calverley proudlysits defining the passage between these two cities along the Aire valley. The intendeddevelopments on sites 1117 and 1193 in particular would have the effect of erasing any senseof moving between the two communities. Calverley would lose its unique identity as a villageand become merely a suburb with no allegiance to either centre.In conclusion we would wish to reaffirm our objection to the proposed site allocations andwould encourage the council to remove all the above sites from proposed development,thereby retaining their Green Belt status.

H4Question Ref:

27 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06257

B Bottomley

Representor No:

Name:


We are writing to object to the proposals for the housing site allocations as described in theLeeds Site Allocations Plan - Outer West, in particular site 1123A and 1123B but also withreference to sites 1117, 1193A&B.The current volumes of traffic both originating from and passing through Calverley createsevere tailbacks at peak times with the A657 coming to a total standstill throughout its lengthbetween the Junction with the A658 at Greengates and the A6120 Outer Ring Road at Rodley.Traffic using Woodhall Road as a shortcut to reach the A647 roundabout at Thornbury barrackshas similarly reached unsustainable levels in recent years. The proposed developments with atotal site capacity exceeding 560 dwellings will have a profound impact upon the traffic densityof the area. Of course this figure is exceeded by some margin when considering the additionaleffect of traffic from the surrounding developments proposed for Rodley, Farsley and Pudseywhich will also demand some routes through Calverley on a daily basis. Access to site 1123Awould be particularly dangerous coming as it would from Woodhall Road, immediately below abend which would give severely restricted views for any traffic entering or exiting the site.The two schools in Calverley are already at full capacity and have been for some time. Asignificant proportion of the new dwellings will have children who would be eligible for theseschools but would face long journeys to alternative educational establishments or wouldrequire additional facilities to be provided in Calverley.The potential permanent loss of amenity to the current and future residents of Calverleycannot be overemphasised. All the sites are currently designated Green Belt and are used andenjoyed by the residents of Calverley and beyond as an oasis of peace and tranquillity betweenthe two busy conurbations of Leeds and Bradford. The fact that agriculture also takes place onthis land greatly adds to its value as an educational opportunity for children who are nowadaysbecoming more surrounded than ever by a monotype of urban development. With sightings ofroe deer, grey partridge, lapwing and red kite the land supports a wide range of fauna, some ofit highly pressured, and just succeeding in clinging on to diminishing pockets of suitable habitat.The encroachment of more developments such as those proposed will inevitably banish thisand other wildlife from within the outer boundaries of the city to the detriment of all.Much is made of the "Green Buffer" between Leeds and Bradford in which Calverley proudlysits defining the passage between these two cities along the Aire valley. The intendeddevelopments on sites 1117 and 1193 in particular would have the effect of erasing any senseof moving between the two communities. Calverley would lose its unique identity as a villageand become merely a suburb with no allegiance to either centre.In conclusion we would wish to reaffirm our objection to the proposed site allocations andwould encourage the council to remove all the above sites from proposed development,thereby retaining their Green Belt status.

H7Question Ref:

28 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00368

Paul Bottom

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I wish to object to the proposed residential development at New Farnley behind Walsh Lane.Reasons:

1.Moved to this property in a quiet location overlooking green belt fields. Not to be overlooked!! 2.Walsh Lane is used as a short cut, when traffic heavy on Whitehall Road, this will make it worse, with more traffic!! 3.Will access be at the side of my bungalow and next to my disabled father’s annexe!! 4.More property overlooking my property will make it less valuable!! 5.The area for development should stay green belt, as a new development is on at the bottom of Whitehall Road!!

H4Question Ref:

29 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00369

Trevor Bottom

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I wish to object to the proposed residential development at New Farnley Behind Walsh Lane. 1.As I live in a bungalow I will be overlooked. 2.Increased traffic flow. The access roads to Whitehall Road will not be sufficient to service the additional cars 3.An access road will be opened adjacent to my property which concerns me. This will have a negative effect on my property valuation. 4.The area for development is currently fields and therefore, should be green belt.

H4Question Ref:

30 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00526

John B

Representor No:

Name:


I have to strongly object to any of the developments being agreed upon, subsequently passed and taking place. I cannot understand why considering the proposed sites being used for housing developments when the sites at present are designated as PAS. To me developing these sites with a maximum of 591 dwellings is ludicrous. What is behind the thinking? Is it ‘oh there’s some green there let’s build some dwellings on it!’ Will consideration be given to the existing residents of Rodley and Farsley, also what benefits are going to be gained for the existing residents of these two villages?

In October 2012 I objected to the development of Kirklees Knoll, and now in July 2013 I add to that objection two more developments in Farsley and Rodley. As I see it, it seems to be an exercise in environmental vandalism when the land is designated as PAS land.

Will Farsley and Rodley be able to sustain an influx of goodness knows how many families? That I doubt. Education would be a problem as the schools are already reported to be full. The infrastructure of the highways would be inadequate, especially access into and out of the proposed sites. The three roundabouts, Dawsons Corner, Rodley and Horsforth are frequently very busy. Often pedestrians crossing the Ring Road at Rodley have a lengthy wait before being able to cross. I know from my own experience. If the developments take place, and God forbid they don’t, it would make the situation infinitely worse.

I would imagine Leeds Metro would despair, that with a probable increase of private and commercial vehicles, the timetables could be put into disarray. Any housing developments in this area would cause many problems, and the existing residents would possible find difficulties arising as they go about their daily lives and tasks.

The resources of Farsley and Rodley, I believe, would find it very difficult to cope with developments of the size under consideration and consultation, so I therefore beg that the proposed developments do not take place and the sites remain PAS or green belt

H4Question Ref:

31 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00082

Susan Bradley

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Main concern is access / highways. Assuming access is onto Low Moor Side - this is not a very wide road and in many stretches you have to stop when there is traffic coming towards you to let it pass. The junction at the Woodcock Pub end is also narrow and Lawns Lane is also very narrow near the Farnely Park / Lawns Park schools and is not designed for more traffic. Burnt Side Road and Walsh Lane would be used as 'rat runs'. Both are narrow - again will only take single traffic. Walsh Lane also has no footpaths and a blind bend. I have witnessed numerous near misses with car / car & car / pedestrians over the years at this bend. The junction of Walsh Lane / Whitehall Road is also very sharp and in icy weather is a deathtrap due to its steep incline at the junction. Although not designated green belt that area is green and used for horse grazing and should never have come out of green belt designation in my opinion.

H4Question Ref:

32 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04953

Broadleigh Associates

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 1212, Pollard Lane, Leeds should be considered as an appropriate site to bring forward for housing in the future. It is easily accessible along Pollard Lane, as recent development using Pollard Lane for access has demonstrated. The site is not prominent within the Green Belt, and would provide a suitable site for development. Any such development would incorporate strengthening of the landscape treatment around boundaries.

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:


H7Question Ref:


H8Question Ref:

33 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS07159

Russ Brodie

Representor No:

Name:


No

H1Question Ref:

I oppose the current suggestions with regards the Leeds local development plan Hillfoot Farm, Site 2120 in the “Leeds Site Allocations Plan”for the following reasons in no particular order Current “In Progress” HousingThe plan shows there are 365 houses allocated ”In Progress“ within 1 mile of this site and this equates to over 20% of the 1,728 “Existing permissions and allocations” for the whole of Outer West Leeds within this small area. I believe we have accepted more than our fair share of housing development. Overhead Powerline IssuesFirstly I would ask why is it that powerlines are not shown on the maps, a bit confusing as they are most definitely massively visible and so these maps do not paint a true picture of the areas. There is a pylon and overhead power line running across the site and there are uncertainties as to the safety of occupants of building underneath these.Bristol University have carried out research on electromagnetic fields, including work on the attachment of corona ions from powerlines to pollutant aerosols and how inhalation of these particles affects human health, and the university must still be supporting its findings as reports from 2007 are still to be found on the following link : http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2007/5415.htmlI support this information by pointing at the followingThe following study investigates the risk of adult cancers in relation to distance from high voltage overhead power lines. It has been funded by the Department of Health’s Radiation Protection Research programme. When the project is complete a paper will be submitted to a scientific journal for publication. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216241/dh_129160.pdf An extract from this report reads “ Extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF/EMF) have been implicated in the aetiology of childhood leukaemia. “The National Grid also recommend new buildings are not built under 275KV or 400KV power cables. On the Cancer Research Uk website they write“Because the evidence is limited and inconsistent, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified EMFs as a ‘possible’ cause of cancer. This means that there might be a risk but we cannot say for sure.” Even if the above health issues were ignored, powerlines and pylon are unsightly, nobody would recommend constructing them over an existing housing estate so why do the reverse, i.e. recommend putting a housing estate under existing powerlines. Infrastructure With local primary schools over subscribed and doctors and dentists at full capacity, I consider these services are hard pushed at the moment without having any more demands put upon them.The report states that there are no highways issues, which I consider as inaccurate for the following reasons:-Galloway Lane is grid locked at busy times of the day with commuting traffic going to Leeds and Bradford, it already has speed calming in place in the form of speed camera signs and a crossing island adjacent to the entrance to the site 2120 and the junction with Owlcotes Road has been recently modified to slow traffic. To add another junction onto this busy road close to a blind bend must have its safety issues.When the Hillfoot Surgery was at planning the access to Galloway Lane was rejected and they had to build an access road off Owlcotes Road for this very reason. Consideration to NatureThe site has a well established hedge made up of hawthorn and other trees running down virtually its full length. This is the home to bats, moths, butterflies, and a massive variety of bird life. The RSPB have no doubt that our diminishing wildlife is the result of destroying their habitat. Light and PrivacyAny building on the site would result in reduced light and privacy to existing houses in the area. Green SpaceLCC have previously warned of ensuring gaps between housing and the need for the green space, the change of this site will almost totally make the route from Thornbury Barracks roundabout to the centre of Pudsey completely residential, too many houses and too fewer green spaces DisruptionI think it would make more sense to develop other sites which effect fewer neighbouring properties, there are other sites proposed, perhaps with an amber coding, which are not flanked by many residential houses which are therefore more suited for housing development. Put it to better useLast weekend I cycled along the brilliant the Nidd Valley Greenway, from Ripley to Harrogate, and I would welcome a similar idea for a cycle route say between Leeds and Bradford and linking in with other cycle paths. Probability of securing mortgage I know of a house in the Kirkllees estate in Farsley which was on the market but because of its proximity to powerlines the interested party could not get a mortgage.Could this scenario be repeated on this site? Please could you consider the above and revise your current site suggestion to avoid future housing on this land

H2Question Ref:

34 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00546

Carole Brown

Representor No:

Name:


This site is accessible only from Owlcotes Road so this will make Owlcotes Road and surrounding smaller roads even busier and more congested especially at peak times. Also where is the infrastructure (schools, doctors etc) for all these extra people. We have 3 sites ongoing at the moment on Waterloo Road and one site finished and one site on Cemetry Road.

H2Question Ref:

35 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01660

Pam Brown

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – This area is already well populated and to add 200 houses – 400 cars onto a very narrow and steep road where a bend at the bottom of Low Moor Side is very dangerous, and to add more traffic to this area is foolhardy.

H4Question Ref:

36 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01660

Pam Brown

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

37 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03227

Gareth Brown

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

2120 - should this area be reserved for future potential use as a link road between A650 and A647 to complete the Leeds outer ring road?

H2Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

38 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04425

Alan Brown

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Some sites have clearly been identified as potential sites due to an "economy of scale" in favour of the developer being able to pack in as many properties as possible. i.e. the larger areas as opposed to small areas which would not be economic to a developer.

H1Question Ref:

Site 1201 adjacent to Gain Lane, and which would be used by residents of the proposed site. Commuting trafic eminating from the Morrisons HQ, leading into the junction of the main Leeds road (A647), is already over subscribed and adds to the present delays at this junction.Site 1201 has

historically been used for several quarry's and the depth of ground works along with natural springs in the area could make development much more expensive to a potential developer than they might realise! The field immediately adjacent to the farm at gain Lane tends to flood in the

winter months.Site 4047 (previosely Flender and subsequentlu Seimans) at the junction of Sunnybank Lane and the A647 (BD3)again would cause problems to trafic flow.Between the hours of 15.00 and 18.30 there are always long tailbacks from the direction of Bradford travelling

towards Leeds.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

39 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02069

D Bryant

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

40 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00253

Alan Buckler

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - We strongly object to the councils planned development and question why the proposed plans have been implemented in the first place. This is a village location, there are no accesible routes in, the roads surrounding the area are lanes and unable to take the volume of traffic that would incur if this proposal goes ahead. Wildlife inhabit the fields and would be lost forever.Whitehall Road is busy enough and in rush hour traffic diverts up Walsh Lane causing chaos with drivers ignoring any speed restrictions. Accidents will be common place.

H7Question Ref:

2123 - The proposed site development is littered with mine shafts. Previous developers have realised and abandoned plans for any housing on this land, due mainly to the financial costs such an undertaking would occur. We constantly read of cost-cutting by Leeds City Council. How much money would be required to implement the council's plans? Have they suddenly found a large pot of gold to cover this hair-brained scheme?!!

H7Question Ref:

Over the last few years the council has knocked down pre-war housing in Holbeck. Surely this would be a better option for rebuilding a modern development on land which has already been used for this purpose instead of land which enriches the lives of the people in the village of New Farnley. The schools in the area surrounding are also full to bursting. Where would the inhabitants children go? Would the transport system clog up the area with daily commutes in and out of what we consider a beautiful rural location that should remain unspoilt!!


41 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00253

Alan Buckler

Representor No:

Name:


1. I would like to state that in no way do I support any planned development on the afor mentioned land. We live in a village thus access to the site would cause chaos. I live on a lane when traffic builds up on White Hall Road cars speed up the lane (which has a bend half way up). At the top of Walsh Lane is another lane (Back) which is also hard to navigate at the present time without any more traffic clogging up the area. Basically if this plan goes ahead accidents and gridlock will be common place in such a small and rural location. 2. The site chosen floods on a regular basis, my back garden is a wash after a heavy downpour and water pours down the field towards the Castel Ings Estate. The land is pock marked with mine shafts where slate was once extracted. How much would this cost the council to rectify? On my own understanding the previous owners of the land i.e. Barrett’s gave up the idea of developing the site due to cost. Has Leeds City Council an endless pot of money to pump into a project that is not feasible. 3. The schools in the area are already overflowing, where would the children of the occupants go? Would we have buses as well as more traffic coming in to bus children to various schools in other areas? Wildlife inhabits this area and vast swathe of land that has been previously developed i.e. Holbeck. Leave the land as it is a sanctuary in what my view is an unspoilt haven.

H4Question Ref:

42 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00975

Buckler

Representor No:

Name:


Acccess Is Limited when the expected Vehicle ownership go to Average household. Where there is limited access to site ie: Low Moorside Lane The Opportunity for increased double parking on restriction free flowing traffic en high. The risk of accidents will also be increased if *Re…..* land for access then it is suitable.It is import to *…..*the impact of increased population into a Village setting where facilities are created to maintain the estabilished households, The Consensous reates to schools being at capacity and the amenties shops etc come into question.To place up to 400 more people into a small site in a villlage type, Using Standards to unconceptial levels.It is important to note that the present side provides an *…..*Wild Life & Hedgegrow it is land that has poor drainage & flooding in Winter. A lot of work would be required to make suitable which apart from the cost may also have andverse effect on the houses surrounding the site.

H4Question Ref:

43 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01839

Gay Bulmer

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

44 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06016

Lindsay Burrows

Representor No:

Name:


Dear Sir/MadamI am writing to say that I think Kirklees Knoll should be kept as it is.I think the area is not well equipped to handle all the extra facilities needed.The road infrastructure, schools, doctors and dentists.[x]

H4Question Ref:

45 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02306

Jean Burton

Representor No:

Name:


There is not sufficient access to this land as there is only one way out and in to the village. This land is not sustainable to build on as it as poor drainage the council has just stopped the flooding at the back of Castle Ing. If you start digging it all up we may start to be flooded again. From a conservationist point what about all the trees and hedgerows what will have to be pulled up also all the wildlife which live in these.

H4Question Ref:

46 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01823

S Carrera

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

47 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02093

D Carter

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

48 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02984

Richard Carter

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 03 July 2013 14:06To: LDF LeedsSubject: Planning application 12/04046/OT/W

Dear Sir / Madam,Planning application 12/04046/OT/W – Land off Bagley Lane / Calverley Lane – outline application for residential developmentI am writing once more, in reference to the above planning application to which I strongly oppose.I live on Bagley Lane directly in front of where the proposed housing estate of 400 homes is to be situated. We fell in love with the area because of it's village feel, that it's in a conservation area and most especially the beautiful outlook of rolling hills behind our house across Kirklees Knoll provides a view of rolling fields and cows and is an area of valuable agricultural land. It's devastating newsto find out soon after moving in that a proposed residential development on such a large scale is seeking planning permission on this site. Bagley is currently swamped with traffic especially during rush hour. It takes me 20mins to travel half a mile to the ring road from Bagley lane every monrning. Bagley lane is already a very dangerous road, double parked, and even with the nod towards traffic calming recently added, the road is very fast with cars clearly going well over the speed limit. Several households have lost lots of pets due due to be run over. An additional 800 cars isn't going to help the situations. I don't believe that the traffic surveys submitted as part of the proposal were taken during peak rush hour traffic in term time. I would request that these are re-done at a more appropriate and representative time to really determine the effect the development will have. Also developers proposals for encouraging alternative modes of transport are absolutely ludicrous! Will they have KPI's to achieve with penalties attached to make sure there incentives actually work. It's also a key commuting site to Leeds/Bradford and surrounding areas, families will not be willing to use public transports, and looking at the types of housing will have multiple cars. The proposed development causes huge concern for local schools – at a recent community meeting about this development (attended by around 300 residents) one family told of having to take their child to primary school in Kirkstall as they were unable to secure a place at the already full schools in Farsley.I have to strongle advise Leeds City Council to take this all other objections seriously and not let this development go ahead and spoil the lovely community feel of Farsley, Calverley and Rodley – currently each of these areas enjoy an individual community or village centre. This development will also merge the three local vilages/towns of Rodley, Farsley and Calverly together loosing there unique identity and diversity. Local Councillors are working hard to keep residents up-to-date with the latest news on this site and I urge you to listen to their requests to return this area to green belt and ensure that this land is safeguarded against future development during the lifetime of the new Council’s development plan (between 17-20 years).

[x]

H4Question Ref:

49 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05051

Samantha Carter

Representor No:

Name:


I do not agree with the proposed development for the following reasons –Existing roads are already inadequate to except the current volumes of traffic.The amenities and facilities in the area could not except further development.The current ambiance of the village would be spoilt I have a tenancy agreement on the land previously known as the Butterfly Sanctuary situated on Low Moor side. This land is used for grazing my horses and I would loose this facility. I have lived in new Farnley all my life and I feel that it is far too over populated at present without any further housing

H4Question Ref:

50 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05627

Anna Carter

Representor No:

Name:


Planning application 12/04046/OT/W – Land off Bagley Lane / Calverley Lane –outline application for residential developmentI am writing once more, in reference to the above planning application to which I wish tostrongly object.I live on Bagley Lane directly in front of where the proposed housing estate of 400 homesis to be situated. We moved to this area of Rodley / Farsley just over 2 years ago becausewe felt it would be a fantastic location to start a family and because we fell in love withthe area and most especially the beautiful outlook behind the house where Kirklees Knollprovides a view of rolling fields and cows and is an area of valuable agricultural land.Just the other evening, myself and neighbours were able to watch one of the cattle givebirth in the field, a privileged opportunity I wish to be able to pass onto my own childrenone day.We were absolutely devastated to find out soon after moving in that a proposedresidential development had been granted planning permission on part of the green sitebehind our house. Bagley Hamlet is now complete providing 48 new homes in the areaand has been under construction for well over a year. In that time we have had severalsets of temporary traffic lights on Bagley Lane causing traffic disruption and there havebeen terrible problems on the road from heavy plant including damage to vehicles anddirt. This is from only 48 houses.Even without this disruption, Bagley lane itself is a double parked, dangerous and fastroad (despite the recent traffic calming solutions implemented –which have made littledifference). Cars regularly queue past our house during rush hour, especially in theevening and it would be simply unsustainable to have an up to an additional 800 carsaround this area.I was particularly interested to read the information submitted to you as part of theapplication about traffic surveys and proposals. Does the planning office request thatsurveys are carried out at peak times and if so how do you prove that developers havesatisfactorily completed this? A survey done at peak travel times (not during the schoolsummer holidays) would show how over stretched the local road network is already.I feel that the developer’s proposals about encouraging alternative modes of transportsuch as cycling and walking, is absolutely ridiculous. Most people who live in this areahave chosen to live here because it is an easy commute to Leeds, Bradford and beyondwith the use of a car. It’s naïve to think that a discount at local sports shops and cyclerepair shops will alleviate the traffic problems that might be associated with this type ofdevelopment. The houses propsed are family homes and therefore most families will haveat least one if not two cars – up to 800 more cars on the streets. This is on top of theadditional traffic brought to the general area (and particularly the ring road) from thealready approved and under development site on the Clariot / Sandoz site for 500dwellings very nearby.The proposed development causes huge concern for local schools – at a recent communitymeeting about this development (attended by around 300 residents) one family told ofhaving to take their child to primary school in Kirkstall as they were unable to secure aplace at the already full schools in Farsley.I therefore urge Leeds City Council to please take this and any other objections seriouslyand not let this development go ahead and spoil the lovely community feel of Farsley,Calverley and Rodley – currently each of these areas enjoy an individual community orvillage centre. A development of this size (on top of the Clariot development) will straincurrent infrastructures and services in the community to breaking point. This will nolonger be a nice place to live.Our local Councillors have been working hard to keep residents up-to-date with the latestnews on this site and I urge you to listen to their (our our) requests to return this area togreen belt or to ensure that this land is safeguarded against future development during thelifetime of the new Council’s development plan (between 17-20 years).Many thanks for taking the time to read my objection, I would be grateful if you couldacknowledge receipt of my email.

H4Question Ref:

51 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05103

Robin Cass

Representor No:

Name:


FoIlowing the public exhibition of plans and follow up information from Highways I should like to respond formally of my concerns about the proposed development of housing on site 1123A - Land off Foxholes Lane, Calverley. 1. The site is in the green belt area overlooked directly by houses along Foxholes Lane, Foxholes Crescent and Woodhall Road. Their aspect and view would be spoiled plus the whole nature of the area would lose its character and appeal. 2. Impact on the sustainability of the village of Calverley. In particular, doctors, schools and traffic. Doctors are already over-subscribed, waiting time for an appointment to see your allocated doctor is well over a week. There are insufficient places at both primary and secondary schools to accommodate more children and parking outside existing schools is already chaotic at opening and closing times. Any increase in traffic would not be sustainable as it is already heavily congested at the three exit points of Thornbury roundabout, Greengates traffic lights and Rodley roundabout. Additional development underway near Rodley at the former Clariant site will already overwhelm Rodley and Horsforth roundabouts. 3. The proposed site on a steep hill has severe drainage problems. In wet weather water cascades through several gardens in Foxholes Lane and Crescent, and this is with green fields to absorb the water not tarmac to run off. 4. In addition to drainage problems there would need to be new sewers to be laid and the capacity of local sewage works to cope might well be exceeded. 5. Of a more direct and personal concern is access to the proposed site. Despite how it looks on the map Woodhall Road contains several sharp bends as well as the crest of the hill, and introducing a new access road with clear sight lines in both directions would be a challenge. The alternative of using the farm gate off Foxholes Crescent would mean taking land off the existing properties of 4 and 6 Foxholes Crescent as there is just room for two cars to pass but not larger vehicles (deliveries, refuse collection, construction etc.). Finally I would like to record my thanks to the people staffing the public presentation at Pudsey Civic Hall and in particular the follow up call from Highways about my concerns over access to the housing site once developed. [x]

H4Question Ref:

52 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05103

Robin Cass

Representor No:

Name:


53 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05250

Joanne Cattle

Representor No:

Name:


I strongly object to green belt land on harper farm being sold for housing developments. I have lived here for over 30 years and seen a huge change in the area ie industrial units, over 400 houses on the Dunlop estate, letter shop group, extension of Whitehall industrial estate. White hall road is a very busy road and more houses means more cars. I would also like to point out that schools/ doctors in the area are full. During heavy rain we get water in our cellars and to build on this land would men less land for water to drain into and we would surly become flood victims. The houses would be built on a hill and would completely over power houses that are over 120 years old.

H1Question Ref:

54 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05021

Pauline Chadwick

Representor No:

Name:


I am concerned about the all the sites shown in the Calverley Area but with particular reference to sites 1123A/1124/1193A. I am very concerned about the potential for these sites to become building land this reducing the county fell of the village and increasing the traffic problem. In your “Site Allocation Plan” brochure “volume 2” Outer West” these three sites are given colour coding amber or green WHY? When your brochure refers to them all as GREEN BELT SITES is this allowed? You actually say and I quote “preventing coalescence of settlements of houses on these sites is potentially 160 or more. There will also be a large development at Apperley Bridge on the old shoe factory site. This is conjunction with the Sandoz Site development will also input on the amount of traffic in and around Calverley and will make the existing GREEN BELT even more essential.

H4Question Ref:

55 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05629

Matthew Chadwick

Representor No:

Name:


Objection to 1110, 2121, 1114 -I would like to object to 3 proposed housing sites in Pudsey Borough – 1110, 2121 and 1114, forthese reasons;They’re on/within the greenbelt and on one of few natural habitats within the Leeds ring road.in addition to the damage this would do to the beauty of the area and the local wildlife, itwould also put massive pressure on the road infrastructure which is already strained and barelyusable during peak hours. Farsely high street is already dangerous for pedestrians, especiallychildren, of which there are many in the area.The local schools are all already nearly full, this would put extra strain on them and would forcemany existing families to move or have their children commute to schools in other boroughs.

H4Question Ref:

56 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03205

Duncan Chapman

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

• The sites allocated as green do not fit plan of urban development and extension. They are 10 to 15 miles out of leeds is rural areas. This is not urban development. Particularity the road links are poor and the local facilities in the neighbouring market towns would mean commuting to Leeds/York/Harrogate for Work, ranges of shops, Leisure complexes, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The sites therefore are not

sustainable and the quantity of houses would not justify them being so• The sites are mainly separated for the Leeds area by Green belt with the resulting poor local transport system. There is no rail links and the bus services are poor on busy roads with poor infrastructure. This will

encourage car use resulting in increased traffic and pressure on an already poor infrastructure• The resulting commuting would cause increased emissions and traffic from housing settlements effectively 'islanded' in the middle of the countryside. A better solution would

be to allocate sites of smaller developments across ALL of the neighbouring villages to Leeds as close as possible.

H1Question Ref:

TATE. Reference 1051. The site is not in the settlement hierarchy so should not be included. The 2006 UDP Inquiry deemed the site to be non sustainable on the grounds that the local services of Boston spa and Wetherby were too far away to be reached by foot and for most by bicycle. The Road network is poor and currently under pressure and though relief roads are planned these only take traffic from the site to the LAR which as pointed out in the 2006 report is already up to capacity and incapable of taking up more traffic resulting in that network needing to upgraded to.

It is also a point that the relief road to gain access to the development will take up 30 acres of green belt farmland!2. The site has no link to Wetherby other than a dangerous B road or via Boston spa over an ancient bridge! The public transport is poor and the UDP pointed out that they are unlikely to be viable for bus companies due to the distance and locality to Leeds/York Harrogate meaning that people would choose to live

nearer to these cities or use the car. This would create a car dominant culture and increased traffic issues. 3. The site will not be of sufficient size to be able to support its own shop and local services network. Again this will mean commuting to Wetherby on unsuitable roads. 4. The site does

not meet the Leeds Core Strategy objectives. For example:Items 8 "Deliver housing growth unsustainable locations related to the Settlement Hierarchy". Item 10 "Promote the role of town and local centres as the heart of the community which provide a focus for

shopping, leisure, economic development and community facilities, while supporting the role of the City Centre". Item 16: "Ensure new development takes place in locations that are or will be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including walking, cycling, and public

transport." This site fails to meet any of these criteria.5. The site plans offer a poor solution to the traffic. Traffic will leave the site via ONE route along a 'new' road which empties at a busy Wetherby junction adding to congestion in Wetherby or even worse steering traffic through Thorp arch village and over the old bridge to Boston. The On Street parking in these villages makes traffic currently difficult as traffic tries to access TATE on a morning and leave TATE on an evening. There is no answer to this as most of the properties are old and DO NOT have an option for off street parking. The idea that people will move to the development to work on the Trading estate as ridiculous as it will be of such a small size in comparison to the number of residents that the proportion would be small. The assumption is also that only one parent works in a family whereas is reality both do in most cases - are they both likely to get jobs on TATE? Unlikely meaning they will live nearer to other areas of

higher employment and facilities in Leeds meaning the site will be further unsustainable and just a commuter settlement

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

I believe it offers better transport links as you have two major A roads taking traffic off to North , south Eats and west but for the same issues as the TATE site, I cant see how it will be sustainable in terms of infrastructure as it will be to far from Leeds. Harrogate York so would need to be completely sustainable in all facilities which would only be feasible with a 10,000 home development.

H4aQuestion Ref:

57 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03884

Brian Chapman

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I am objecting to the proposed housing development behind the Castle Ings Estate in New Farnley. We are a small village with limited access and facilities. Low moor Side is the only road through the village and is already very busy. More houses will mean more cars and the road cannot safely accomodate any further increase. There is a danger to children who play in the area next to this road as there is no designated crossing. There is only one shop and this is on Low Moor Side and used by all the residents but there is limited parking and so we already get alot on on~road parking. My family have lived in this village for many years and have seen a number of housing developments but any more will totally destroy the nature of this rare village community.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

58 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04749

Helen Chapman

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

• The sites allocated as green do not fit plan of urban development and extension. They are 10 to 15 miles out of leeds is rural areas. This is not urban development. Particularity the road links are poor and the local facilities in the neighbouring market towns would mean commuting to Leeds/York/Harrogate for Work, ranges of shops, Leisure complexes, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The sites therefore are not

sustainable and the quantity of houses would not justify them being so• The sites are mainly separated for the Leeds area by Green belt with the resulting poor local transport system. There is no rail links and the bus services are poor on busy roads with poor infrastructure. This will

encourage car use resulting in increased traffic and pressure on an already poor infrastructure• The resulting commuting would cause increased emissions and traffic from housing settlements effectively 'islanded' in the middle of the countryside. A better solution would

be to allocate sites of smaller developments across ALL of the neighbouring villages to Leeds as close as possible.

H1Question Ref:

TATE. Reference 1051. The site is not in the settlement hierarchy so should not be included. The 2006 UDP Inquiry deemed the site to be non sustainable on the grounds that the local services of Boston spa and Wetherby were too far away to be reached by foot and for most by bicycle. The Road network is poor and currently under pressure and though relief roads are planned these only take traffic from the site to the LAR which as pointed out in the 2006 report is already up to capacity and incapable of taking up more traffic resulting in that network needing to upgraded to.

It is also a point that the relief road to gain access to the development will take up 30 acres of green belt farmland!2. The site has no link to Wetherby other than a dangerous B road or via Boston spa over an ancient bridge! The public transport is poor and the UDP pointed out that they are unlikely to be viable for bus companies due to the distance and locality to Leeds/York Harrogate meaning that people would choose to live

nearer to these cities or use the car. This would create a car dominant culture and increased traffic issues. 3. The site will not be of sufficient size to be able to support its own shop and local services network. Again this will mean commuting to Wetherby on unsuitable roads. 4. The site does

not meet the Leeds Core Strategy objectives. For example:Items 8 "Deliver housing growth unsustainable locations related to the Settlement Hierarchy". Item 10 "Promote the role of town and local centres as the heart of the community which provide a focus for

shopping, leisure, economic development and community facilities, while supporting the role of the City Centre". Item 16: "Ensure new development takes place in locations that are or will be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including walking, cycling, and public

transport." This site fails to meet any of these criteria.5. The site plans offer a poor solution to the traffic. Traffic will leave the site via ONE route along a 'new' road which empties at a busy Wetherby junction adding to congestion in Wetherby or even worse steering traffic through Thorp arch village and over the old bridge to Boston. The On Street parking in these villages makes traffic currently difficult as traffic tries to access TATE on a morning and leave TATE on an evening. There is no answer to this as most of the properties are old and DO NOT have an option for off street parking. The idea that people will move to the development to work on the Trading estate as ridiculous as it will be of such a small size in comparison to the number of residents that the proportion would be small. The assumption is also that only one parent works in a family whereas is reality both do in most cases - are they both likely to get jobs on TATE? Unlikely meaning they will live nearer to other areas of

higher employment and facilities in Leeds meaning the site will be further unsustainable and just a commuter settlement.

H2Question Ref:

no

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

59 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01902

Philip Chidsey

Representor No:

Name:


1. When rain is present the road outside my house floods as does all the fields around. This must paint towards a drainage problem on the site. How can you build houses on such a site this would make the problem much worse.2. This is a small village with a “Village Feel” not only would the area be spoilt for all time, but on a more practical point if 129 households move into the area, how could the road cope? How would the schools cope? And then of course back to the drainage problems. 3. What about the wild life in the area? We have designated “wildlife sanctuary” on this site, may be the law could be broken if building takes place.

H4Question Ref:

60 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01943

Denise Chidsey

Representor No:

Name:


Proposed site New Fanrley Fields at back of Walsh Lane and Castle Ings. The access though the butterfly field which is protected wildlife site leading to the narrow low Moorside Lane where it is already a hazard due to number of vehicles passing through and parking. It is difficult to pass unless the vehicle pulls over with the addition of a possible 2200 plus extra cars from a site with a view of 129 new houses it is an accident waiting to happen. New Farnley is a village unable to sustain a further 129 houses and possibly 400 plus extra are already oversubscribed and local children after travel to Morley for their education. 1 pub and a small doctor’s surgery. If the proposal goes ahead New Farnley would no longer be classed as a village or the desirable place developers want to cast iron. The site has sever drainage problems and underground mine shafts with large holes appearing spasmodically when there is adverse weather the surrounding gardens and roads are often flooded. To add further houses can only compound this problem.

H4Question Ref:

61 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04333

Sarah Chilcott

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

1123aThis is a site crmmed in the to the outskirts of a small village which is supported by 2 schools and only 1 doctor practice. The traffic thgh calverley is bad enough now let alone with these new sites being proposed. The access is poor to this particular site and would heavily impact on residents who have chosen to live in a quiet part of calverley. This site would also overlook private housing on foxholes crescent which have chosen to purchase a property on a quiet crescent

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

62 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03188

Victoria Clapham

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site Ref 1114 and 1110 should not be considered for future development. The area of farsley has already seen a number of new housing developments and the traffic is already proving a major issue in terms of safety and access. Building an additional 500 houses (predicted development) would add an unsustainable level of traffic to an already congested area. This is on top of the fact of our recent purchase of a house which resides on a development which would become an accesss point to the new proposed housing development on kirklees knoll. This would

prove a major issue in terms of congestion and could lead to a devalue of our home. Schools in the area are already struggling with capacity and adding this amount of new families to the area would be a massive strain. The area of green belt should be preserved for the good of the area and strongly disagree with the marking of the site being identified as a site with potential for development

H4Question Ref:

Sites 1114, 1110 and 2121 for reasons previously stated

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

63 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02107

Clarke

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

64 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00178

L Malcolm & Hillary P Clark

Representor No:

Name:


1114 / 1110 / 2121 Dear SirsLEEDS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN- HOUSING, KIRKLEES KNOLL, FARSLEY, LEEDS

We are writing to object most strongly to the above for Farsley & Rod ley on the following grounds.1. At the moment it is not always possible for child ren to attend local schools because they arefull. The school availability needs to be improved locally before houses are built.2. There is a new housing development taking place in Bagley Lane which is causing trafficproblems due to regular road works & temporary traffic lights. The road system will not copewith additional traffic.3. Other planning applications in the area that have been approved will add further to the road& traffic problems. At least 2 cars per household.4. Doctors & health services also would find it difficult to cope.5. We believe after all the above is considered the land should be returned to the Green Belt.

We have each lived in the area for over 60 years & would urge the rejection of this planningdevelopment.[x]

H4Question Ref:

65 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00178

L Malcolm & Hillary P Clark

Representor No:

Name:


1110, 1114, 2121 - LEEDS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN We are writing to object most strongly to the above for Farsley & Rodley on the following grounds.1. At the moment it is not always possible for children to attend local schools because they arefull. The school availability needs to be improved locally before houses are built.2. There is a new housing development taking place in Bagley Lane which is causing trafficproblems due to regular road works & temporary traffic lights. The road system will not copewith additional traffic.3. Other planning applications in the area that have been approved will add further to the road& traffic problems. At least 2 cars per household.4. Doctors & health services also would find it difficult to cope.S. We believe after all the above is considered the land should be returned to the Green Belt.We have each lived in the area for over 60 years & would urge the Leeds City Council to rejectthese developments.

H4Question Ref:

66 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01779

S Clarkson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

67 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03082

Peter Clayton

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

this would be encroahcing onto the last green area at side of ring road and would be the first foot in the door to join farsley and calverley into one unit

H1Question Ref:

1123a this is on a prominent hllside called jack lea fields visible from all over the valley .It is heavily used by walkers etc.it would also ruin the pack horse trail shell lane.1117totally inapropriatethe traffic problems ie solid from 3.30to7.0 on the length of carr road.the whole of the village is under

siegefrom traffic.It would also decimate the bridleway calverley cutting the major acess route to the woods an asset to the whole areanot only the people of calverley 1193bonce again joining the two areas together and denying the people a green space.calverley is the last area this side of

the valley clinging onto its green enviroment and is enjoyed by people fromthe whole of the planned area.completeley ridulouse when 2mile away at stanningley there are acres of brown sites undeveloped

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1117------1123b-------1193b.all these sites are innapropriate for development for traffic,beauty, leisure use for the whole area and joining the village of calverley into the sprawl of leeds.1117 is a special no go because of calverley cutting, the wild life ie deer in fields one breeds there every year.it would compound the damage done to the woods by illegal and indicriminate planning on clara drive

H7Question Ref:

MY family came into the village in the 1600s.I was born in the village ,have seen it turn from an industrial mill village to a very desirable place to live due to the many walks and scenery around it.it has more than quadrupled in size but still maintains its vllage feel.joining it into farsley which would be the next step would then end it as it would become an integral part of leeds .more bad planning as the sandoz site which woul have been the only viable route through the valley for a major road to relieve the congestion i the whole of the area.carr rd in particular is now at gridlock for a vast part of the day.I cannot get out for long pells of time so to build more houses would juststop the whole area.a lot of thought needs to be give to all these plans,for enviromental traffic and leisure


68 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03082

Peter Clayton

Representor No:

Name:


1193a is a small area needed by the people of brookfield and rodley on the calverley boundry

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

there are masses of brownfield aeras developers shoul d be sent to these first

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

we need to develop and look after what is left

G4Question Ref:

y

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

we need green close at hand or it only adds to traffic people trying to get somechill time

G6Question Ref:

calverley and its surrouding were heavily developed in the 50s and has been nibbled at ever since usually by illegal planning ,which was then retro allowed ie clara drive residents.It all comes down to the fact do we want to end up like london one mass or attempt to keep individual areas with grenery around them.

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:

this is an area that could be used as it has masses of green around and does ajoin an industrial area

G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:

one of the few spaces left around farsley that has also been heavily developed as calverley

G9Question Ref:

area not known

G10Question Ref:

69 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03082

Peter Clayton

Representor No:

Name:



G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:

this adjoins bradford so the two towns become one do we want this

G14Question Ref:

An inventorie should be made of brownfied sites there are acres of them all over leeds and here we are fighting to maintane our areas.if they need to develop they should be told brown field only or go elsewhere.stanningley a prime examplethe winders site perfectly suitable for all types developmentan improvig area


70 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04328

Margaret Anne Clayton

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

The traffic through Calverley village is horrendous without adding any further housing into the village

H1Question Ref:

1123a - the development of this site would have a major impact on the village and totally inappropriate1193a - green belt encroachment

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1117, 1123a, 1123b, 1193b, 1193aAll the above would have a major impact on the village and surrounding areas with an increase in, what is already an issue, traffic

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1193b, 1123b, 1117, Totally unsuitable for housing and could cause major traffic issues in an already overloaded village system

H7Question Ref:

No

H11Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

No

H14Question Ref:

No

H15Question Ref:

Hopefully I have chosen the right area for comments. Feel very strongly about the problems we already have with traffic passing through the village and feel that an increase in housing would compound this further.


71 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02278

J Cliffe

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Low Moor Side New Farnley - Amber to red. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

72 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00410

Debbie Connor

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Insufficient safe access, very narrow lanes unsuitable for additional vehicle movement, on most major roads including Walsh Lane, Low Moor Side, through village, Lawns Lane, including Whitehall Road. Concerned over speed of more cars and maybe used as a ‘rat run’ (Walsh Lane). Concerned over provision for schools, currently not enough places at Lawns Park Primary to accommodate more. I’m sure the same could be true for the high school. Reduction of greenfields. Increased noise from houses / people / vehicles / more street lights. Damaging the beauty and charm of New Farnley village. In addition to the above from a personal point of view we purchased our house 10 years ago and paid a premium for it due to its location / position and far reaching views. We have also just invested in excess of £20,000 into a loft conversion to increase our space and maximise the ‘view’ instead of moving as we love our house so much due to the unique position and outlook. I am totally mortified by the prospect of looking onto a field full of houses and being completely overlooked. Our privacy will disappear considerably.We are in total shock over the proposals and strongly object to them for all of the above reasons. We see no benefits whatsoever in the proposals. New Farnley has always been quite an exclusive and unique village in LS12 and we wish to keep it this way.Also, the noise, dirt, pollution and inconvenience caused by such a build will be detrimental to the functioning of the village and all its existing residents. We strongly disagree to the proposals.

H4Question Ref:

73 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00410

Debbie Connor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

74 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01710

Pat Connor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

75 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03331

Paul Cossavella

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

These sights in the Rawdon area,if built upon will ensure that the village will become part of the larger Leeds suburban sprawl.To maintain this quality and one that is such a good one for the City of Leeds,over many other cities (retaining areas of green and countryside)building on these

areas need to be kept to a minimumUpto recently planning applications under rule PP3 had to use unwanted brown field sites before green field and thsi should be done today.There are Brown field sites in the Airborough (and surrounding districts) that can be used

H1Question Ref:

New York Lane/Knott Lane Aireborough sites 4095 and 3331These areas although allocated sites with greatest potential and on directly on the A65 have various qualities and problems linked to them should they have houses built.*Possible mine shafts/coal pit areas dating back to the

1800's*terrible drainage and underground streams (that should be built on could cause problems for existing housing on New York Lane/Southlands/Knott lane)*areas linked to nature,often frequented by deer from the nearby protected woodland,bats and badgers*very close

to Rawdon crematorium,any building could add to problems with funeral traffic aswell as being very close to consecrated land*adding light pollution to an area generally classed as being low on light during night time hours*any increase in buildings and upto 100 houses could mean

200 cars and an increase in exhaust fumes and CO2 in an areas already consumed with excess traffic from the A65 corridorThis is of concern for people who live nearby in an area that generally has residents who walk to their destination(causing them to opt for car travel)More exhaust

and CO2 is causing increases in asthma and heart conditions*increase in traffic. We have ben told for years of the number of RTA in this stretch of road,hence the amount of traffic cameras...do we need more cars and possible junctions creating more possible accidents*lack of affordable

and reliable public transport that is not already held up in traffic delays to the Horsforth roundabout*no alternative transport links (any train links are further away,then without sufficient parking spaces and rolling stock to transport)*I am also not confident that any promises to improve

infrastructure (roads,utilities,schools,doctors etc) will not come off as has happened after completion of houses in nearby Guiseley*Already we have a possible 500 houses being built at the nearby Clariant site without promises of better infrstructure. Any more houses built on these green

field sites will add to the conjestion

H2Question Ref:

I think sites 2162 1104 and 3303 although just as much will affect the reduction in greenspace should be considered as much as New York lane/Knott Lane

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

Possibly

H4Question Ref:

New York Lane and Knott lane and Layton lane 4095 and 3331 and 3329

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

In the Rawdon area,Billing should be kept as red and therefore not given building rights. This is also part of the natural area and gives Leeds its reputation as being a green city.Being high up it can be seen for many points around the city and should be kept as that rather than be covered

witrh buildings

H7Question Ref:

New York Lane and Knott lane and Layton lane 4095 and 3331 and 3329Reasons as mentioned in H2

H9Question Ref:

I understand there is a need for housing inthe Aire Valley.Therefore housing should be built when the city council/local govenment feels there is a need for it and if the population is growing enough to warrant it.I also believe that no provision is realistically being given to the ever increasing

traffic problem,This is not going to be solved by "public transport" as the planning for this seems to be badly thought out and executed.The A65 corridor was given a bus lane to ease traffic and increase travellers onto buses.Did no one factor in that this bus lane dosnt

start until Kirkstall and therefore has no affect on the Rawdon area,already extremely busy with traffic from further up the A65 and in addition to an overloaded Horsforth roundabout which has not been altered since its early days of construction (plus a very heavily used and badly planned ring

road now over brimming with cars and soon to be more so with 500 houses being built on the Horsforth Clarient site)I have written before about this problem and the poeple who live in the area never seem to be involved,instead decisions being made by those who live outside the area and

no experience of its problemsIn addition the public transport is expensive and no encouragement to a naturally human decision to stay in their car that they are used to and delivers them door to door

H11Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

76 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00875

Teresa Cotton

Representor No:

Name:


1110 / 1114 / 2121 – These sites, which, as the plan states should be considered together, have been classified as amber with potential for future housing development.1114, 1110 and 2121 are not suitable for housing and should be protected from housing by being returned to the green belt.Before specifying reasons for this recommendation I would like to point out two typing errors in the site allocations plan 2:11. P.11 – Kirklees Knowl should be Kirklees KnollP.15 2121 is not close to Farnley, it is close to Farsley.

H4Question Ref:

1110 / 1114 / 2121 – These sites should be returned to the green belt for the following reasons:-

1.They strategically separate the unique communities of Farsley and Rodley and form an integral part of an increasingly narrow green space between Bradford and Leeds.

2.Since the sites were removed from the green belt in the late 1990s the area has had to adapt to a rapidly growing population, as substantial brownfield sites, still supporting viable industry when Kirklees Knoll was classified as PAS, have been used for housing. This has put on intolerable strain on social facilities such as schools and medical services. With the loss of jobs more people are forced to commute to find work.

3.The highways infrastructure is already operating at near capacity and totally incapable of supporting more development, especially as many projects already approved have yet to be completed, or even started (Clariant 550+ houses)

4.The sites are currently productive agricultural land. 5.Any development would be totally unsustainable. Further details of these points are attached on a separate sheet [scanned]

Reasons why these sites are NOT suitable for Housing Development and should be returned to TheGREEN BELTKirklees Knoll (site1114), and adjoining sites 1110and 2121 should be returned to the Green Belt andprotected from housing development for the following reasons:-1. The sites strategically separate the unique communities of Farsley, Rodley and Calverley, and forman integral part of a narrow green corridor separating the cities of Leeds and Bradford. In theabsence of Regional planning, developments on both sides of the boundary are gradually erodingthis green space, which not only prevents the cities coalescing into a giant conurbation, but is vitalto the well being of both existing and future citizens.2. Since Kirklees Knoll was removed from the Green Belt in the late 1990's, Farsley and Rodley havehad to accommodate unprecedented population growth and associated socio-economic change;much of which could not have been predicted at the time the sites were classified as PAS. Followingthe demise of textile and engineering industries, their sites have been largely redeveloped forhousing. This rapid influx of people has put an intolerable strain on the social and medicalinfrastructures. The schools are full, and despite some moderate planned expansion are likely toremain so for many years, as many of the most recent schemes have yet to be completed and/ormature. Medical premises are physically incapable of expansion and services are already limited.3. Furthermore, the loss of, mainly skilled, jobs in traditional industries and associated trades, hasleft the local labour market dependent on small employers and a handful of retail and officedevelopments at Dawson's corner. The latter supply largely part-time, minimum wageopportunities. Most residents are therefore forced to commute to work in Leeds and beyond. Theaddition of a potentially 2000+ people, should sites 111, 1110 and 2121 be developed, would finallydestroy the character of Farsley and turn it into a commuter belt.4. In addition there is no viable vehicular and/or pedestrian access to the sites. They lie adjacent tothe A6120, between the roundabouts of Dawson's Corner and Rodley. These junctions togetherwith that of neighbouring Horsforth lie on important routes which link Leeds City centre toBradford and the motorway network beyond, and to Leeds-Bradford airport. Arguably these routesare important to the economy of Leeds as a whole. However, they are already operating at nearcapacity, and this does not take account of traffic to be generated by housing still under constructionin Farsley, Pudsey Bradford and the Clariant site, which has approval for 400+ houses yet to becommenced. The highways infrastructure is therefore, totally incapable of supporting potentialhousing developments of up to 600 houses on Kirklees Knoll and adjoining sites.5.Finally, Kirklees Knoll is good quality agricultural land, which currently produces forage and fodderfor a local dairy farmer. The loss of this land would seriously affect the farm's viability. At a timewhen dairy farmers are leaving the industry because it is becoming uneconomic and Britishconsumers are being encouraged to buy local produce, the loss of any valuable agricultural land isdeplorable.In conclusion, since Sites 1114, 1110 and 2121 were classified as PAS land circumstances havechanged. Any housing development would not only be totally unsustainable, but would haveadverse effects on the viability of existing communities; destroy valuable green space andexacerbate already intolerable traffic problems. These sites should be returned to the GREEN BELTand protected for future generations.

H5Question Ref:

77 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01467

David Cotton

Representor No:

Name:


1114 Amber to Red (Assumed also 1110 and 2121).The proposed housing/land designation would:1. Reduce the viability of one of the few active farms remaining in this small area of greenspace between Bradford and Leeds.2. Merge the distinctive communities of Farnley and Rodley.3. Housing development would exacerbate the traffic problems of the Leeds/Bradford area - problems of congestion that are already the worst in the UK (see Tom-Tom Congestion data). 4.Housing would overtax the existing social infrastructure such as schools.5.The amenity value of the existing greenspace between Bradford and Leeds would be further reduced. Its erosion by both the development proposed by Bradford and by Leeds may destroy or at least impair its current funtion as a buffer zone.

H4Question Ref:

78 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01467

David Cotton

Representor No:

Name:


2121 / 1114 - I write to express my concern about the possibility of the land atKirklees Knoll, ( site 2121 and especially site 1114), being approved for buildingdevelopment.Both of these tracts of land are currently classified as PAS, but were, until recent times,formerly classed as 'Green Belt'. Site 1114 plays an important part in maintaining aclear break between the distinctive settlements of Farsley and Rodley and both sites formpart of the very limited 'green corridor' between western Leeds and Bradford.Unfortunately this slender green corridor is being reduced by proposed and alreadyapproved housing developments in both Bradford and Leeds and there seems to beinsufficient concern regarding the combined impact of these developments on the area.The impact of the proposed housing development will undoubtedly contributesignificantly to exacerbating the already severe traffic congestion in the Leeds- Bradfordarea; where the congestion is, according to the Tom- Tom Traffic Congestion Index,already the most severe in the United kingdom. ( See table 1, attached below whichshows congestion in this area to be significantly worse than in London.)Moreover the increase in congestion in the Bradford- Leeds area has alreadybeen increasing faster than any other area in Europe, even without the proposedhousing developments. ( See table 2: below.)Moreover, the loss of this land to building development would significantly weaken thealready fragile green-lung 'farmscape' that provides much needed diversity and servesthe amenity interests of the local communities in both west Leeds and eastern Bradford.Tract 1114 is productive agricultural land currently used for both grazing cattle and forfodder production. Its loss would reduce the viability of the farm that currently managesthe land. Because of the importance of retaining the character of this area of rurallandscape it would be undesirable to allow any major change in its use such as for thehousing development, that has recently been proposed for Kirldees Knoll.It is therefore important that this area is, at the least, retained in its present PAS status,so that its best use can be determined when the needs of the next generation of Leedscitizens becomes known, though an even stronger commitment to preserving its currentimportant functions is desirable and would be achieved if it was re-designated as 'GreenBelt'.

H4Question Ref:

79 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01682

P.d Coulson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

80 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00330

M. J Cousin

Representor No:

Name:


333, 1077, 1344, 3003 - Green to red. The schools are full as are the dentists and health. Not enough shops, services or sewerage systems.

H1Question Ref:

2124, 1322 - Amber to red. The schools are full as are the dentists and health. Not enough shops, services or sewerage systems.

H4Question Ref:

1266, 1334 - The schools are full as are the dentists and health. Not enough shops, services or sewerage systems.

H7Question Ref:

533 - Green to red. The schools are full as are the dentists and health. Not enough shops, services or sewerage systems.


81 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05639

Rob Crompton

Representor No:

Name:


Objection to 1110, 1114, 2121I am writing this email to you to object to the proposals for housing development at sites in Rodley,Leeds, on Kirklees Knoll and Calverley Lane, Farsley.I have live in Farsley now for eight years and would like to highlight the impact these changes willhave on me and the concerns that any proposed development bring. Of course there will be otherreasons to object, but I would like to identify a small selection that I am sure will cause other localresidents and businesses concern: -1. The road systems in Farsley and the surrounding area are average at best. Particularhotspots are around Farsley Town Street, Bagley Lane, Around the Owlcoates Rounadboutand in particular Rodley Lane, with it being the only viable way of travelling towardsHorsforth and beyond due to the “No Right Turns” leading onto the Ring Road from otheradjoining junctions. An additional 575 (Approx) would only compound this problem. Thetraffic on Rodley Lane can be extremely busy, particularly on a morning, In fact, unless I amable to get to Rodley Lane at 7.30 am or before on a morning, cars will queue back wellpast the Rodley Barge Public House. My daily commute to North Leeds would be extremelyinconvenienced further and I expect this 7.30 am cut off point would become much earliergiven the increase in traffic. The infrastructure in Farsley/Calverley and Rodley is unable tocope with such an increase.2. Would the local schools be able to cope with the increase in number of children in thearea? As a father of a young child yet to start school, this is of great concern to me. Thereputation of our schools is currently very good. I worry that the increase in housing willhave a detrimental effect on the education of the current and future pupils of these schools.Are there are proposals for new schools to be built? I suspect not.3. One of the reasons that I moved to Farsley eight years ago was that Farsley and thesurrounding area has managed to keep the “small village” feel. Not only does it have old,original and character buildings, there is a lot of greenery. There are trees, lots of areas ofpark land and people take a general pride in their area, ensuring to maintain it to a very highstandard. By building the additional housing on these beautifully undisturbed pockets, thisvillage feel is going to be ruined which will result in the area losing a major part of itsidentity.I hope that this email can be placed before the consultation. I am happy to answer any queries thatyou may have on the points that I have raised.

H4Question Ref:

82 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04077

Kathleen Crooks

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

New Farnley should not have any further housing estates, it should remain a village. There is not sufficient facilities or road access

H1Question Ref:

The field at the back of Castle ings. This I strongly object to having houses built on it. Low Moorside is a very busy road already, some cars already seem to think it is a race track!With the shop, park, and many horses using the road from local riding schools, it is already quite dangerous

for children and the elderly crossing the road.I believe it cannot take any more through traffic, and we need speed bumps for the safety of everyone!!

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

83 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01707

Rita Cummings

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

84 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00413

Elsie Dalby

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - I am 88 years old and love living in New Farnley. It is a lovely quiet place and would not like to see it turned into a massive housing estate. We have very few facilities and can't cope with more people here.

H4Question Ref:

85 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01743

K Daniel

Representor No:

Name:


1110 / 1114/ 2121 - Leeds Local Development Plan – Housing Site Allocations ConsultationDear SirsAfter visiting the public exhibition for our area at Pudsey Civic Centre on 25th June 2013, wewish to comment about proposed development on the following sites which are currentlydesignated as PAS (Protected Area of Search) land.

Site 1110 Land at Rodley – This land is adjacent to the front boundary of our property, andif permission to develop is granted – it would encroach on and remove every aspect of theprivacy that we have known and enjoyed for the past 44 years. Previous attempts todevelop have been turned down because this area forms part of an important tract of openland that could contribute to Green Belt purposes, and also access is very difficult becauseof Highways issues.

Site 1114 Land at Kirklees Knoll – This land is very close to our property and if developed itwould effectually join the areas of Rodley and Farsley together. The land also forms part ofan important tract of open land that could contribute to Green Belt purposes. If thisdevelopment of a further 472 properties is granted the effect on the local area and existingcommunities would be immense. The present Highways, Water/Sewerage and Schoolsystems which are already working at maximum capacity will just not be able to copewithout major investment/upgrading, this in turn will effect local services and also causeunacceptable disruptions throughout the area. This has always been high grade agriculturalgrazing land and its loss would affect the viability of the tenant farmer's business and be a highly detrimental development to the character of Rodley and Farsley.

2121 Calverley Lane — Farsley — This area also forms part of an important tract of open landthat could contribute to Green belt purposes. If this allowed to be developed it would againcontribute and add to the already existing problems with regard to Highways, Site Access,Water/Sewerage and School systems. It would also effectively remove the existing greenand pleasant areas of-land that have always separa-ted th—e-old villages of Rodley and FsIW..Over the many years that we have lived in Rodley we have already seen the housingdevelopment of numerous industrial sites and old buildings, these have already includedareas of land in between Rodley and Farsley, the effect on local services has already beensevere. Now that planning permission has been given to develop the old Sandoz/Clariantsite with over 500 properties, to consider giving permission to develop an additional total of591 further properties in the immediate area is not acceptable. This will effectively bringtotal chaos to all existing services during the construction process and we will in effect begrid locked.In closing, we confirm that we are totally against any further development in our area andtherefore urge Leeds City Council's Planning Committee to reject any applications that aresubsequently received.

H4Question Ref:

86 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01821

B Davies

Representor No:

Name:



H1Question Ref:

87 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02075

P Davies

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

88 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03483

Terence Davies

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

REF:2123 LOW MOOR SIDE LANE, NEW FARNLEYROAD WIDTH ON LOW MOOR SIDE LANE WILL NOT SUSTAIN ANY MORE TRAFFIC, IT IS A MINOR ROAD WITH AN AVERAGE OF 4.5-5.5 METRES WIDTH. VEHICLES HAVE TO STOP AT TIMES TO GIVE WAY TO ONCOMING VEHICLES. PAVEMENT ONLY TO ONE SIDE. ALL DELIVERY VEHICLES USE LOW MOOR SIDE TO SERVICE HOMES AND BUSINESSES IN NEW FARNLEY. THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEW FARNLEY (BUS SERVICES ARE SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH), SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND EXTENDED IN TOTALLY WRONG LOCATIONS. LAWNS LANE IS TOO NARROW FOR PARENT/CHILDREN ATTENDING SCHOOL ON FOOT. LAWNS LANE IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN - REASON BAD PLANNING IN THE PAST.

H1Question Ref:

REF: 2123 LOW MOOR SIDE LANETRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ON LOW MOOR SIDE LANE, IF 150 PROPERTIES WERE BUILT PEOPLE WORKING 150 VEHICLES 300 MOVEMENTS PER DAYPARENT SCHOOL RUNS 150 VEHICLES 600 PER

DAYSHOPPING ETCFRIENDS,RELATIVES 250 VEHICLES 500 PER DAYDELIVERY SERVICES,TESCO ETCAN EXTRA 1400 TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS PER DAY AVERAGE

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

REF: 2123 LONG ROW, LOW MOOR SIDE LANE WAS DEMOLISHED. L.C.C. CREATED A BUTTERFLY GARDEN {CONSERVATION AREA} AT RATE PAYERS EXPENSE BUT WERE WILLING TO SELL PART TO DEVELOPERS FOR AN ENTRY ROAD FOR A NEW ESTATE. THIS BACKHAND PRACTICE HAS BEEN USED BEFORE TO OBTAIN PLANNING PERMISSION MANY TIMES IE. BRITANNIA BUILDING SOCIETY PAID A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO OBTAIN CHANGE OF USE IN THE ALBION STREET AREA ( DONATION TITLED TO THE

SUPERTRAM} WHERE DID THE MONEY GO? * * WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR REPLY TO THIS.THERE ARE ALSO SHALLOW MINING WORKINGS IN THIS AREA AND PROBLEMS WITH UNDERGROUND WATER - FLOODING BUNGALOWS IN THE CASTLE INGS ESTATE.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

WHY IS THIS WEBSITE SO COMPLICATED.


89 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00074

Andrea Davis

Representor No:

Name:


3458 (Purple site) - I object to the above site reference to be considered for any development. Houses are situated on both sides of Whitehall Road next to and adjacent to this site. There are also two road junctions within 200 yards along this stretch of road. In my opinion access to this site would prove dangerous and hazardous on an already busy road.


90 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01640

Paula Dickinson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

91 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02277

Debra Dickson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

92 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00372

Jennifer A Doughty

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – The site above is unsuitable for housing because: 1.The site has underground old mine workings below making the fields over the years alter contours, also underground srpingsgo through the

land also making the site unsuitable. 2.The houses surrounding the land are very narrow and grossly unable to cope with more cars etc. and exits to Whitehall Road are not safe

enough for more traffic. 3.I’ve just been told the site is now altered to brownfield from green belt which I think is very convenient for change of use for building on. 4.The infrastructure of site is not suitable as the services required are not in place i.e. schools/ medical services etc.

Approx 20 yrs ago the site was refused planning for building why now is it going forward again??

H4Question Ref:

93 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


GID has a number of concerns abut the approach that has been taken towards to selection of ‘green sites’ within the Outer West area of Leeds. These concerns relate to:

•The use of Green Belt land;

•The extent to which the ‘green sites’ selected accord with the spatial strategy, and promote sustainable development; and

•The choice and availability of ‘green sites’ within the Farsley area.

We consider these points in more detail below.

Use of Green Belt Land

The Issues and Options DPD indicates that within the Outer West area 29 ‘green sites’ have been identified, and together these have a capacity of 1,655 dwellings. However, having reviewed these sites, we are concerned that nine of them comprise Green Belt land. The capacity of the Green Belt sites is 629 dwellings, which suggests that around 38% (i.e. over a third) of the land that the Council believes to have the greatest potential to be allocated for housing would involve the loss of Green Belt. This represents a significant amount of Green Belt loss to housing development.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF indicates that 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; and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF confirms that once established Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in ‘exceptional circumstances’, through the preparation of review of the Local Plan. Paragraph 84 also indicates that in reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.

The Issues and Options DPD does not accord with the NPPF policy referred to above, as it fails to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the use of valuable Green Belt land for housing. Given the importance and permanence of the Green Belt, it is crucial that all other more sustainable and less sensitive sources of land are properly examined before consideration is given to the loss of Green Belt. This will ensure the least impact on Green Belt purposes, as required by Policy SP6 of the emerging Core Strategy.

The Issues and Options DPD confirms that there are a number of sites that could be utilised for housing within the Outer West area without using Green Belt, including our client’s proposed allocation at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121), which has been given an ‘amber’ rating.

In our view the Council’s proposal to promote the use of Green Belt land for housing, when more appropriate alternative sites exist, is not sound, for the reasons set out above.

Consistency with Spatial Strategy/Promotion of Sustainable Development

Policy SP1 of the emerging Core Strategy indicates that the Council’s intended spatial strategy is to concentrate the majority of new development within and on the edge of the Main Urban Area to take advantage of existing services, high levels of accessibility and priorities for urban regeneration. Policy SP6 sets out the considerations that the Council will use when distributing the housing requirement, the first of which is sustainable locations supported by existing, or access to new, local facilities and services.

In this context GID is concerned that a number of the ‘green sites’ in the Outer West area do not appear to accord with the above policy approach. Some of the sites that have been selected are not well related to the Main Urban Area of the City, nor do they have good accessibility to high level services found in town centres.

In order to foster sustainable development our view is that ‘green sites’ should be focused as close as possible to the Main Urban Area and town centres, where the greatest range of shops, services and employment are likely to be available. There are a number of sites within the Outer West area that have these characteristics, in particular our client’s proposed allocation at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121), which has been given an ‘amber’ rating. Indeed, when this site was considered as a potential housing allocation during the 2006 UDP Review the UDP Inspector concluded that:

“However, should additional land be needed within PAS designations then this would be a reasonably sustainable option, being within easy walking distance of Farsley town centre, with a good range of local services and facilities, and with further services and employment available close at hand in the wider urban area.”

(Paragraph 20.21, UDP Review Inspector’s Report)

When considering the merits of site 2121 it is also relevant to note that paragraph 4.8.6 of the emerging Core Strategy confirms that existing PAS sites will provide one of the ‘prime sources for housing allocations in the LDF’.

Choice and Availability of ‘Green Sites’ within Farsley Area

GID is concerned that the location of the ‘green sites’ proposed in the Outer West area implies that there may not be sufficient housing choice to meet the future housing needs of Farsley.

Farsley is a settlement with a strong community identity that forms part of the Main Urban Area of Leeds. It offers a good choice of shops, schools, services and employment opportunities; and Volume 2 of the Issues and Options DPD indicates that Farsley town centre is one of four main centres within the Outer West area of the City (the others being Pudsey, Bramley and Armley). In our view it is important that the Site Allocations DPD recognises these facets, and provides for an appropriate level of housing growth within the settlement over the plan period to foster a sustainable pattern of development; and to provide for the future housing needs of this growing community – which includes general and affordable needs.

The Issues and Options document indicates that no ‘green sites’ are currently proposed within the built up area of Farsley inside the ring road, which suggests that the settlement will be poorly provided for in terms of housing choice in the future. Whilst Table 11.3.1 of Volume 2 of the Site

H1Question Ref:

94 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


Allocations DPD refers to two unimplemented housing allocations at Bagley Lane and Cherry Tree Drive, the former site has now been completed, and the latter site would only provide for 10 no. dwellings. Table 11.3.1 refers to unimplemented commitments at Bank Bottom Mills (15 no. units), Farsley Celtic AFC (14 no. units) and New Street (10 no. units), however it is clear that all of these sites are small in size. None of these sites would be large enough to provide for a mainstream housing development offering a choice of family homes, nor would they provide for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder.

In the light of the above, we consider that there is a compelling case for further ‘green sites’ within the Farsley area. Our client’s proposed allocation at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121) would be an obvious candidate in that regard, as we explain under our response to Question H3.

1060AHoughside, PudseyLoss of Green Belt 1124Land off Upper Carr Lane, CalverleyLoss of Green Belt, distance from Main Urban Area 1184Lan d at Acres Hall Avenue, PudseyLoss of Green Belt 1195Land at Waterloo Road, PudseyLoss of Green Belt 1201Land adjoining Woodhall Road - Gain Lane, ThornburyLoss of Green Belt, distance from Main Urban Area 1337Stylo House, Harrogate Road, Apperley BridgeDistance from Main Urban Area

1243AHarper Gate Farm, Tyersal Lane, BradfordDistance from Main Urban Area 3011Dick Lane Garage, Dick Lane, ThornburyLoss of Green Belt 3050Troydale Farm, Troydale Lane, PudseyLoss of Green Belt

3377ASouth of Hough Side, PudseyLoss of Green Belt 3455BGamble Lane, FarnleyLoss of Green Belt

H2Question Ref:

95 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


Background

GID considers that land at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121) should be identified as a ‘green site’ for immediate release at the beginning of the plan period.

The site comprises a vacant area of land located adjacent to the Main Urban Area of Leeds and within a short walk of Farsley town centre, which is defined as a main centre within the shopping hierarchy. It is bounded by housing and mature trees/hedgerow on three of its four sides, and residential development in this location would effectively round off a modest gap between the existing built edge of Farsley and the outer ring road.

The site is identified within the Council’s SHLAA as a site that could come forward as a housing allocation with a capacity of up to 72 dwellings, and no significant constraints are identified within the detailed site proforma contained with the SHLAA (extract attached).

The site is available for housing immediately and initial discussions that that have taken place with housebuilders indicates that there is strong market interest in the land.

On 11 June GID carried out a community engagement event at Farsley Community Church, which was well attended. GID has also entered into pre-application discussions with the Council, and agreed, in principle, an appropriate point of access into the site from Calverley Lane.

An indicative layout plan for the site has been prepared (copy attached) and GID has also commissioned a comprehensive suite of reports to address the full range of planning issues that might be expected to be assessed as part of a planning application submission. Those reports are listed below, and copies are attached to these representations.

•Phase 1 Ecology Report •Bat Survey •Reptile Survey •Transport Assessment •Travel Plan •Air Quality Assessment •Noise Assessment •Flood Risk Assessment •Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

[In addition, a Geo-Environmental Report is available on request]

GID submitted detailed representations to the Council’s Planning Department promoting the site as a housing allocation prior to the Issues and Options consultation taking place. We attach a further copy of these representations for information.

In short, land at Calverley Lane, Farsley is a sustainable, unconstrained opportunity that could deliver housing at an early stage in the plan period. It is large enough to provide a mainstream housing scheme comprising a range of housing types to meet the future housing needs of Farsley. A housing scheme on this site would also deliver affordable housing to meet local needs.

Response to Council’s reason for current colour coding within Site Allocations DPD

The site is currently coded as an ‘amber site’ in the Site Allocations DPD, which confirms that the Council is of the view that it may have potential as a housing allocation. We repeat the Council’s reason for this colour coding as follows:

“Designated as PAS (Protected Area of Search) on the existing UDP, not within the Green Belt. This is part of a larger area and should be considered alongside 1114 & 1110, both also PAS sites. Whilst the sites have links to the settlement and are relatively close to Farsley town centre the UDP Review Inspector commented that the urban edge of Farsley is clear and well defined and this area forms part of an important tract of open land and could contribute to Green Belt purposes. The Inspector was clear that these factors should be considered at plan review as part of a comprehensive assessment of potential sites. There is an electricity pylon on this site with cables that run across. Highways issues to resolve, access possible, but poor accessibility - development would be best combined with adjacent sites.”

We consider each constituent element of the Council’s reasoning below.

(i) PAS Designation

We can confirm that the land was taken out of the Green Belt as part of the comprehensive review of the Green Belt carried out as part of the 2001 UDP, and designated as a PAS site to potentially meet the longer term needs of Leeds. The PAS designation was maintained following the 2006 UDP Review.

It is pertinent to note that paragraph 4.8.6 of the emerging Core Strategy confirms that existing PAS sites will provide one of the ‘prime sources for housing allocations in the LDF’.

(ii) Previous UDP Review Inspector’s comments

Whilst we note the reference to the UDP Review Inspector’s comments, the context in which they were made must be carefully considered. The UDP Review only related to a ‘partial’ review of the development plan, and the Inspector’s consideration of the need for housing sites was made against the backdrop of an annual housing requirement for Leeds of 1,930 dwellings. The annual housing requirement over the course of the LDF plan period, 4,375 dwellings/annum, is more than twice as large. It is therefore inevitable that extensions to the urban edge of Leeds will be required to meet this challenging housing requirement - as is evidenced by the Council’s decision to propose the release of substantial areas of Green Belt; and by the confirmation within the emerging Core Strategy that existing PAS sites will be a prime source of land for housing.

H3Question Ref:

96 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


As the site is severed from other farm land on the opposite side of the ring road, it has no potential for productive agriculture. The site is bounded by existing housing on one side, and is well screened by mature trees adjacent to a recreation ground to the south east, and by dense hedgerow adjacent to the ring road to the north and north west.

Development of Site 2121 for housing would comprise a modest extension to the built up area of Farsley. The indicative layout that GID has prepared shows that a sensitively-designed housing scheme can be provided that maintains significant amounts of greenspace on the site; and which respects the existing character of Farsley. In our view development of this site would be a ‘good fit’ for the Farsley area.

The site is not subject to any type of landscape or other environmental designation, has no public access and does not comprise part of the Green Belt. Once defined Green Belt boundaries are intended to be permanent, and they should endure well beyond the life of the plan - historically a minimum of 25-30 years was envisaged by Local Plan/UDP Inspectors when setting such boundaries. Para 83 of the NPPF indicates that exceptional circumstances would need to be demonstrated for Green Belt boundaries to be altered to include the site. The threshold for demonstrating exceptional circumstances is very high, as demonstrated in Copas v, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2001] EWCA Civ 180. In this decision the Court of Appeal stated:

“…the requisite necessity…where the revision proposed is to increase the Green Belt - cannot be judged to arise unless some fundamental assumption which caused the land initially to be excluded from the Green Belt is thereafter clearly and permanently falsified by a later event.”

There is no evidence to suggest that the basis on which the site was originally removed from the Green Belt was flawed, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify returning the site to the Green Belt. Whilst the UDP Review only comprised a partial review of the development plan, the Green Belt contribution of the site was considered as part of a comprehensive assessment of Green Belt boundaries during the preparation of the 2001 UDP, only 12 years ago. In that regard the UDP Inspector’s Report confirms that the Inspector was of the view that the site made a very limited contribution towards Green Belt purposes:

“The ring road would be a potent restriction on sprawl into countryside to the west of the site and the land has a very limited role in preventing the coalescence of Leeds and Bradford. I do not consider it is the purpose of GB policy to separate small communities such as Farsley and Rodley, although a structural open space to separate them would have validity in preserving their identities, providing for local needs to recreation and otherwise to ensure the proper planning of this part of Pudsey.” (Paragraph 691.09, UDP Inspector’s Report)

“In the context of the UDP however, where long term boundaries are being defined, I consider that the contribution of this land to GB purpose and objectives no longer to be sufficient to justify its long term retention within the GB. I agree with the objector that the sensible long term boundary to the GB would now be the Ring Road.” (Paragraph 691.11, UDP Inspector’s Report)

Importantly, the 2001 UDP Inspector also went on to make positive comments about the suitability of the site for housing:

“The rise in the land away from the Ring Road would require care in the positioning of housing and in the landscaping of the site to ensure its impact is minimized when viewed from the west. As the Council appear to accept, a safe access from Calverley Lane could probably be obtained. I thus consider this land could well prove suitable for housing development in the future.” (Paragraph 691.12, UDP Inspector’s Report)

In the light of the above, we consider that the UDP Review Inspector’s comments referred to in the Council’s reasoning should not be considered in isolation. They must be considered alongside the 2001 UDP Inspector’s comments, and viewed against the differing quantums of housing sought in Leeds then, compared to now.

(iii) Electricity pylon on the site, highways issues to resolve, access possible, but poor accessibility

The indicative layout prepared by GID shows that there is scope to provide a housing scheme on Site 2121 for between 60 and 70 dwellings incorporating an on site play area, and significant amounts of greenspace. The layout demonstrates that the pylon cables do not represent a constraint to an effective development of the land.

Discussions with the Council’s Highways Department have taken place, and in-principle agreement has been reached to the position of the access on Calverley Lane shown on the indicative layout. In addition, a Transport Assessment has been prepared which demonstrates that the worse case peak hour development traffic increase on the A6120 ring road is low and within daily traffic variations which could be expected on the ring road. The Transport Assessment concludes that the traffic resulting from the development in unlikely to be perceivable on the ring road during the network peak hour periods.

The comments regarding the ‘poor accessibility’ of Site 2121 completely contradict the findings of the UDP Review Inspector (as referred to under Question H1 above), and therefore in our view should be given limited weight when considering the suitability of the land as a housing allocation.

In addition, the Traffic Assessment prepared by GID demonstrates that the site is readily accessible by walking and cycling, and within easy walking distance of Farsley town centre, which has a good range of shops and facilities. It also shows that a number of bus stops on Calverley Lane and Bagley Lane are within walking distance of the site, and that these stops provide access to 11 buses per hour each way during peak time frequency. The bus services connect to a wide range of local destinations, including Leeds City Centre.

To further improve the accessibility of the site the Transport Assessment recommends the widening of the footway on Calverley Lane, and the provision of a new informal pedestrian crossing of Calverley Lane. These works would take place within the adopted highway, and do not rely on third party land.

(iv) Development would be best combined with adjacent sites

In our view development of Site 2121 for housing can (and should) be considered on its merits independently from the larger Sites 1110 (Land at Rodley) and 1114 (Land at Kirklees Knowl). It is physically self-contained, and GID’s proposal would not prejudice the delivery of Sites 1110 and 1114. There is no basis in law or policy to require it to be combined with these sites.

Site 2121 is in a different ownership, and is severed from the larger swathe of land forming Sites 1110 and 1114 by Calverley Lane. The proposed access to Site 2121 shown on the indicative layout prepared by GID shows that access to this land can be achieved independently from the proposed access to Site 1114, which features a roundabout to the west of the electricity pylon. As explained above, discussions with the

97 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


Council’s Highways Department have taken place, and in-principle agreement has been reached to the position of GID’s access on Calverley Lane.

In contrast, the roundabout access proposed by the promoters of Site 1114 cannot be utilised for Site 2121, due to a 6m easement around the electricity pylon located on the frontage to our clients’ land. The position of the proposed access to Site 1114 would require the roundabout sight line to cross into the pylon easement. Due to the level difference between Sites 1114 and 2121, the highway boundary wall would also need setting back into the site with a retaining structure requirement within the pylon easement. This would be unacceptable, and therefore should be avoided.

Sites 1110 and 1114 relate to a much larger parcel of land than Site 2121, and the critical difference between these opportunities is that whereas a housing scheme on Site 2121 would simply round off the built up area of Farsley by filling in the small gap between the existing edge of the settlement and the ring road, Sites 1110 and 1114 cannot be fully developed without amalgamating the built up areas of Rodley and Farsley, which are separate settlements with strong community identities.

Accordingly, there are good settlement coalescence reasons why Sites 2121, 1110 and 1114 should not be combined and brought forward together. A development of Site 2121 in isolation would provide for an element of housing growth within Farsley over the plan period whist maintaining the character of the settlement.

GID does not agree with the identification of Site 2121 as an amber opportunity. In our view it should be identified as a ‘green site’ for the reasons set out in our client’s response to Question H3.

In relation to Sites 1110 and 1114, GID is concerned that development of these sites would be out of scale, and it would result in the coalescence of the built up areas of Rodley and Farsley, thus undermining the distinctive character of these settlements. The 2001 UDP Inspector commented on the need to maintain a structural open gap in this area to preserve the identities of these settlements and to provide for local recreational needs. In our view these sites should therefore continue to be given an ‘amber’ rating and retained as PAS land for future potential development needs, unless these concerns can be addressed through a significant reduction in their capacity.

As commented on in relation to ‘green sites’, we have concerns about the Issues and Options ‘amber’ proposals where Green Belt sites have been identified, and/or they relate to sites that are not well related to the Main Urban Area.

H4Question Ref:

As explained above, Site 2121 should be identified as a ‘green site’ for the reasons set out in our client’s response to Question H3.

We have concerns with the proposed ‘amber sites’ where Green Belt sites have been identified, and/or they relate to sites that are not well related to the Main Urban Area.

H5Question Ref:

As explained above, Site 2121 is available and it does not have any significant physical or policy constraints that would prevent its release at an early stage in the plan period. GID has carried out pre-application discussions with the Council regarding the site, and commissioned a comprehensive suite of reports to address the full range of planning issues that might be expected to be assessed as part of a planning application submission. GID has also consulted with a number of housebuilders, and there is strong market interest in the delivery of housing in this location.

Accordingly, Site 2121 should be identified as a ‘green site’ for immediate release at the beginning of the plan period.

H11Question Ref:

98 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05406

Ian Driver

Representor No:

Name:


Dear Sir/Madam,Further to the submission of the representations below, I wish to make some supplementarycomments in relation to Question H3.In my client’s response to Question H3 I have explained why land at Calverley Lane, Farsley (siteref: 2121) should be identified as a ‘green site’ for immediate release at the beginning of the planperiod.A further point that should be considered when assessing the suitability of this site for housing isthat it is fully compliant with the criteria of the Council’s Interim Policy for the release of PAS land.I note that the same cannot be said for the proposed housing allocation at Kirklees Knowl (ref:1114).I trust that these supplementary comments are self-explanatory. If you have any queries please donot hesitate to give me a call.


99 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02805

L Edmond

Representor No:

Name:


G11 4007. Wortley High School. Green to Red.With reference to the above we wish to inform you that we are strongly opposed to a housing development on the above full site. Whilst we offer no objection to a housing development on the imprint of where the original School (Wortley High School) was, we feel that there is a deficiency of outdoor sports facilities in our ward and would like to keep the general outdoor facilities. In particular the former all weather hockey pitch for recreational purposes. We are not opposed to the West Leeds Boys football club retaining the football pitch but the all-weather pitch that overlooks blue hill lane should also remain for recreational purposes. At present the all-weather pitch is used as a car park for the team supporters when West Leeds Boys have a match. This is an extremely good idea, as there is no extra parking space on blue hill lane to enable the supporters of the football club to park their vehicles.Blue hill Lane has seen a vast increase of traffic in the last few years and extra parking for non-residents would make matters much worse for local residents. Also, in the event of a large housing development both on the School site and the playing fields, including the all-weather pitch, this would make the extra volume of traffic on Blue Hill Lane ridiculous.We feel as a community the pitches should be left alone and to concentrate on the original school site, if a housing development has to be enforced. We also wish to point out that we bought our house 30 years ago for the fantastic view and if a housing development would take place on the all-weather pitch the view would be obscured for the residents on Blue Hill Lane and this would be highly upsetting for all concerned.We also wish to inform you that we submitted a petition to Leeds City Council regarding a housing development on the former site and pitches of Wortley High School in connection with the West Leeds Gateway Development. Feelings with local residents of the area were running quite high at that time for the numerous reasons listed above, and nothing has changed. The local residents still have the same oppositions and would submit another petition to reiterate their feelings if necessary. We sincerely hope you will consider the opinions of local residents that live in this area and keep the pitches free for the recreational purposes that are sadly lacking in our ward.

G11Question Ref:

100 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215

Edwin Woodhouse & Co Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


The Sunny Bank Mills site is specifically identified as a mixed use site under CityCouncil Reference no.CFSMO51 (3.35 hectares) with a green status colouration for residential, retail and employment uses. [Representation sets out Site Allocs comments relating to the site].

My clients also own site Reference no.4048 (referred to as Bryan Street, Farsley).The site assessment work undertaken for this site identifies the land as the southeastern position of a site taken up with parking area for adjacent office conversion.Access to the heavily wooded remainder of the site is extremely limited. No access tohighway. The site is identified with a red status colouration within the plan.

My clients appointed a full design team some time ago to prepare a masterplan for thecomprehensive redevelopment of the Sunny Bank Mills site and discussions have beenadvanced with City Council Officers over a significant period of time with general agreement having been reached on a mixed use scheme. The contents of the Site Allocations Plan largely reflect the tenor and details of these discussions which is welcomed by my clients. It is envisaged that an outline planning application will be submitted later this year as preapplication discussions have been underway for the last few months in relation to the comprehensive masterplan proposal. I enclose a copy of the current masterplan scheme for information. Supporting assessment work is being undertaken as part of this process considering aspects such as highways and access, ecology and landscaping. Once available, further details will be submitted to supplement this representation.

Site Allocations Plan Suggested RevisionsAs a general comment my clients welcome the identification of the Sunny Bank Millssite as a mixed use development opportunity with a green status colouration relativeto a range of land uses including residential, retail and employment uses. (ReferenceCFS/MO51). However, rather than being treated as a separate entity Site Reference4048 should be added into the overall Sunny Bank Mills site reference to reflect titleownership boundaries and the masterplan work underway. It is requested that the proposed Site Allocations DPD boundary amendment indicated on Plan 11.2D (Farsley Town Centre) be revised to reflect my clients precise ownership boundaries of Sunny Bank Mills. It is considered that this would be logical relative to the future planning applicationand masterplan processes envisaged and their relationship to the Local Plan as itprogresses.

Acknowledgement of the Sunny Bank Mills site’s scope for some comparison retaildevelopment is noted and welcomed. It is however considered that the site also has potential for convenience goods retailing as part of an overall mixed use scheme andit is requested that this be acknowledged within the text of the plan.

The site will provide a significant level of residential development to assist with meeting the residual requirement target for the outer west area. As the masterplan discussions advance over the coming months, a more definitive idea of dwelling numbers will emerge and my clients will supplement this representation with this information to provide additional certainty to the City Council and the Local Plan process.

Mixed Use Allocation Reference no.CFSMO51 is welcomed by my clients as is thegreen colouration relating to residential, retail and employment uses. My clients would however request that as part of the emerging mixed use scheme other supporting ancillary uses be acknowledged as appropriate for the site including A use and D use provision as they relate to the Use Classes Order. As part of the preparatory work underway on the masterplan proposal for the site, aspects of highways and access, ecology and landscaping are all being given careful consideration.

Further information will be submitted to supplement this representation in due courseto demonstrate that all of the technical and infrastructure matters associated withredeveloping the site can be appropriately addressed and that in terms of availability,suitability and achievability, the Sunny Bank Mills site represents a short term,significant opportunity to deliver a comprehensive mix of uses to the benefit both ofFarsley Town Centre and its wider area. Key environmental features within theSunny Bank Mills site will be properly addressed as part of this assessment.

H1Question Ref:

101 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215


Representor No:

Name:










H7Question Ref:

102 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215


Representor No:

Name:


CFSMO51 and the additional land in my clients ownership is 4048.









R1Question Ref:

103 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215


Representor No:

Name:


CFSMO51 greenand the additional land in my clients ownership is 4048.









R3Question Ref:

104 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215


Representor No:

Name:


Housing site 4048









R4Question Ref:

105 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06215


Representor No:

Name:










E1Question Ref:

106 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03597

Charles Elliott

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1123A - Very concerned about traffic impact. Local ring road and A657 already on a knife edge with unacceptable delays at peak times. Saturdays are now also bad on A657. Also local schools and doctors are oversubscribed. The particular site has a very popular public footpath across it and

would back onto mutiple gardens some of which have TPOs on them for good reason!!1193A - Similar concerns as 1123A due to traffic impact and effect on local services.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1123B - Very concerned about traffic impact. Local ring road and A657 already on a knife edge with unacceptable delays at peak times. Saturdays are now also bad on A657. Also local schools and doctors are oversubscribed. The particular site has a very popular public footpath across it and

would go all the way over to shell lane blighting a very popular area used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists.1117 - Would totally blight village feel. This site straddles calverley cutting which is very popular entrance to woods. Same comments as 1123B with respect to traffic and

local services1193B - A large site which although not in the village would still massively add to issues of traffic congestion and strain on local services

H7Question Ref:

1123A - Very concerned about traffic impact. Local ring road and A657 already on a knife edge with unacceptable delays at peak times. Saturdays are now also bad on A657. Also local schools and doctors are oversubscribed. The particular site has a very popular public footpath across it and would back onto mutiple gardens some of which have TPOs on them for good reason!!

H9Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

107 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01223

Gaynor Ellis

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Brown field sites and empty housing should be utilised primarily before green field sites are considered. I am told that there is a shortage of affordable housing. Housing built in greenfield sites is unlikely to fall in this category, you only need to look at the High Royds Development at Menston to see this. I understand there is a need for more affordable housing but this needs to be located in affordable areas and to improve brownfield sites where access is likely to be easier not through already built up residential areas without the capacity to handle the additional traffic large residential developments will generate. This applies anywhere in the country.

H1Question Ref:

Site reference 1199. The Moseley Wood area is already a very busy area and the area marked as a possible site is highly inaccessible. The access is through residential streets that are not suitable to carry the extra volume of traffic that is sure to be generated, firstly by a large scale building venture and secondly by the additional cars that 200+ new homes would generate. The area around Holy Trinity School and Tesco and the Post Office on Green Lane is already badly congested, especially so at school times. Also the additional traffic that would be using Green Lane, Woodhill Road and Tinshill Road as the main thoroughfare to this area from Lawnswood, West Park, Horsforth (and the Rail Station) are already heavily used, again these are residential streets without the capacity to cope with the traffic this development would generate. Parked vehicles on Tinshill Road due to the Horsforth rail station is a huge problem in the area as there is already insufficient parking available at the station, how is the area to cope with further capacity? I strongly object to this development.

H2Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

Ref 2130 Easy access from main Otley RoadRef 4000 Easy access from Otley Old RoadRef 2049 Easy access from Spen LaneRef 3014 Easy Access from Kirkstall Lane/Kirkstall Hill/Commercial RoadRef 1114 Easy access from Oakland Road.

H4Question Ref:

Ref 1202 Again Access would be difficult and would have to be routed through residential streets unable to cope with increased volume of traffic. i.e. Victorias.Ref 1016 Horsforth Roundabout is already a nightmare at rush hour times and can take 10-15 minutes to get across. The area is

unable tocope with more traffic.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

108 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06332

Peter Ellis

Representor No:

Name:


335 Agree Green - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

Again a greenfield site and which has been judged as undesirable for development due toimportant highways issues and safety concerns, due to the restrictive nature of Royds Lanein conjunction with being a main thoroughfare to nearby schools. Also, development of thesite would allow a linking up of two defined separate settlement areas whilst isolating adesignated UDP N5 (Playing Pitch) also identified as Outdoors Sports Provision in the OpenSpace Audit. This site also has a highly visible skyline and its rising ground is quite prominentfrom various viewpoints.The site has, however, already been granted outline planning approval through a CouncilInterim Policy but the Forum wishes to be closely involved in the detailed planningapplication and consideration and approval processes, particularly in view of the previouslyexpressed strong and widespread opposition to the development.

H1Question Ref:

3445A - Agree Green - see full sumbitted represenation for details

This land is possibly appropriate for development and is well connected to the urban areaand would consolidate existing housing. However the frontage of the site is considered notbe extensive and physical access might be a problem, particularly in the context of a localdwelling which is bounded by the site. Sight lines on the carriageway could also be a problem

H1Question Ref:

3081A Agree Green See submitted representation for full details

This land is generally considered to be appropriate for development bounded as it is by localdevelopments. It is ,as the Volume 2 document indicates well, connected to the urban areawith good access. Any development however should take proper cognizance of the hedgesthat surround the site which are as with all the sites important form the perspective ofwildlife

H1Question Ref:

1359 - Agree Green - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

Although Green Belt land, this site is considered reasonably acceptable for potential housingallocation and could be either a stand alone site, or linked with the adjoining brownfieldGarden Centre site (East Leeds HMCA). (However, if the garden centre itself was to beclosed, this would be a very significant loss of amenity to Rothwell, being the only majorgarden centre located in and serving Rothwell and its surrounding districts. Closure wouldalso have some adverse impact on employment.)

H1Question Ref:

1365A Agree Amber - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

If needed and essential, this greenfield site could be considered fairly acceptable forpotential housing allocation, though subject to some restrictions. Inter alia, it would be feltthat the western boundary should be moved slightly further east, to line up with the westernextremity of the properties to the west side of Swithens Grove. This would avoid theadjacent copse to the rear of the above properties being surrounded on three sides andallow it to be an integral visual feature of the remaining Greenbelt. There are also accessconcerns in that although Swithens Lane is reasonably wide adjacent to the site, the roadwidth is reduced at the bottom of connecting Swithens Street as it approaches the main roadof Marsh Street, which would be likely to cause traffic problems around that area. If therewas to be development of the site, it would be considered necessary for improvement of the junction to be carried out to alleviate this.

H4Question Ref:

1058 - Disagree should be red - see submitted rep for full details.

This site is considered unsuitable and inappropriate for development, having highway accessissues and also, it is not well linked to the main settlement hierarchy and is adjacent to adesignated UDP Ni (Greenspace), also identified as Local Park in the Open Space Audit.Development of this site, and especially if in conjunction with the adjoining site 1049, wouldlead to unacceptable urban sprawl into the Greenbelt

H4Question Ref:

109 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06332

Peter Ellis

Representor No:

Name:


1049 - Agree Amber - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This greenfield site is considered reasonably suitable and acceptable for potential housingallocation but there are some issues that need consideration. It would be preferable that theexisting copse, in the south east corner, remains intact as a natural habitat, together with arequirement that a tree/hedge line is formed along the southern boundary, which wouldcreate a visible green separation and help mitigate the impact, encroachment and potentialsprawl into the Green Belt.

H4Question Ref:

1259B Agree Amber - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This greenfield site could be considered as fairly acceptable for potential housing allocation,if needed. However, it is considered that the western boundary should only extend up toBullough Lane, which would help retain a belt identified as Natural Greenspace in the OpenSpace Audit which reflects the line of the Dismantled Railway located just to the west ofBullough Lane. We would also recommend that the existing tree/hedge line along the southboundary be maintained and also extended along the whole length of this boundary, inorder to provide a visible green separation to the existing settlements and help mitigate theimpact and encroachment into the Greenbelt.

H7Question Ref:

3444 - Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This site scored highly in relation to other sites, due to a number of factors. However, it isdesignated as UDP Ni (Allotments) and also identified as Allotments in the Open SpaceAudit. We are concerned however that following a change of the private ownership of thesite last year, allotment holders' leases were terminated and the entire site is currentlyuntended and its future use is uncertain. We would very much like to see this site remainingas Greenspace, preferably as Allotments or if not, alternatively as Amenity. (With the currentsignificant under-provision of area for Amenity in Rothwell, this site has a potential to helprestore the balance against the theoretical slight over-provision of allotments, althoughdistribution of the latter over various different site locations is generally desirable.)

H7Question Ref:

3445B Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This site is not considered to be acceptable for housing allocation and has both particularlypoor access and would compromise the gap between Robin Hood and Rothwell ,as is notedin Volume 2

H7Question Ref:


This again is a greenfield site which is considered unacceptable for development, as it isisolated from the main settlement hierarchy and any potential housing allocation could leadto urban sprawl into the green belt. The Red category is agreed.

H7Question Ref:


Although scoring highly in some areas, this site is designated as a UDP N5 (Open Space) andis also identified as Natural Greenspace in the Open Space Audit. The site is a local naturearea and is part of the larger "Pastures" designated Natural Greenspace area whichcontains an ancient monument. Taking these factors into account, along with its highwayvisibility and access issues, this site should therefore remain as Natural Greenspace and weconcur with the Red category

H7Question Ref:

1259A Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This greenfield site is considered generally unsuitable for development as it is isolated fromthe main settlement hierarchy and any potential housing allocation could lead to urbansprawl into the Greenbelt. The site is also irregular and disjointed as it straddles a beltidentified as Natural Greenspace in the Open Space Audit, which reflects the line of theDismantled Railway located just to the west of Bullough Lane.

H7Question Ref:

110 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06332

Peter Ellis

Representor No:

Name:


1365B Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

We agree this greenfield site is not acceptable for development, being isolated from themain settlement hierarchy and any potential housing allocation could lead to urban sprawlinto the Greenbelt. The site also has a highly visible skyline and its rising ground is quiteprominent from various viewpoints. There would also be additional problems of road accessas already referred to under site 1365A, which would be yet further exacerbated and wecompletely agree with the Red category.

H7Question Ref:


Whilst having some merits, this site is isolated from the main settlement hierarchy and anypotential housing allocation, especially in conjunction with the adjoining site 3079 (EastLeeds HMCA), could lead to urban sprawl into the Greenbelt up to the motorway. Thereforeit is agreed that this site should remain Red category and undeveloped.

H7Question Ref:

3318 Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This site is considered unacceptable for development and indeed is designated as a UDP Ni(Allotments) and also identified as Allotments in the Open Space Audit. The site isproductive and well tended and provides a very useful community benefits. The site is alsoadjacent to a school with its own sports field, combining to create a self-contained greenspace surrounded by existing housing settlements. We consider it is extremely important tosee this site remaining as allotments and agree with the Red designation.

H7Question Ref:

2103 Agree Red - see full sumbitted represenation for details.

This site is considered unacceptable for development and indeed is designated as a UDP Ni(Allotments) and also identified as Allotments in the Open Space Audit. The site is very welllooked after and obviously very productive. We consider it is extremely important that thissite remains as allotments and agree with the "Red" designation

H7Question Ref:

111 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04354

John Etheridge

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I object to sites 1117, 1123A & B and 1193A & BThe existing traffic through Calverley is so horrendous that the village cannot support any additional houses

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1117, 1123A & B, 1193A & BToo much trffic already through Calverley

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1117, 1123A & B, 1123A & BToo much traffic already through Calverley

H7Question Ref:

No Excess trafficShortage of school placesLimited doctors

H12Question Ref:

112 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05869

Garry And Elaine Etheridge

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 1123A, 1193AI am writing to object in the strongest fashion to any additional housing in Calverley and in particular to sites 1117, 1123A and B and 1193A and B.My wife and I live on Carr Road and already have to contend with 2 hours every morning of standing traffic outside our house and 3 hours everyevening as it queues down to Greengates. The pollution is so bad that for 5 hours every day we are unable to open any windows. We are already expecting an increase in traffic due to the idiotic decision to build on the old Sandos site and any additional houses around Calverley would be totally unacceptable. Perhaps some of the planners would like to come and sit outside our house on Carr Road from 7am to 9am and from 3.30pm to 6.30 pm and experience the traffic hazards that already exist. Better still, park their car in my drive and then try and get out again. In addition to the major issue of the traffic harzards, are any developers going to be responsible for providing additional school places in Calverley or an additional doctor. If anybody is prepared to make a sensible planning decision, put a bypass around Calverley so it can return to being a village.

H4Question Ref:

Sites 1117, 1123B, 1193B - I am writing to object in the strongest fashion to any additional housing in Calverley and in particular to sites 1117, 1123A and B and 1193A and B.My wife and I live on Carr Road and already have to contend with 2 hours every morning of standing traffic outside our house and 3 hours everyevening as it queues down to Greengates. The pollution is so bad that for 5 hours every day we are unable to open any windows. We are already expecting an increase in traffic due to the idiotic decision to build on the old Sandos site and any additional houses around Calverley would be totally unacceptable. Perhaps some of the planners would like to come and sit outside our house on Carr Road from 7am to 9am and from 3.30pm to 6.30 pm and experience the traffic hazards that already exist. Better still, park their car in my drive and then try and get out again. In addition to the major issue of the traffic harzards, are any developers going to be responsible for providing additional school places in Calverley or an additional doctor. If anybody is prepared to make a sensible planning decision, put a bypass around Calverley so it can return to being a village.

H7Question Ref:

113 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03728

John Everitt

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I would like to voice my concerns with regard to the planning applications 1204 and 4047.What about the infrastructure to support these developments??????Schools are turning children away due to overcrowding.Health Centres have long waiting time.Policing-Well you only

see one after a crime as been committed.The roads are totally inadequate for the amount of traffic, drivers jump lights due to frustrations and residents find it difficult exiting Sunnybank Lane because of this.The area is surrounded by a little greenary to releave our frustrations of

overcrowding and thats why I am against these proposals.

H1Question Ref:

None....

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

114 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03434

Neil Fairley

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

We strongly support the Council’s decision to designate site 1117 as ‘not suitable for allocation for housing’. These fields, with their mature trees, dry stone walls and view of the old farm buildings, are an important part of the distinctive character and identity of Calverley village and are appreciated both by local residents, like us, and people using the A657. The walk between the fields along Calverley Cutting is a much valued local amenity, enjoyed by hundreds of people every week in all seasons and, with the various farming activities going on throughout the year, access to the woods and Aire Valley, and regular sightings of various types of birds and wildlife, it gives a feeling of being in the country even though Calverley is sandwiched between two major cities. The fact that on any one day there is the possibility of seeing a herd of cows from any

of the roads leading into Calverley is a benefit to the community which cannot be overstated.Sites 1123A, 1123B, 1193A and 1193B play an equally important part in providing a distinctive rural setting for the village and relief from urban sprawl and again we strongly support the Council’s

decision to designate these sites as not suitable for allocation for housing.

H7Question Ref:

115 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00412

Majorie Fawcett

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – New Farnley is just a small village, it can only just cope with the amount of traffic using the narrow roads which are full of pot holes as it is. If there are more houses built on this land it will be horrendous. Our village will be destroyed, overrun by too many people and cars.There are many other derelict council sites in Leeds were houses could be built, e.g. a large site in Seacroft standing empty, where council houses where pulled down. One off Gelderd Road, another where chemical works were off Whitehall Road and Marshall Street. Surely it would be better building smaller estates where trouble could be kept down better than larger estates.Why not use these sites rather than using all our green belt land up, where wildlife can survive. Please leave our village green.

H4Question Ref:

116 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03506

Richard Fawcett

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

There is not reasonable access. The roads are very naro. All the local schools are full. Some kids in the area are having to Travel to Morley already. There is a butterfly sanctuary that would be destroyed. There has already been three big housing development in the area. There is

only one field separating new farnley from old Farnley.

H1Question Ref:

Ref 2123New farnley Leeds ls12

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

As above

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

117 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04951

S Fielding

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Most of the sites identified 'green' are appropriately located and scale to the built up area.

H1Question Ref:

1201 and 1343 represent extensions into open countryside and should be 'red' sites, not 'green.'

H2Question Ref:

-

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

4044 and 4046 will contribute to the coalescence of Leeds and Bradford and these sites should be coded 'red' not 'amber'.

H4Question Ref:

4044 and 4046

H5Question Ref:

-

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

4045. Development of this site will contribute to the coalescence of Leeds with Bradford

H7Question Ref:

See H7

H8Question Ref:

4044 and 4046 See H4.

H9Question Ref:

-

H10Question Ref:

2120 - This site is presently allocated PAS and should be developed in preference to other proposed Green Belt sites as a matter of principle. The site's owner is willing to make the site available for immediate development and there are no technical reasons preventing an early grant of consent.

H11Question Ref:

-

H12Question Ref:

-

H13Question Ref:

-

H14Question Ref:

-

H15Question Ref:

118 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04951

S Fielding

Representor No:

Name:


No - The development of a new settlement at Spen Common Lane, near Bramham, or any other location in the District would be contrary to the Core Strategy’s spatial vision and objectives, and Policy SP7 to retain the existing pattern of settlements and to allow communities across the District to see an appropriate level of growth and community benefits.

H4aQuestion Ref:

-


119 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03051

Mark Finch

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

The comment below relates to Site 638 Only - no comments are offered on other housing sites and their suitability.Site 638 falls within a residential area and housing development would represent the effective use of brownfield land. As identified in the Planning History section of the Site Assessment Form, the Site benefits from a planning permission for housing relating to a change of use of a school and the erection of new dwellings. The Site ranks highly in relation to infrastructure provision. However there is no requirement for a substantial improvement to access via

Ashley Road. The Site should be identified for housing development and allocated on the Plan in 'Green'. However any supporting text should be amended to reflect that there is no requirement for a substantial improvement of highways.

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Site 638 - Short term. Available for housing development.

H11Question Ref:

120 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00543

Michael Fitch

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Access.The suggested site capacity of 129 houses will lead to problems of access. The only locations for access seem to be off Low Moor Side Lane or Walsh Lane, either would lead to situations where accidents would be a high probability both to motorists and pedestrians (particularly as Low Moor Side Lane is used as a short cut by vehicles down to the Ring Road). Any risk assessment therefore would show that a development of the site proposed would be totally undesirable.

H4Question Ref:

2123 – Drainage and Subsidence.Whilst development was underway on Lodge Lane comments were voiced by contractors that drainage / sewerage blockages were due to the old drains in the area not being able to handle the extra volume. Would this development not exacerbate the situation. Also water run off from this site regularly leads to flooding issues for those of us on Castle Ings Gardens who back onto it. I also believe that on the matter of mining subsidence a study by Barratts found the site not feasible, what has changed?

H4Question Ref:

2123 – Sustainability.The development of 129 houses would also put a great strain on village facilities particularly the local schools, one general store and a very small doctors surgery. The development would also not in the spirit of the recently accepted village design statement.

H4Question Ref:

121 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00543

Michael Fitch

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

122 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00547

Barbara Fitch

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – SustainabilityThe development of 129 houses would also put great strain on village facilities particularly the local schools, one general store and a very small doctors surgery. The development would also not be in the spirit of the recently accepted village design statement.

H4Question Ref:

2123 – Drainage and subsidence.Whilst development was underway on Lodge Lane comments were voiced by contractors that drainage and sewerage blockages were due to the old drains in the area not being able to handle the extra volume. Would this development not exacerbate the situation? Water run off from this site regularly leads to flooding issues for those of us on Castle Ings Gardens who back onto it, covering this site in concrete can only make matters worse for us. I also believe that on the matter of mining subsidence a study by builders Barratts found the site not feasible, what has changed?

H4Question Ref:

2123 – Access situation.The suggested site capacity of 129 houses will lead to problems of access. The only entries for access are from Low Moor side Lane or Walsh Lane. Either would lead to situations where accidents would be a high probability to both vehicles and pedestrians. Any risk assessment undertaken therefore would show that a development of the size proposed would be totally undesirable.

H4Question Ref:

123 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03962

Patricia Fletcher

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site Ref:2123. A housing development on this site would would cause significant traffic problems. There is little in the way of viable access other than Low Moorside Lane. If you add traffic from 129 new houses onto this narrow lane which barely has the capacity for two way traffic it would be chaos. All the roads in New Farnley are narrow, particularly those which give access to the A58. There is also the problem of traffic taking the 'short cut' to Leeds Ring Road, which would increase traffic on Chapel Lane, which is already a traffic nightmare and a danger to the children going to the two Farnley Schools. There are also the dangers to the residents of New Farnley from the increase in traffic on these already

narrow roads, including horse riders and children and the elderly; the more vulnerable members of the village.The area of the proposed development is also extensively undermined. Whilst I am aware that modern building methods can often subvert such problems for the houses being built that kind of upheaval may present new issues for the surrounding dwellings, some of which already have problems when they come up

for sale as mortgage lenders will not take the risk of lending on them.Flooding is another problem, especially for the houses of Castle Ings which back onto the site and there are worries amongst residents that building in the field, which at present does absorb some of the flood water,

would be exasperated by further development.In addition to this I do not believe that the village could sustain another 129 homes and families. The schools in the area are already at capacity as are those in surrounding areas. There is little in the way of other facilities, only a pub,a

shop/post office and a very small doctors surgery.The site is also a haven for wildlife, a feature that gives this village its own unique identity and of course desirability. A development like the one proposed would destroy that and although such emotive issues do not hold any sway when it comes to the remit of planners they do mean a great deal to residents who do not wish to see the heart and soul of their communities ripped apart.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

124 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05635

Paul Ford

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114I wish to most strongly register my opposition to the consideration of granting of any type ofplanning permission, for the above mentioned location.I advocate that this land be most preferably returned to the Green Belt or, alternatively, be leftas it is currently designated, as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of thecouncil's development plan.

H4Question Ref:

125 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05635

Paul Ford

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 2121I wish to most strongly register my opposition to the consideration of granting of any type ofplanning permission, for the above mentioned location.I advocate that this land be most preferably returned to the Green Belt or, alternatively, be leftas it is currently designated, as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of thecouncil's development plan.

H4Question Ref:

126 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05635

Paul Ford

Representor No:

Name:


I wish to most strongly register my opposition to the consideration of granting of any type ofplanning permission, for the above mentioned location.I advocate that this land be most preferably returned to the Green Belt or, alternatively, be leftas it is currently designated, as safeguarded land, not to be developed in the lifetime of thecouncil's development plan.Please let me know if, at this stage, you require any further information.

H4Question Ref:

127 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05218

Laura Fosker

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 1123a and 1193a may seem to outsiders to ‘havepotential but have issues’ but in fact they are justinappropriate. Building on these encroaches on thegreenbelt, and makes those green areas that are left lessaccessible, less attractive and in time will make iteasier to extend housing further and further and further.

H4Question Ref:

I am writing to register my concerns about the currentlyproposed housing development sites in Calverley.Calverley is very unique in that it is a lovely localcommunity with good schools, which has the benefits ofbeing within easy distance of Leeds Centre, but still hasbeautiful untouched green space, some of which is wildwoodland and other parts farmed. The more of this that islost, the less special Calverley becomes. Furthermore, themajor downside to Calverley of course is the traffic, andany new development can only contribute to this.I am pleased to see that 1193B, 1123B, and 1117 have beenlisted as not suitable for development. These are allareas where at the weekend local families can be seenwalking, cycling, running, looking at the farm life, andenjoying being outdoors at all times of year. It would betragic to lose any of this green space, and particularlyarea 1117 would be devastating. This is a beautiful areawhere our family have spent a lot of time, and there arealways others out enjoying the green space as well.In general I oppose any developments in Calverley, even onthe sites declared ‘green’, as anyone who lives locallywould tell you that our local traffic around rush hour isapproaching untenable. It is not uncommon for traffic toback up all the way through the village from theGreengates traffic lights at one end, and the ringroad atthe other. When this happens, the backroads of Calverleyare used for ‘cutting through’ by residents and commutersalike. This makes them dangerously busy for such smallroads on which children are often out playing or walkingto and from school. The council themselves must recognisethis, hence the welcome introduction of new speedrestrictions very recently in the small roads of thevillage. Further development can only ever add to thistraffic problem.In summary I oppose all the of the proposed housingdevelopment sites because of loss of greenspace for thelocal community, and traffic impact. Calverley is athriving community, and increased development can onlystifle it.


128 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05878

Chris Fosker

Representor No:

Name:


1124Calverley is a very attractive place to live being in beautiful untouched green space while still being an easy commute away from both Leeds and Bradford centres. It has a lovely local community feel with good schools. The abundance of green space makes it very appealing for families. The more of this that is lost, the less special Calverley becomes. The only major downside to Calverley is the traffic, and any new development can only contribute to this.

I oppose any developments in Calverley, even on the sites declared ‘green’, as anyone who lives locally would tell you that our local traffic around rush hour is approaching untenable. It is not uncommon for the traffic queues from the Greengates traffic lights at one end, and the ringroad at the other to cross in the middle leaving stading traffic for about a mile in both directions. When this happens, the backroads of Calverley are used for ‘cutting through’ by residents and commuters alike. This makes them dangerously busy for such small roads on which children are often out playing or walking to and from school. The council themselves must recognise this, hence the welcome introduction of new speed restrictions very recently in the small roads of the village. Further development can only ever add to this traffic problem.

In summary; I oppose all the of the proposed housing development sites because of loss of greenspace for the local community, and traffic impact. Calverley is a thriving community, and increased development can only stifle it.

H1Question Ref:

Sites 1123a and 1193a may seem to outsiders to ‘have potential but have issues’ but in fact these would be completely inappropriate. Building on these encroaches on the greenbelt, and makes those green areas that are left less accessible, less attractive and in time these would become to ‘have potential but have issues’ eventually eroding away all the wonderful open spaces that contribute so much to the area.

Calverley is a very attractive place to live being in beautiful untouched green space while still being an easy commute away from both Leeds and Bradford centres. It has a lovely local community feel with good schools. The abundance of green space makes it very appealing for families. The more of this that is lost, the less special Calverley becomes. The only major downside to Calverley is the traffic, and any new development can only contribute to this.



H4Question Ref:

I am relieved to see that 1193B, 1123B, and 1117 have been listed as not suitable for development. These are all areas where at the weekend local families can be seen walking, cycling, running, looking at the farm life, and enjoying being outdoors at all times of year. It would be tragic to lose any of this green space, and particularly area 1117 would be devastating. This is a beautiful area where our family have spent a lot of time, and there are always others out enjoying the green space as well.

Calverley is a very attractive place to live being in beautiful untouched green space while still being an easy commute away from both Leeds and Bradford centres. It has a lovely local community feel with good schools. The abundance of green space makes it very appealing for families. The more of this that is lost, the less special Calverley becomes. The only major downside to Calverley is the traffic, and any new development can only contribute to this.



H7Question Ref:

129 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04323

Kayeisher F

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

None

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Housing on site 1117 would remove the only remaining green space between Leeds and Bradford and join the Leeds conservation village of Calverley to Greengates in Bradford.

H7Question Ref:

None

H8Question Ref:

130 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01756

P Freeman

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

131 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04474

Michael Freeman

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

As stated above 2123 new farnleyMap 21 site 2123. It has problems of drainage. Facilities are limited.roads etc. village has a very strong community and any proposal is certainly objected by all. It will spoil the area and create many problems if the population were to increase.it floods and becomes boggy. It would spoil the community as it is today. There are no positives and an endless list of negatives to new farnley residents.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

132 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02950

Judith Ann Friskney

Representor No:

Name:


1033, 1299A fine as brownfield site but address traffic issues on ring road and Headingley first

H1Question Ref:

3137 - Green to Red (Assumed)Traffic issues in Headingley. There is no capacity for any more cars. Congestion way over limits!

H1Question Ref:

1199 Green to Red (Assumed) This is a greenfield site. There are many objections. Access is inadequate. It will make worse the problems of traffic on the ring road and arterials. Therefore I oppose and object to any development here

H1Question Ref:

2063, 3315, 1190, 4013 Amber to Red (Assumed) NO because greenfield agriculture

H4Question Ref:

1202 Amber to Red (Assumed) NO it's greenfield!

H4Question Ref:

1002, 1080, 3367A Amber to Red (Assumed)These are greenfield sites. It will make worse the problems of traffic on the ring road and arterials. Therefore I oppose and object to any development here

H4Question Ref:

1095B, C, D, 1369 Amber to red (Assumed) represents an overdevelopment of a small village and unacceptable change of character

H4Question Ref:

1110, 1114, 2121 Amber to Red (Assumed)Absolutely NOT! This is valuable green space and potential agriculture and the traffic problems between rodley roundabout and dawsons corner are horrendous already!

H4Question Ref:

1120 - Amber to Red (Assumed)Traffic issues in Headingley. There is no capacity for any more cars. Congestion way over limits!

H4Question Ref:

2130 Amber to Red (Assumed) This site should NOT be developed. It represents a significant green space and agricultural asset. It would represent a significant detriment to the character of the area. Traffic on Church Lane where it connects with Otley Road is already a bottleneck with cars backing up and blocking Church lane at peak. As can be seen from David Wilsons current development, its pretty awful high density housing not at all in character with the area. This development would expand a high density estate into a rural setting. I object MOST STRONGLY

H4Question Ref:

Agree 3044 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build hereAgree 3360 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1181A and B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 3367B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1151 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2160 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1204 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 3434 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2051A and B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1243, 1246, 1079 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2052 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1299B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here

H7Question Ref:

689 fine as brownfield but address traffic issues on ring road first


133 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02950

Judith Ann Friskney

Representor No:

Name:


1339 To east of Calverley Lane NO - its greenfield/recreational. To west OK but address unacceptable congestion on ring road already existing.


626 fine but address traffic issues on A65/Kirkstall Road (already excessive congestion)


796 potential agriculture and greenfield so NO development


797apart from nursery site - greenfield potential agriculture so NO development


My general comment about building on greenfield sites is this: This country imports 40% (and rising) of its food. Greenfields should be used to support agriculture in this country so we can become self-sufficient in food. If not we are at the mercy of those who export to us. We may potentially be in the situation of being held to ransom on prices with the worst case scenario being food riots if people are short of food/cannot afford food. The other thing is that we need to preserve our green spaces to maintain the character of the county. Its no use saying its fine to build if the infrastructure is there - infrastructure (new roads, school etc) will simply use up more green space. Anyone who ALLOWS or enables greenfield development is a potential cause of problems to us and future generations in years to come and must be held accountable if this causes the aforementioned problems. Another aspect is traffic generated. Leeds and many of the roads in and out and around it are already up to and beyond capacity. NO developments should take place while this is the case. Very particularly, Headingley is a terrible bottleneck and therefore NO extra load should be put on the A65 corridor. But this is not the only problem area - the whole network is creaking. Trolleybus will do little or nothing to change this Brownfield sites only should be developed - and that does not mean green areas of brownfield sites (such as playing fields). Also existing buildings should be developed for residential and flats, for example derelict, empty and other buildings thus far not used for residential purposes. Many people do not want gardens and want to live close to the city. To get many flats or conversions on one site or within one building releases the need to build housing elsewhere. I believe there has not been an efficient and comprehensive study to identify potential sites like this - Incentives should also be considered.


376 Really a green space and would have worsening effect on ring road traffic


134 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02958

Christopher John Friskney

Representor No:

Name:


1033, 1299A fine as brownfield site but address traffic issues on ring road and Headingley first

H1Question Ref:

1199 Green to Red (Assumed) This is a greenfield site. There are many objections. Access is inadequate. It will make worse the problems of traffic on the ring road and arterials. Therefore I oppose and object to any development here

H1Question Ref:

3137 - Green to Red (Assumed)Traffic issues in Headingley. There is no capacity for any more cars. Congestion way over limits!

H1Question Ref:

1120 - Amber to Red (Assumed)Traffic issues in Headingley. There is no capacity for any more cars. Congestion way over limits!

H4Question Ref:

2130 Amber to Red (Assumed) This site should NOT be developed. It represents a significant green space and agricultural asset. It would represent a significant detriment to the character of the area. Traffic on Church Lane where it connects with Otley Road is already a bottleneck with cars backing up and blocking Church lane at peak. As can be seen from David Wilsons current development, its pretty awful high density housing not at all in character with the area. This development would expand a high density estate into a rural setting. I object MOST STRONGLY

H4Question Ref:

1202 Amber to Red (Assumed) NO it's greenfield!

H4Question Ref:

1095B, C, D, 1369 Amber to red (Assumed) represents an overdevelopment of a small village and unacceptable change of character

H4Question Ref:

1002, 1080, 3367A Amber to Red (Assumed)These are greenfield sites. It will make worse the problems of traffic on the ring road and arterials. Therefore I oppose and object to any development here

H4Question Ref:

1110, 1114, 2121 Amber to Red (Assumed)Absolutely NOT! This is valuable green space and potential agriculture and the traffic problems between rodley roundabout and dawsons corner are horrendous already!

H4Question Ref:

2063, 3315, 1190, 4013 Amber to Red (Assumed) NO because greenfield agriculture

H4Question Ref:

Agree 3044 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build hereAgree 3360 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1181A and B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 3367B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1151 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2160 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1204 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 3434 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2051A and B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1243, 1246, 1079 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 2052 unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here Agree 1299B unsuitable and object to any proposal to build here

H7Question Ref:

376 Really a green space and would have worsening effect on ring road traffic


135 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02958

Christopher John Friskney

Representor No:

Name:


My general comment about building on greenfield sites is this: This country imports 40% (and rising) of its food. Greenfields should be used to support agriculture in this country so we can become self-sufficient in food. If not we are at the mercy of those who export to us. We may potentially be in the situation of being held to ransom on prices with the worst case scenario being food riots if people are short of food/cannot afford food. The other thing is that we need to preserve our green spaces to maintain the character of the county. Its no use saying its fine to build if the infrastructure is there - infrastructure (new roads, school etc) will simply use up more green space. Anyone who ALLOWS or enables greenfield development is a potential cause of problems to us and future generations in years to come and must be held accountable if this causes the aforementioned problems. Another aspect is traffic generated. Leeds and many of the roads in and out and around it are already up to and beyond capacity. NO developments should take place while this is the case. Very particularly, Headingley is a terrible bottleneck and therefore NO extra load should be put on the A65 corridor. But this is not the only problem area - the whole network is creaking. Trolleybus will do little or nothing to change this Brownfield sites only should be developed - and that does not mean green areas of brownfield sites (such as playing fields). Also existing buildings should be developed for residential and flats, for example derelict, empty and other buildings thus far not used for residential purposes. Many people do not want gardens and want to live close to the city. To get many flats or conversions on one site or within one building releases the need to build housing elsewhere. I believe there has not been an efficient and comprehensive study to identify potential sites like this - Incentives should also be considered.


797apart from nursery site - greenfield potential agriculture so NO development


796 potential agriculture and greenfield so NO development


626 fine but address traffic issues on A65/Kirkstall Road (already excessive congestion)


1339 To east of Calverley Lane NO - its greenfield/recreational. To west OK but address unacceptable congestion on ring road already existing.


689 fine as brownfield but address traffic issues on ring road first


136 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05920

Simon Frosdick

Representor No:

Name:


212034401195I refer to the current consultation exercise on the Local Development Framework proposals and in particular the content of map 20 relating to the Pudsey area. As a general observation I believe that the scale of development within the proposals are far toolarge considering those sites already approved or currently/recently developed in the area. Leeds City Council’s Children’s Services have recently circulated a detailed study of school places in Leeds and the Pudsey area is identified as one of the most under pressure areas in the city. It is projected that the town will run out of allocation by 2017 and plans are currently being drawn up to meet this need for known pressure. To significantly add to this through large scale development seems utter madness. This pressure is particularly acute in the primary sector and the existing schools are severely limited in their expansion options by limited grounds. Neither Waterloo or Greenside can expand. Waterloo did have options until available land off The Marsh was approved for residential development. Primrose Hill, Bolton Royd and St Joseph’s capacity will be used to address existing know deficits so I am at a loss to understand where the significant number of children drawn to the area will be educated should sites 2120, 3440, 1195, and 649 be developed without a new build school.

Sites 2120, 3440, 1195 and 649 will also significantly increase pressure on the road network between Dawson’s corner, Thornbury and along the feeder roads to these areas. I am aware that proposals are being developed for the Barracks roundabout to improve traffic flows but these sites would significantly increase pressure as the only feasible sites access leads directly to these junctions.

H1Question Ref:

649I refer to the current consultation exercise on the Local Development Framework proposals and in particular the content of map 20 relating to the Pudsey area. As a general observation I believe that the scale of development within the proposals are far toolarge considering those sites already approved or currently/recently developed in the area. Leeds City Council’s Children’s Services have recently circulated a detailed study of school places in Leeds and the Pudsey area is identified as one of the most under pressure areas in the city. It is projected that the town will run out of allocation by 2017 and plans are currently being drawn up to meet this need for known pressure. To significantly add to this through large scale development seems utter madness. This pressure is particularly acute in the primary sector and the existing schools are severely limited in their expansion options by limited grounds. Neither Waterloo or Greenside can expand. Waterloo did have options until available land off The Marsh was approved for residential development. Primrose Hill, Bolton Royd and St Joseph’s capacity will be used to address existing know deficits so I am at a loss to understand where the significant number of children drawn to the area will be educated should sites 2120, 3440, 1195, and 649 be developed without a new build school.

Sites 2120, 3440, 1195 and 649 will also significantly increase pressure on the road network between Dawson’s corner, Thornbury and along the feeder roads to these areas. I am aware that proposals are being developed for the Barracks roundabout to improve traffic flows but these sites would significantly increase pressure as the only feasible sites access leads directly to these junctions.


137 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04292

Margaret Jane Gambles

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

It would create numerous problems for the present residents in the areas and would ruin the essence of said areas.Insufficient infrastructure in said areas to allow for more housing.A recent report indicates that there are in the region of 16000 empty houses at present in the West

Yorkshire area alone.

H1Question Ref:

Site 1124 Map 14 is totally unsuitable for future housing development due to the following reasons:1. It has been for many many years and is still presently used by the local farmer for grazing of cattle and horses.2. The particular site has underground natural springs flowing, the water

from which flows and settles under the immediate neighbouring houses. Water flows constantly during wet weather periods along this part of Upper Carr Lane, creating icy conditions in cold weather. 3. There WILL be immense traffic issues arising from housing development on this

site. This street is already part of the `Calverley Rat Run' being investigated by the local Police and the Highways Division of Leeds City Council. The Refuse Collection Division have also expressed concern in this area. 4. Calverley is a true village, present residents have

chosen to buy or rent houses in a village and not a town or conurbation.

H2Question Ref:

1193B I believe would in a long term phase be more suitable due to it being in a more open and uncongested area. I also believe that tree preservation orders can still prevail in development areas - in this day and age. We would have to see the long term implications first of the

Housing Development at the Horsforth/Rodley Ring Road site.

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

1193A for the same reasons as above.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Site 4050 is presently a car park serving industry operating out of units in the last remaining historic mill site, the entrance to which is off Woodhall Road in Calverley and the extended car park area entrance/exit sited off Upper Carr Lane. This it itself creates untold problems at 5.30 pm each

evening Monday to Friday, and is a danger around the Doctors Health Centre and Nursing Home both situated on Upper Carr Lane.The Old Mill site would be ripe for conversion to homes with car parking facilities. This would then be in keeping with the area and be very similar to the other recent conversion of a local historical building as mentioned in the summary `Reservoir Court'. The two sites would then benefit from the rural outlook and it would be in keeping with the Edwardian and Victorian ethos of the village. Industrial Units could be easily found replacement sites on the many brownfield sites available within the Leeds City Boundary.

H7Question Ref:

Site 1123B Would be unsuitable as this would lead to the ruination of the Green Belt in the village, exactly as Site 1124. These sites are used for grazing and are the entrance to the Village of Calverley `The Lea of the Calves'. The Village does not have the infrastructure to support the

scale of development suggested. As already stated Calverley is essentially a village, not a town or a conurbation.

H8Question Ref:

Site 1124 Upper Carr Lane, Calverley for the above reasons given.Plus, further traffic problems would increase the already difficult situation on Upper Carr Lane with numerous fast moving cars and parked cars associated with the Doctors Health Centre, Nursing Home and residents with no driveways.

H9Question Ref:

Housing development should not be encouraged for either short or medium term phases in any of the sites as there are already approximately 16000 empty houses in the West Yorkshire area alone. A huge site has already been laid bare with a proposition for 500 to 600 homes in the Outer West area of Leeds bordering the outer ring road at Horsforth. We have yet to see the implications that WILL occur and the excessive traffic problems that this site will cause to the Calverley,Rodley and Farsley areas.

H11Question Ref:

I do believe that in the long term phase that low rise small community housing for the elderly could be beneficial to the Calverley/Rodley areas. The Brookleigh elderly housing in Calverley is a fine example of this. This would then free up the larger properties already existing in Calverley/Rodley for family homes.

H14Question Ref:

No experience to comment

H15Question Ref:

138 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04292

Margaret Jane Gambles

Representor No:

Name:


We feel that we do not have the required knowledge and experience to comment on the questions regarding unknown areas for possible sites.


139 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03934

Andrew Garratt

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

If the area needs to have more housing the sites shown appear to be relatively small and surrounded by other housing. However the increased volumes of traffic on already congested roads must be considered before these sites are allocated as sites with the greatest potential for housing.

H1Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1110, 1114 & 2121. 1.Farsley already has too much housing and any further developments will be detrimental to the character of Farsley.2.These sites ensure that Farsley,Calverley and Rodley remain distinctive villages and they act as green buffers between the

villages.These sites prevent urban sprawl in the area.3.The local roads are already too congested,this includes the Ring Road, Bagley Lane and Farsley Town Street.4.The local schools cannot cater for all those already living in the area.5.A site at the former Sandoz works,which is a

brownfield site,has already been granted planning permission for a very large number of housing.This site is virtually next door to the above sites.6.The sites 1110 and 1114 are productive agricultural land,brownfield sites should be found in the area first.7.These sites should be

restored to the green belt.

H4Question Ref:

See answer at H4

H5Question Ref:

No

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Sites 1110,1114 and 2121.See answer at H4.

H9Question Ref:

No

H10Question Ref:

No view

H11Question Ref:

No.

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

No

H14Question Ref:

No

H15Question Ref:

No


140 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02305

Colin Garsdie

Representor No:

Name:


Our main concern would be the already poor road access to the area around low Moorside lane and Walsh Lane, Also a major issue would be drainage, this is already poor as our back garden and bungalow constantly get flooded.

H4Question Ref:

141 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06552

Gaunts Limited And I Driver

Representor No:

Name:


GID has a number of concerns abut the approach that has been taken towards to selection of'green sites' within the Outer West area of Leeds. These concerns relate to:• The use of Green Belt land;• The extent to which the 'green sites' selected accord with the spatial strategy, andpromote sustainable development; and• The choice and availability of 'green sites' within the Farsley area.We consider these points in more detail below.Use of Green Belt LandThe Issues and Options DPD indicates that within the Outer West area 29 'green sites' have beenidentified, and together these have a capacity of 1,655 dwellings. However, having reviewedthese sites, we are concerned that nine of them comprise Green Belt land. The capacity of theGreen Belt sites is 629 dwellings, which suggests that around 38% (i.e. over a third) of the landthat the Council believes to have the greatest potential to be allocated for housing would involvethe loss of Green Belt. This represents a significant amount of Green Belt loss to housingdevelopment.Paragraph 79 of the NPPF indicates that the Government attaches great importance to GreenBelts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping landpermanently open; and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and theirpermanence. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF confirms that once established Green Belt boundariesshould only be altered in 'exceptional circumstances', through the preparation of review of theLocal Plan. Paragraph 84 also indicates that in reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planningauthorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.The Issues and Options DPD does not accord with the NPPF policy referred to above, as it failsto demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the use of valuable Green Beltland for housing. Given the importance and permanence of the Green Belt, it is crucial that allother more sustainable and less sensitive sources of land are properly examined beforeconsideration is given to the loss of Green Belt. This will ensure the least impact on Green Beltpurposes, as required by Policy SP6 of the emerging Core Strategy.The Issues and Options DPD confirms that there are a number of sites that could be utilised forhousing within the Outer West area without using Green Belt, including our client's proposedallocation at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121), which has been given an 'amber' rating.In our view the Council's proposal to promote the use of Green Belt land for housing, when moreappropriate alternative sites exist, is not sound, for the reasons set out above.Consistency with Spatial Strategy/Promotion of Sustainable DevelopmentPolicy SP1 of the emerging Core Strategy indicates that the Council's intended spatial strategy isto concentrate the majority of new development within and on the edge of the Main Urban Area totake advantage of existing services, high levels of accessibility and priorities for urbanregeneration. Policy SP6 sets out the considerations that the Council will use when distributingthe housing requirement, the first of which is sustainable locations supported by existing, oraccess to new, local facilities and services.In this context GID is concerned that a number of the 'green sites' in the Outer West area do notappear to accord with the above policy approach. Some of the sites that have been selected arenot well related to the Main Urban Area of the City, nor do they have good accessibility to highlevel services found in town centres.In order to foster sustainable development our view is that 'green sites' should be focused asclose as possible to the Main Urban Area and town centres, where the greatest range of shops,services and employment are likely to be available. There are a number of sites within the OuterWest area that have these characteristics, in particular our client's proposed allocation atCalverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121), which has been given an 'amber' rating. Indeed, whenthis site was considered as a potential housing allocation during the 2006 UDP Review the UDPInspector concluded that:"However, should additional land be needed within PAS designations then this would bea reasonably sustainable option, being within easy walking distance of Farsley towncentre, with a good range of local services and facilities, and with further services andemployment available close at hand in the wider urban area."(Paragraph 20.21, UDP Review Inspector's Report)When considering the merits of site 2121 it is also relevant to note that paragraph 4.8.6 of theemerging Core Strategy confirms that existing PAS sites will provide one of the 'prime sources forhousing allocations in the LDF'.Choice and Availability of 'Green Sites' within Farsley AreaGID is concerned that the location of the 'green sites' proposed in the Outer West area impliesthat there may not be sufficient housing choice to meet the future housing needs of Farsley.Farsley is a settlement with a strong community identity that forms part of the Main Urban Area ofLeeds. It offers a good choice of shops, schools, services and employment opportunities; andVolume 2 of the Issues and Options DPD indicates that Farsley town centre is one of four maincentres within the Outer West area of the City (the others being Pudsey, Bramley and Armley). Inour view it is important that the Site Allocations DPD recognises these facets, and provides for anappropriate level of housing growth within the settlement over the plan period to foster asustainable pattern of development; and to provide for the future housing needs of this growingcommunity — which includes general and affordable needs.The Issues and Options document indicates that no 'green sites' are currently proposed within thebuilt up area of Farsley inside the ring road, which suggests that the settlement will be poorlyprovided for in terms of housing choice in the future. Whilst Table 11.3.1 of Volume 2 of the SiteAllocations DPD refers to two unimplemented housing allocations at Bagley Lane and CherryTree Drive, the former site has now been completed, and the latter site would only provide for 10

H1Question Ref:

142 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06552


Representor No:

Name:


no. dwellings. Table 11.3.1 refers to unimplemented commitments at Bank Bottom Mills (15 no.units), Farsley Celtic AFC (14 no. units) and New Street (10 no. units), however it is clear that allof these sites are small in size. None of these sites would be large enough to provide for amainstream housing development offering a choice of family homes, nor would they provide foraffordable housing to meet the needs of local people who cannot afford to get on the housingladder.In the light of the above, we consider that there is a compelling case for further 'green sites' withinthe Farsley area. Our client's proposed allocation at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121)would be an obvious candidate in that regard, as we explain under our response to Question H3.

See also representation submitted for full details

Site 2121

We have identified under Question H1 GID's main points of concern with the 'green sites' thathave been selected within the Issues and Options consultation. In the light of these concerns wesummarise the sites that we disagree with below:

Site Ref Address: Reason for Objection 1060A Houghside, Pudsey: Loss of Green Belt

1124 Land off Upper Carr Lane, Calverley: Loss of Green Belt, distance from Main Urban Area 1184 Land at Acres Hall Avenue, Pudsey: Loss of Green Belt 1195 Land at Waterloo Road, Pudsey: Loss of Green Belt 1201 Land adjoining Woodhall Road - Gain Lane, Thornbury: Loss of Green Belt, distance from Main Urban Area 1337 Stylo House, Harrogate Road, Apperley Bridge: Distance from Main Urban Area

1243A [sic. 1343A] Harper Gate Farm, Tyersal Lane, Bradford: Distance from Main Urban Area 3011 Dick Lane Garage, Dick Lane, Thornbury: Loss of Green Belt 3050 Troydale Farm, Troydale Lane, Pudsey: Loss of Green Belt

3377A South of Hough Side, Pudsey: Loss of Green Belt 3455B Gamble Lane, Farnley: Loss of Green Belt

We reserve the right to amend/add to the above list as more information becomes available atsubsequent stages of the Site Allocations DPD process.


H2Question Ref:

143 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06552


Representor No:

Name:


Background

GID considers that land at Calverley Lane, Farsley (site ref: 2121) should be identified as a 'greensite' for immediate release at the beginning of the plan period.The site comprises a vacant area of land located adjacent to the Main Urban Area of Leeds andwithin a short walk of Farsley town centre, which is defined as a main centre within the shoppinghierarchy. It is bounded by housing and mature trees/hedgerow on three of its four sides, andresidential development in this location would effectively round off a modest gap between theexisting built edge of Farsley and the outer ring road.The site is identified within the Council's SHLAA as a site that could come forward as a housingallocation with a capacity of up to 72 dwellings, and no significant constraints are identified withinthe detailed site proforma contained with the SHLAA (extract attached).The site is available for housing immediately and initial discussions that that have taken placewith housebuilders indicates that there is strong market interest in the land.On 11 June GID carried out a community engagement event at Farsley Community Church,which was well attended. GID has also entered into pre-application discussions with the Council,and agreed, in principle, an appropriate point of access into the site from Calverley Lane.An indicative layout plan for the site has been prepared (copy attached) and GID has alsocommissioned a comprehensive suite of reports to address the full range of planning issues thatmight be expected to be assessed as part of a planning application submission. Those reportsare listed below, and copies are attached to these representations.• Phase 1 Ecology Report• Bat Survey• Reptile Survey• Transport Assessment• Travel Plan• Air Quality Assessment• Noise Assessment• Flood Risk Assessment• Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment[In addition, a Geo-Environmental Report is available on request]GID submitted detailed representations to the Council's Planning Department promoting the siteas a housing allocation prior to the Issues and Options consultation taking place. We attach afurther copy of these representations for information.In short, land at Calverley Lane, Farsley is a sustainable, unconstrained opportunity that coulddeliver housing at an early stage in the plan period. It is large enough to provide a mainstreamhousing scheme comprising a range of housing types to meet the future housing needs ofFarsley. A housing scheme on this site would also deliver affordable housing to meet localneeds.Response to Council's reason for current colour coding within Site Allocations DPDThe site is currently coded as an 'amber site' in the Site Allocations DPD, which confirms that theCouncil is of the view that it may have potential as a housing allocation. We repeat the Council'sreason for this colour coding as follows:"Designated as PAS (Protected Area of Search) on the existing UDP, not within theGreen Belt. This is part of a larger area and should be considered alongside 1114 &1110, both also PAS sites. Whilst the sites have links to the settlement and are relativelyclose to Farsley town centre the UDP Review Inspector commented that the urban edgeof Farsley is clear and well defined and this area forms part of an important tract of openland and could contribute to Green Belt purposes. The Inspector was clear that thesefactors should be considered at plan review as part of a comprehensive assessment ofpotential sites. There is an electricity pylon on this site with cables that run across.Highways issues to resolve, access possible, but poor accessibility - development wouldbe best combined with adjacent sites."We consider each constituent element of the Council's reasoning below.

(i) PAS DesignationWe can confirm that the land was taken out of the Green Belt as part of the comprehensivereview of the Green Belt carried out as part of the 2001 UDP, and designated as a PAS site topotentially meet the longer term needs of Leeds. The PAS designation was maintained followingthe 2006 UDP Review.It is pertinent to note that paragraph 4.8.6 of the emerging Core Strategy confirms that existingPAS sites will provide one of the 'prime sources for housing allocations in the LDF'.(ii) Previous UDP Review Inspector's commentsWhilst we note the reference to the UDP Review Inspector's comments, the context in which theywere made must be carefully considered. The UDP Review only related to a 'partial' review ofthe development plan, and the Inspector's consideration of the need for housing sites was madeagainst the backdrop of an annual housing requirement for Leeds of 1,930 dwellings. The annualhousing requirement over the course of the LDF plan period, 4,375 dwellings/annum, is morethan twice as large. It is therefore inevitable that extensions to the urban edge of Leeds will berequired to meet this challenging housing requirement - as is evidenced by the Council's decisionto propose the release of substantial areas of Green Belt; and by the confirmation within theemerging Core Strategy that existing PAS sites will be a prime source of land for housing.As the site is severed from other farm land on the opposite side of the ring road, it has nopotential for productive agriculture. The site is bounded by existing housing on one side, and iswell screened by mature trees adjacent to a recreation ground to the south east, and by dense

H3Question Ref:

144 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06552


Representor No:

Name:


hedgerow adjacent to the ring road to the north and north west.Development of Site 2121 for housing would comprise a modest extension to the built up area ofFarsley. The indicative layout that GID has prepared shows that a sensitively-designed housingscheme can be provided that maintains significant amounts of greenspace on the site; and whichrespects the existing character of Farsley. In our view development of this site would be a 'goodfit for the Farsley area.

The site is not subject to any type of landscape or other environmental designation, has no publicaccess and does not comprise part of the Green Belt. Once defined Green Belt boundaries areintended to be permanent, and they should endure well beyond the life of the plan - historically aminimum of 25-30 years was envisaged by Local Plan/UDP Inspectors when setting suchboundaries. Para 83 of the NPPF indicates that exceptional circumstances would need to bedemonstrated for Green Belt boundaries to be altered to include the site. The threshold fordemonstrating exceptional circumstances is very high, as demonstrated in Copas v, RoyalBorough of Windsor and Maidenhead 120011 EWCA Civ 180. In this decision the Court of Appealstated:"...the requisite necessity... where the revision proposed is to increase the Green Belt -cannot be judged to arise unless some fundamental assumption which caused the landinitially to be excluded from the Green Belt is thereafter clearly and permanently falsifiedby a later event."There is no evidence to suggest that the basis on which the site was originally removed from theGreen Belt was flawed, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify returningthe site to the Green Belt. Whilst the UDP Review only comprised a partial review of thedevelopment plan, the Green Belt contribution of the site was considered as part of acomprehensive assessment of Green Belt boundaries during the preparation of the 2001 UDP,only 12 years ago. In that regard the UDP Inspector's Report confirms that the Inspector was ofthe view that the site made a very limited contribution towards Green Belt purposes:"The ring road would be a potent restriction on sprawl into countryside to the west of thesite and the land has a very limited role in preventing the coalescence of Leeds andBradford. I do not consider it is the purpose of GB policy to separate small communitiessuch as Farsley and Rodley, although a structural open space to separate them wouldhave validity in preserving their identities, providing for local needs to recreation andotherwise to ensure the proper planning of this part of Pudsey." (Paragraph 691.09, UDPInspector's Report)"In the context of the UDP however, where long term boundaries are being defined, Iconsider that the contribution of this land to GB purpose and objectives no longer to besufficient to justify its long term retention within the GB. I agree with the objector that thesensible long term boundary to the GB would now be the Ring Road." (Paragraph691.11, UDP Inspector's Report)

Importantly, the 2001 UDP Inspector also went on to make positive comments about thesuitability of the site for housing:"The rise in the land away from the Ring Road would require care in the positioning ofhousing and in the landscaping of the site to ensure its impact is minimized when viewedfrom the west. As the Council appear to accept, a safe access from Calverley Lane couldprobably be obtained. l thus consider this land could well prove suitable for housingdevelopment in the future." (Paragraph 691.12, UDP Inspector's Report)In the light of the above, we consider that the UDP Review Inspector's comments referred to inthe Council's reasoning should not be considered in isolation. They must be consideredalongside the 2001 UDP Inspector's comments, and viewed against the differing quantums ofhousing sought in Leeds then, compared to now.(iii) Electricity pylon on the site, highways issues to resolve, access possible, but pooraccessibilityThe indicative layout prepared by GID shows that there is scope to provide a housing scheme onSite 2121 for between 60 and 70 dwellings incorporating an on site play area, and significantamounts of greenspace. The layout demonstrates that the pylon cables do not represent aconstraint to an effective development of the land.Discussions with the Council's Highways Department have taken place, and in-principleagreement has been reached to the position of the access on Calverley Lane shown on theindicative layout. In addition, a Transport Assessment has been prepared which demonstratesthat the worse case peak hour development traffic increase on the A6120 ring road is low andwithin daily traffic variations which could be expected on the ring road. The TransportAssessment concludes that the traffic resulting from the development in unlikely to be perceivableon the ring road during the network peak hour periods.The comments regarding the 'poor accessibility' of Site 2121 completely contradict the findings ofthe UDP Review Inspector (as referred to under Question H1 above), and therefore in our viewshould be given limited weight when considering the suitability of the land as a housing allocation.

In addition, the Traffic Assessment prepared by GID demonstrates that the site is readilyaccessible by walking and cycling, and within easy walking distance of Farsley town centre, whichhas a good range of shops and facilities. It also shows that a number of bus stops on CalverleyLane and Bagley Lane are within walking distance of the site, and that these stops provide accessto 11 buses per hour each way during peak time frequency. The bus services connect to a widerange of local destinations, including Leeds City Centre.To further improve the accessibility of the site the Transport Assessment recommends thewidening of the footway on Calverley Lane, and the provision of a new informal pedestriancrossing of Calverley Lane. These works would take place within the adopted highway, and do

145 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06552


Representor No:

Name:


not rely on third party land.(iv) Development would be best combined with adjacent sitesIn our view development of Site 2121 for housing can (and should) be considered on its meritsindependently from the larger Sites 1110 (Land at Rodley) and 1114 (Land at Kirklees Knowl). Itis physically self-contained, and GID's proposal would not prejudice the delivery of Sites 1110and 1114. There is no basis in law or policy to require it to be combined with these sites.Site 2121 is in a different ownership, and is severed from the larger swathe of land forming Sites1110 and 1114 by Calverley Lane. The proposed access to Site 2121 shown on the indicativelayout prepared by GID shows that access to this land can be achieved independently from theproposed access to Site 1114, which features a roundabout to the west of the electricity pylon.As explained above, discussions with the Council's Highways Department have taken place, andin-principle agreement has been reached to the position of GID's access on Calverley Lane.In contrast, the roundabout access proposed by the promoters of Site 1114 cannot be utilised forSite 2121, due to a 6m easement around the electricity pylon located on the frontage to ourclients' land. The position of the proposed access to Site 1114 would require the roundaboutsight line to cross into the pylon easement. Due to the level difference between Sites 1114 and2121, the highway boundary wall would also need setting back into the site with a retainingstructure requirement within the pylon easement. This would be unacceptable, and thereforeshould be avoided.Sites 1110 and 1114 relate to a much larger parcel of land than Site 2121, and the criticaldifference between these opportunities is that whereas a housing scheme on Site 2121 wouldsimply round off the built up area of Farsley by filling in the small gap between the existing edgeof the settlement and the ring road, Sites 1110 and 1114 cannot be fully developed withoutamalgamating the built up areas of Rodley and Farsley, which are separate settlements withstrong community identities.Accordingly, there are good settlement coalescence reasons why Sites 2121, 1110 and 1114should not be combined and brought forward together. A development of Site 2121 in isolationwould provide for an element of housing growth within Farsley over the plan period whistmaintaining the character of the settlement.


GID does not agree with the identification of Site 2121 as an amber opportunity. In our view itshould be identified as a 'green site' for the reasons set out in our client's response to QuestionH3.In relation to Sites 1110 and 1114, GID is concerned that development of these sites would beout of scale, and it would result in the coalescence of the built up areas of Rodley and Farsley,thus undermining the distinctive character of these settlements. The 2001 UDP Inspectorcommented on the need to maintain a structural open gap in this area to preserve the identities ofthese settlements and to provide for local recreational needs. In our view these sites shouldtherefore continue to be given an 'amber' rating and retained as PAS land for future potentialdevelopment needs, unless these concerns can be addressed through a significant reduction intheir capacity.As commented on in relation to 'green sites', we have concerns about the Issues and Options'amber' proposals where Green Belt sites have been identified, and/or they relate to sites that arenot well related to the Main Urban Area.


H4Question Ref:

As explained above, Site 2121 should be identified as a 'green site' for the reasons set out in ourclient's response to Question H3.We have concerns with the proposed 'amber sites' where Green Belt sites have been identified,and/or they relate to sites that are not well related to the Main Urban Area.


H5Question Ref:

As explained above, Site 2121 is available and it does not have any significant physical or policyconstraints that would prevent its release at an early stage in the plan period. GID has carriedout pre-application discussions with the Council regarding the site, and commissioned acomprehensive suite of reports to address the full range of planning issues that might beexpected to be assessed as part of a planning application submission. GID has also consultedwith a number of housebuilders, and there is strong market interest in the delivery of housing inthis location.Accordingly, Site 2121 should be identified as a 'green site' for immediate release at thebeginning of the plan period.


H11Question Ref:

146 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03409

Caroline Gibson

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

I write regarding sites 1114 (Kirklees Knoll) and 2121 (Calverley Lane). I have previously sent an e-mail as my comments, but please disregard te contents of that, and accept the comments below.Dear Sir/Madam,I wish to comment with respect to the consideration of the position of

sites 1114 (the above sites), and site 2121 (Calverley Lane) Farsley as part of the forthcoming review of the Leeds Local Development Plan. The comments below relate to both sites.1) Conservation of buildings and conservation of the natural environmentI was born in Farsley, and

have lived here for the majority of my life. My son was born here, and has never lived anywhere else. We live in Calverley Lane, which is a quiet road on the edge of the village. We are verging on green land on either side of Calverley Lane (the above sites). This keeps Farsley distinct from both Calverley and Rodley, and provides delightful walks to both villages. Part of what was a lovely public right of way from Calverley Lane to

Rodley has unfortunately already been ruined by the Bagley Lane Bellway development.We are surrounded by wildlife (including bats, hedgehogs, jays, various species of tits andfinches), due to the fact that the trees and hedgerows close to us are mature and undisturbed.

Development of the above sites could not but damage this situation. Trees and hedgerows in the green land on either side of Calverley Lane have been in situ and undisturbed for many years. Even if potential developers were to replant these, the rich variety of wildlife would inevitably

be disturbed and disrupted. It has to be doubtful that the same wildlife would ever return.There is very little farmland/green space left in Farsley, and the land in question falls within a conservation area. The land is clearly still used for agriculture (I recently watched the farmer

ploughing one of the fields), and is clearly not “scrubland”. We have lived in Calverley Lane for almost 15 years, and have regularly seen bats in the area (plus the local cats have been known to catch them!). In this country, it is illegal to disturb or destroy the roosting site of any species of bat, even if the bat is not present at the time. Were the land on Calverley Lane/Kirklees Knoll ever to be developed, this is precisely what would

happen.2) Effect on trees and the landscapeSee comments at 1). If land on Calverley Lane/Kirklees Knoll were to be developed, on the basis that any developer undertook to plant new vegetation, it would be many decades before the mature trees and plants could be replaced. The

fields and grassland in which the trees and hedgerows currently stand cannot ever be replaced once they have been covered by housing.3) Effect on the character of an areaHistorically, Farsley, Calverley and Rodley have been distinct communities with very distinct characteristics.

Development of the above sites would to all intents and purposes merge Farsley with Rodley, and would take a step further to merging Farsley with Calverley. Farsley is, and always has been, an independent village. At times of celebration (Christmas and, most recently the Jubilee), Farsley, Rodley and Calverley have their own individual celebrations, which work due to the small size of the villages, and the community spirit. Local people and traders work together to support the local community in producing truly memorable festivities. Should the three villages be

welded in one large urban sprawl, this community spirit would be lost for ever. 4) Impact on highway safety and trafficWere the above sites be developed, it is inevitable that this would massively increase traffic on the Ring Road between Dawson's Corner and Rodley, Farsley Town St, Calverley Lane (leading from the Ring Road into Farsley), and Bagley Lane. The Ring Road along this stretch is already frequently

seriously congested, and the proposal accepts that it is likely that the road cannot accommodate the likely extra traffic.Farsley Town St is also a serious bottleneck, and quite simply cannot take extra traffic. Theproblems with traffic along Calverley Lane are well documented. There have

been severalaccidents and near misses during the time that I have lived here. More recently, traffic calming measures have been introduced, including road narrowing, which have had a limited effect. The problem is that traffic leaves the Ring Road at a speed which is inappropriate to conditions on Calverley Lane, and cannot reduce their speed quickly enough by the time they reach the brow of the hill opposite Farsley

Recreation Ground (The Rec). Traffic issues along both Calverley Lane and Bagley Lane have been an ongoing priority issue for the Community Policing Team., and the local police accept that there is an existing problem.In a recent planning application for part of the Knoll,

much was much made of encouraging potential residents to make use of public transport. We have to be realistic here. The majority of people in the area still use their vehicles to get to work; many people do not work in areas directly accessible from a train or bus route, and many more drive because it is quicker and more convenient. Based on experience, even parents just taking their children to the local school tend to use their car rather than walking! If residents were to use New Pudsey Station, they still have to get there. It is not within easy walking distance, therefore, most people would drive there, meaning that they would use either the Ring Road or Calverley Lane/Farsley Town St., meaning that even if residents

used the train, it is likely that this would not ease congestion along the Ring Road/Farsley Town St.Extra traffic on Farsley Town St would be a potential safety risk to the significant numbers of children walking to homes throughout Farsley from local schools (primarily

Springbank,Priesthorpe and Pudsey Grangefield).5) Noise, disturbance and odourWere the land on Calverley Lane/Kirklees Knoll to be developed, the inevitable significant increase in traffic, associated emissions and noise would have a permanent and unacceptable effect on the

quality of life for the residents of Calverley Lane.There have been well-documented issues with anti-social behaviour on The Rec and in the portion of Calverley Lane leading from Farsley village centre to The Rec in the recent past, and the Police have worked hard to control this. A massive increase in the local population (which would be the obvious consequence if development of the above sites were to occur), would almost

certainly result in this problem re-surfacing. Current policing levels struggle to deal with existing problems, without new ones being created.A second concern is that the only route from the Calverley Lane side of the development to the pubs and bars of Farsley is along Calverley Lane. There have already been numerous examples of criminal damage to our houses and cars, and violent incidents in the road outside our houses (documented in reports to the police). It is almost inevitable that this problem would re-surface, and logic would dictate that it would be worse than

it ever has been.6) Effect on living conditionsAside from the issues already detailed, there are others which need to be considered, mainly concerning local infrastructure and its inability to cope with such a sizeable increase in the population of Farsley.Both the local primary and

secondary schools are oversubscribed, and have been for a number of years. Children would need to travel further and outside the local community to attend school. None of the local dental surgeries are taking (NHS) patients, and there are only two GP practices in Farsley, so it is

unlikely that they could absorb a significant increase in the population.With regard to the land on Calverley Lane above Farsley Recreation Ground, historical maps show the presence of a reservoir in this area. This, along with the many underground streams in this area would suggest

that this land might be less than ideal for the building of dwellings in any event.There is a natural barrier between Farsley and Calverley, created by the Recreation Ground, which clearly cannot be developed. Any development of the above sites would hence be automatically and unavoidably separated from the main community of Farsley; it would not simply be a natural extension of the village, but would be a new and separate community. On one of my regular walks to Calverley, I noticed a new sign at the top of Calverley Lane, stating “Farsley – historic village”. Were the above sites to be developed, this would need to be replaced by one saying “Farsley – once historic village, now extended

housing estate”.The site allocations plan document on the LCC website states:“The UDP Review Inspector commented that the urban edge of Farsley is clear and well defined and this area forms part of a an important tract of open land and could contribute to Green Belt purposes. The

Inspector was clear that these factors should be considered at plan review as part of a comprehensive assessment of potential sites”.On the basis of the above, I would strongly request that you return all land at the above sites to green belt, and by doing so the protect conservation area, safeguard local wildlife, including protected species, and preserve the character of the local community and its infrastructure. [x]

H4Question Ref:

147 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03409

Caroline Gibson

Representor No:

Name:


1114 and 2121. Please see previous comments. It is my belief that both sites should be returned to greenbelt.

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Sites 1114 and 2121. Please see previous comments.

H9Question Ref:

In my view, all "brown land" sites should be used for development before any other land is considered. I realise that there are problems with the need for work on some of these sites before they are suitable for development, however, this would also be the case with the land on Calverley Lane above Farsley Recreation Ground, as historical maps show the presence of a reservoir in this area.

H10Question Ref:

Neither sites 1114 or 2121 would be suitable for this type of accomodation, as they are not sufficiently close to either local amenities or to public transport.

H14Question Ref:

148 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03409

Caroline Gibson

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 1110, 1114, 2121 -I wish to comment with respect to the consideration of the position of Kirklees Knowl, Farsley as part of the forthcoming review of the Leeds Local Development Plan.1) Conservation of buildings and conservation of the natural environmentI was born in Farsley, and have lived here for the majority of my life. My son was born here, and has never lived anywhere else. We live in Calverley Lane, which is a quiet road on the edge of the village. We are verging on green land on either side of Calverley Lane (Kirklees Knowl). This keeps Farsley distinct from both Calverley and Rodley, and provides delightful walks to both villages. Part of what was a lovely public right of way from Calverley Lane to Rodley has already been partially ruined by the Bagley Lane Bellway development.We are surrounded by wildlife (including bats, hedgehogs, jays, various species of tits andfinches), due to the fact that the trees and hedgerows close to us are mature and undisturbed. Development of Kirklees Knowl could not but damage this situation. Trees and hedgerows on the Knowl have been in situ and undisturbed for many years. Even if potential developers were to replant these, the rich variety of wildlife would inevitably be disturbed and disrupted. It has to be doubtful that the same wildlife would ever return.There is very little farmland/green space left in Farsley, and the land in question falls within a conservation area. The land is clearly still used for agriculture (I recently watched the farmer ploughing one of the fields), and is clearly not “scrubland”.We have lived in Calverley Lane for almost 15 years, and have regularly seen bats in the area (plus the local cats have been known to catch them!). In this country, it is illegal to disturb or destroy the roosting site of any species of bat, even if the bat is not present at the time. Were the Knowl ever to be developed, this is precisely what would happen.2) Effect on trees and the landscapeSee comments at 1). If the Knowl were to be developed, on the basis that any developer undertook to plant new vegetation, it would be many decades before the mature trees and plants could be replaced. The fields and grassland in which the trees and hedgerows currently stand cannot ever be replaced once they have been covered by housing.3) Effect on the character of an areaHistorically, Farsley, Calverley and Rodley have been distinct communities with very distinct characteristics. Development of Kirklees Knowl would to all intents and purposes merge Farsley with Rodley, and would take a step further to merging Farsley with Calverley. Farsley is, and always has been, an independent village. At times of celebration (Christmas and, most recently the Jubilee), Farsley, Rodley and Calverley have their own individual celebrations, which work due to the small size of the villages, and the community spirit. Local people and traders work together to support the local community in producing truly memorable festivities. Should the three villages be welded in one large urban sprawl, this community spirit would be lost for ever. 4) Impact on highway safety and trafficWere Kirklees Knowl be developed, it is inevitable that this would massively increase traffic on the Ring Road between Dawson's Corner and Rodley, Farsley Town St, Calverley Lane (leading from the Ring Road into Farsley), and Bagley Lane. The Ring Road along this stretch is already frequently seriously congested, and the proposal accepts that it is likely that the road cannot accommodate the likely extra traffic.Farsley Town St is also a serious bottleneck, and quite simply cannot take extra traffic. Theproblems with traffic along Calverley Lane are well documented. There have been severalaccidents and near misses during the time that I have lived here. More recently, traffic calming measures have been introduced, including road narrowing, which have had a limited effect. The problem is that traffic leaves the Ring Road at a speed which is inappropriate to conditions on Calverley Lane, and cannot reduce their speed quickly enough by the time they reach the brow of the hill opposite Farsley Recreation Ground (The Rec).Traffic issues along both Calverley Lane and Bagley Lane have been an ongoing priority issue for the Community Policing Team., and the local police accept that there is an existing problem.In a recent planning application for part of the Knowl, much was much made of encouraging potential residents to make use of public transport. We have to be realistic here. The majority of people in the area still use their vehicles to get to work; many people do not work in areas directly accessible from a train or bus route, and many more drive because it is quicker and more convenient. Based on experience, even parents just taking their children to the local school tend to use their car rather than walking! If residents were to use New Pudsey Station, they still have to get there. It is not within easy walking distance, therefore, most people would drive there, meaning that they would use either the Ring Road or Calverley Lane/Farsley Town St., meaning that even if residents used the train, it is likely that this would not ease congestion along the Ring Road/Farsley Town St.Extra traffic on Farsley Town St would be a potential safety risk to the significant numbers of children walking to homes throughout Farsley from local schools (primarily Springbank,Priesthorpe and Pudsey Grangefield).5) Noise, disturbance and odourWere the Knowl to be developed, the inevitable significant increase in traffic, associated emissions and noise would have a permanent and unacceptable effect on the quality of life for the residents of Calverley Lane.There have been well-documented issues with anti-social behaviour on The Rec and in the portion of Calverley Lane leading from Farsley village centre to The Rec in the recent past, and the Police have worked hard to control this. A massive increase in the local population (which would be the obvious consequence if development of Kirklees Knowl were to occur), would almost certainly result in this problem re-surfacing. Current policing levels struggle to deal with existing problems, without new ones being created.A second concern is that the only route from the Calverley Lane side of the development to the pubs and bars of Farsley is along Calverley Lane. There have already been numerous examples of criminal damage to our houses and cars, and violent incidents in the road outside our houses (documented in reports to the police). It is almost inevitable that this problem would re-surface, and logic would dictate that it would be worse than it ever has been.6) Effect on living conditionsAside from the issues already detailed, there are others which need to be considered, mainly concerning local infrastructure and its inability to cope with such a sizeable increase in the population of Farsley.Both the local primary and secondary schools are oversubscribed, and have been for a number of years. Children would need to travel further and outside the local community to attend school. None of the local dental surgeries are taking (NHS) patients, and there are only two GP practices in Farsley, so it is unlikely that they could absorb a significant increase in the population.There is a natural barrier between Farsley and Calverley, created by the Recreation Ground, which clearly cannot be developed. Any development of Kirklees Knowl would hence be automatically and unavoidably separated from the main community of Farsley; it would not simply be a natural extension of the village, but would be a new and separate community. On one of my regular walks to Calverley, I noticed a new sign at the top of Calverley Lane, stating “Farsley – historic village”. Were Kirklees Knowl to be developed, this would need to be replaced by one saying “Farsley – once historic village, now extended housing estate”.The site allocations plan document on the LCC website states:“The UDP Review Inspector commented that the urban edge of Farsley is clear and well defined and this area forms part of a an important tract of

H4Question Ref:

149 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03409

Caroline Gibson

Representor No:

Name:


open land and could contribute to Green Belt purposes. The Inspector was clear that these factors should be considered at plan review as part of a comprehensive assessment of potential sites”.On the basis of the above, I would strongly request that you return all land at Kirklees Knowl to green belt, and by doing so the protect conservation area, safeguard local wildlife, including protected species, and preserve the character of the local community and its infrastructure.

150 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05642

Lee Godfrey

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121I write today to object to the planning application for Kirklees Knoll.Kirklees Knoll is currently valuable farmland and forms part of the important green spacebetween Leeds and Bradford. Its loss would significantly decrease the green space between thetwo cities. Changing the ecology of the area would affect the viability of the existing farm.Social facilities such as the schools in Farsley are already overstretched and traffic congestion iscausing major problems. Another 500 + houses in this location would clearly exacerbate theexisting problems.

H4Question Ref:

151 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00038

K Goldbourne

Representor No:

Name:


1201 - Thank you for your letter regarding the above information for a capacity of 196 dwellings. I know the area very well and it would be a natural infill for this locality. I am very pleased to support the above proposal.Yours faithfully.

H1Question Ref:

152 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02968

Robin Goldbourne

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 11 July 2013 20:04To: LDF LeedsSubject: Housing Site Allocations Consultation - Site Reference 1201

Date – 11/7/13Dear Local Development Framework,Site Reference - 1201This letter is in response to the – LEEDS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – HOUSING SITE ALLOCATIONS CONSULATION letter I received on the 14th June 2013 with reference to site 1201I welcome the news of a proposed development on this site, it is a site that is situated adjacent to already established urban housing and so the development would fit with a natural expansion of the existing dwellings. The area has good transport links and excellent access for contractors, meaning this development would probably be the least intrusive and cause the least disruption out of all the proposed sites.The area is in need of external investment, and I hoped, as a resident of the area, that the Morrison’s headquarters development would bring this investment. In some respects it has, but I believe this proposed development will bring a much needed lift to the local economy and set a foundation for a possible regeneration.Having lived on Sunnybank Avenue and Grove all my life I have seen the demand for housing in the area increase rapidly. As a potential first time buyer I would welcome any new houses in the area as the lack of affordable accommodation may eventually force me to leave the area. Through my profession I have the chance to see many different locations in the UK, and the investments these areas make in new housing. No new housing has been developed in this area for some time and there is a real chance that a failure to grasp development opportunities, such as these, could leave our area falling behind others. Yours sincerely [x]

H1Question Ref:

153 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05650

Janet & Jeff Gordon

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121We are residents of 68 Kirklees Drive, Farsley, Leeds LS28 5TE and we understand thatthere is to be a consultation starting on the Council's Development Plan.We strenuously request that the Council, in the development of this plan, either returnboth plots of land to green belt or to leave both plots as they are currently designatedas Safeguarded land not to be developed in the lifetime of the new plan.We do accept that there is a shortage of affordable and social rented accommodation inthe district but do not believe that developments on either site will help to fulfill thatneed. There are large areas of brownfield sites that will allow suitable development.

H4Question Ref:

154 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02458

David Gouldbourne

Representor No:

Name:


A much needed development and one which I support Access roads are already there and so too are all major services. There would be no detrimental issues to the area infact it would much improve the locality. Many schools are nearby also doctors and shops. I think this would be a boost for the area.

H1Question Ref:

155 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02971

James Gouldbourne

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 02 July 2013 19:21To: LDF LeedsSubject: Housing site allocationsRef--1201.[x]Re- Land allocation gain lane. Ref-1201.As a resident of [x], I would like to offer my support to the aboveallocation.The need for housing is one that can not be ignored. The site is well situated for allservices and is clearly a very appropriate location. I would like to see any new housing atthis site to include tree planting and landscaping as there are no trees on the site. The siteis unproductive grassland and is clearly an ideal location of housing.

H1Question Ref:

156 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02979

K V Gouldbourne

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 07 July 2013 21:38To: LDF LeedsSubject: Local Development Plan Site 1201, Woodhall Road/Gain LaneDear Sir, or Madam.Thankyou for the information about the Leeds Local Development plan-Housing SiteAllocations Consultation.Site Reference 1201. Land adjoining Woodhall Road-Gain Lane, capacity for a maximumof 196 dwellings.Having studied the above development plan, I can see that the plan has potential, and is inthe natural line of progression.I feel it will be an asset to the area and I fully support the proposal.Yours sincerely,[x]

H1Question Ref:

157 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03780

Yvette Marie Grubert

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

1117, 1123A, 1123B, 1193B, 1193A. Calverley is in desperate need of affordable housing.

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Calverley is in need of affordable housing. We are a family renting in Calverley and are struggling to afford the high price of private renting, we feel frustrated that it apprears we will never be able to afford to own our own house as we have no money at the end of the month to save for any kind of a deposit. House prices are also very high in Calverley, both of these issues are a concern to us as a family who would very much like to be

settled in a house of our own.We are currently on the council and housing associations waiting list and so would love the prospect of being able to get an affordable rental house in Calverley so we could have the chance to save for a deposit.

H7Question Ref:

158 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01665

Kathlean Hadley

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

159 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01720

Mike Haley

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

160 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02074

B Haley

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

161 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01804

M Hallas

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

162 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01350

Brian Hall

Representor No:

Name:


3050 - Planning statement to justify the inclusion of site 3050at Troydale Farm, Troydale Lane, Pudsey as a housingsite for _future housing development as shown onPlan 11.3 Housing — Outer West, of theLeeds Draft Allocations DPD

4.0 Material considerations — Ecology4.1 The site largely consists of agricultural land in productive use. Assuch it is not likely that protected species would be affected by thedevelopment proposals. Any current buildings to be either demolished orconverted would need to be assessed for occupation by protected speciesand any such works to existing buildings would have to be assessed in thelight of a planning application.4.2 The majority of existing landscaping is located to the south of the sitearound the existing buildings and this landscaping is not seen as animpediment to the development of the site.4.3 The allocation is supported by West Yorkshire Ecology and the LCCEcology Officer.5.0 Material considerations - Heritage issues5.1 Troydale Farmhouse is a Listed Building and adjacent structureslocated around the farmhouse are protected as curtilage buildings. Allthese buildings have a cuiTent residential use and are unlikely to beaffected by any development proposals for the land to the north and east.If any alterations were considered these would have to be assessedagainst any planning and listed building consent submissions.6.0 Assessment of the site against sustainability6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states the following,Ministerial forward (extract from)Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay — apresumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis forevery plan, and every decision.Introduction7. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic,social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need forthe planning system to perform a number of roles:• an economic role — contributing to building a strong, responsiveand competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right4type is available in the right places and at the right time to supportgrowth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinatingdevelopment requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;• a social role — supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities,by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs ofpresent and future generations; and by creating a high quality builtenvironment, with accessible local services that reflect thecommunity's needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing;and• an environmental role — contributing to protecting and enhancingour natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this,helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently,minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climatechange including moving to a low carbon economy.14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is apresumption in favour of sustainable development, which should beseen as a golden thread running through both plan-making anddecision-taking.One of the Core Planning Principles in paragraph 17 of the NPPFstates that planning should• proactively drive and support sustainable economic development todeliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure andthriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should bemade objectively to identify and then meet the housing, businessand other development needs of an area, and respond positively towider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account ofmarket signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, andset out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which issuitable for development in their area, taking account of the needsof the residential and business communities;Delivering sustainable development18. The Government is committed to securing economic growth inorder to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country's inherentstrengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competitionand of a low carbon future.19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system

H1Question Ref:

163 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01350

Brian Hall

Representor No:

Name:


does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment5to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placedon the need to support economic growth through the planning system.6.2 It is considered that the site is in a sustainable location as itimmediately abuts the eastern edge of the settlement of Pudsey. There areno constraints on development from a physical/social/economic contextbecause of the following. The site is located adjacent to the existingdevelopment limits for the settlement of Pudsey. The areas to theimmediate west and north are predominantly characterised by residentialuse. The site is located adjacent to an urban area with excellent links topublic transport routes running through the settlement. There are buslinks to the nearby major settlement of Leeds and there is a main linetrain station in the centre of Leeds and a local station at Bramley. Thesettlement has a good range of community facilities, schools and localshops. It makes economic sense to develop adjacent to existing urbanareas as this maximises the availability of existing services and facilities.It is considered that the allocation is supported by the thrust ofGovernment policy contained in the National Planning Policy Frameworkparagraphs 7, 14, 18 and 19 with regard to the development of sustainablesites.6.3 The site is located in an area already served by public utilities and theproposal would not put a further strain on those facilities. Water andelectricity are present on site and sewerage can be disposed of to thenearby main.7.0 Conclusion7.1 The site is located adjacent to the development limits for thesettlement. The areas to the west and north are predominantlycharacterised by residential use. The areas to the west and north are longestablished areas featuring 20th century development. The proposalswould lead to development adjacent to the urban fabric of the settlement.7.2 The site is located adjacent to an urban area with excellent links topublic transport routes running through the settlement. There are buslinks to the nearby major settlements. The settlement has a good range ofcommunity facilities, schools and local shops. It makes economic sense todevelop adjacent to existing urban areas as this maximises the availabilityof existing services and facilities. It is considered that the proposal issupported by the thrust of Government policy contained in the NationalPlanning Policy Framework with regard to the development ofsustainable sites.67.3 The site is located within the current Green Belt as shown within theUnitary Development Plan. The National Planning Policy Frameworkadvises that changes to the Green Belt boundaries should only beundertaken within a Local Plan review such as the Draft AllocationsDPD. There is an undeniable need for new housing sites within thePudsey area and a shortage of ready land within the settlement uponwhich to satisfy the need identified. As such a development expansioninto the Green Belt is considered necessary and this site is the bestlocated within the area to meet the tests of sustainability allied withlimiting the affect of development on the Green Belt.

164 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04438

Ruth Hall

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

green areas are diminishing, we should keep these areas. there are lots of brown sites in our area

H1Question Ref:

111021211114these areas must remain as green sites, schools in the area are full, doctors, dentists have long waiting lists, roads are very busy and further local traffic will result in even longer queues!! there are already new developments in the area

H2Question Ref:

NO

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

as already stated, we have full schools, doctors, dentists, etc in the area. the roads are very busywe do not need more housing in this area

H4Question Ref:

212111141110reason as already stated previously

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

212111141110re3asons as already stated

H7Question Ref:

212111141110reason as already stated

H8Question Ref:

NO

H10Question Ref:

NONE

H11Question Ref:

NOsame reasons as for residentiual developments - schools are full, roads are too busy already

H12Question Ref:

NO

H13Question Ref:

NOgreen field sites should remain as green sites - FULL STOP

H14Question Ref:

NO

H15Question Ref:

Please no more building or development on this area


165 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02084

S Hamcock

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

166 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00256

Sybil Hancock

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Field off Low Moor Side Lane will not take more houses or cars. We live in a lovely village. We have lovely animals (foxes - Hares) butterflies, beautiful birds.

H4Question Ref:

167 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01642

Mark Hannah

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

168 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03116

Stephanie Hanson

Representor No:

Name:


I wish to support Councillor Andrew Carter and Councillor Rod Wood in their protection of Kirklees Knoll and Calverley Lane against housing development

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

n

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

n

G6Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:

169 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05927

Yvonne Hardaker

Representor No:

Name:


2120 3440I am writing with concern about proposed development plans in my area. I attended the public exhibition at Pudsey Civic Centre and was appalled at the amount of development on the plans. I live in a small cul-de-sac off Galloway Lane right alongside site 2120 Hillfoot Farm, Pudsey. The road will come out on to an already busy main road that has a pedestrian crossing island which will be practically in the way of the road end. It is a terrible road to cross without the island, if this is removed it could prove very dangerous for people. It a busy area with a doctors surgery at the corner with lots of pedestrians about at busy times crossing to the chemist. There is a parade of shops with large delivery vans unloading frequently and a bus stop which is near to the proposed road end.

Traffic is a big problem in the area, the other proposals, 3440, 1073a, & 1073b which will exit into Hillfoot/Cemerery Road area will be horrendous. We already have the Cemetery Road site ongoing as well as sites on Waterloo Road & Uppermoor areas. Some of these sites look quite attractive but others are three story soulless looking places with little or no garden. This of course leads to the question where will all the cars be parked when not clogging up the roads. Most houses have two cars and when families grow up, children usually get cars which creates its own problems as I well know!

I strongly object to all these proposals. The green belt is precious and should be preserved. The schools will be overcrowded as well as the roads, doctors & dentists are already overworked and who can afford these houses? These proposals will be severely detrimental to the area both on a safety issue and a traffic issue. Pudsey is losing its identity, it is becoming part of the Leeds urban sprawl and we do not seem to be able to stop this. I hope you take these comments seriously and that other people bother to object.

H1Question Ref:

1073aI am writing with concern about proposed development plans in my area. I attended the public exhibition at Pudsey Civic Centre and was appalled at the amount of development on the plans.



H4Question Ref:

1073b redI am writing with concern about proposed development plans in my area. I attended the public exhibition at Pudsey Civic Centre and was appalled at the amount of development on the plans.



H7Question Ref:

I am writing with concern about proposed development plans in my area. I attended the public exhibition at Pudsey Civic Centre and was appalled at the amount of development on the plans. I strongly object to all these proposals. The green belt is precious and should be preserved. The schools will be overcrowded as well as the roads, doctors & dentists are already overworked and who can afford these houses? These proposals will be severely detrimental to the area both on a safety issue and a traffic issue. Pudsey is losing its identity, it is becoming part of the Leeds urban sprawl and we do not seem to be able to stop this. I hope you take these comments seriously and that other people bother to object.


170 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02109

Karen Hardcroft

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

171 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00192

John Hardy

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Not all are sustainable in planning terms

H1Question Ref:

2123 Low Moor side not sustainable in planning terms

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

2123 is not sustainable in planning terms

H4Question Ref:


H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:


H9Question Ref:



172 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00192

John Hardy

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Not in all cases

H1Question Ref:

site 1171 is not sustainable in planning terms.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:


H9Question Ref:

173 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00192

John Hardy

Representor No:

Name:


3455B - Strongly against site for planning and sustainability reasons:- no schools- no public transport- no shopsThe number of homes proposed won't give enough contributions to pay for all these things.

H1Question Ref:

2123 - Need to check to make sure it fits in with the recently adopted Design Statement for New Farnley.

H4Question Ref:

3455A - Strongly against site for planning and sustainability reasons:- no schools- no public transport- no shopsThe number of homes proposed won't give enough contributions to pay for all these things.

H4Question Ref:

All other sites in New Farnley -In principle no issues with any of the other sites.


174 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04779

Dennis Hardy

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1123A & 1123BBoth would have a major impact on the village of Calverley. Rat running is a major problem that is not being properly addressed by the authorities & these sites would add significant traffic to the area.

H7Question Ref:

1123A & 1123BBoth sites would have a major impact on the village of Calverley. Rat running is a major problem that is not being properly addressed by the authorities & these sites would add significant traffic to the area.

H8Question Ref:

175 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02078

Harris

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

176 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04552

Janet Harris

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Reference 2123: We live in a bungalow which is below the site being considered for building on and already have serious issues relating to drainage and water running under our bungalow as do several of our neighbours; we have had to instal a pump which clears the water weekly. Building new houses on the site above our property could exacerbate this problem. We are also concerned that the road infrastructure cannot cope with extra traffic which new homes would without doubt bring; the road leading up Low Moorside towards Whitehall road is very narrow and already busy and proves challenging and coming back down the other direction towards Lawns Lane is busy as it leads to the main village Co-op

and the local primary school and secondary school. A lot of residents of Castle Ings are elderly and not in a position to relocate if the proposed new housing were to go ahead.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Reference 2123 see previous comments

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

177 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05652

Don & Valerie Harris

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121We have received correspondence that the owners of the land opposite to KirkleesKnoll have applied for a residential development for 60 something houses. This site isgreen belt and should remain as such. How much more is our village to put up withevery bit of open space to be subject to a building application. This is all about what isthe land or site worth and how much can I get for it. The (I will be all right jackmentality blow anyone else). We don’t want our lovely village spoilt by buildingspeculators in for a quick buck. Please leave our village alone. We’ve had 2 greatfestivals and jubilee with people coming from miles around to take part and enjoy ourvillage spirit. Don't kill it off.

H4Question Ref:

178 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04818

Gloria Hartley

Representor No:

Name:


The consultation is relating to Site 4046 - Daleside Road, Pudsey with a proposed capacity for 89 dwellings. Residents on Daleside Avenue and Daleside Grove, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable, chose the area for its beauty and quiet location and were assured the land was green

belt and as such could not be developed on further. Since the golf course closed the residents have already had to endure the noise and increased traffic due to the building of Gallagher Leisure Park and Aagrah Restaurant, but were assured that no planning permission would be

given for further development in this area. The road system at Thornbury Roundabout is already severely congested and creates a local bottleneck particularly during the rush hour, with an already acknowledged problem on Moorland Road due to drivers using this as a "rat

run" to avoid the long queues. The roundabout is subject to frequent flooding due to the poor drainage, with frequent loss of the inside lane due to deep water opposite Gallagher Leisure Park, and an increase in traffic from additional housing would exacerbate the traffic problems. During the worst of the winter months, Daleside Road is treacherous as no gritting services are provided and the current provision of refuse collection is variable. Would the introduction of additional housing compound this problem, i.e. spreading the already depleted resources still

further?There is also the question of wildlife. Sitting out on a sunny evening, where the only sounds to be heard are birds singing and the loudest noise is from lawnmowers, is one of the few simple pleasures left for the elderly in this area, along with living in a peaceful and safe part of

Pudsey.Would the Council take responsibility for the potential decrease in housing values due to the increasingly developed area? The fact that the area is so quiet is a good selling point for local residents.I feel there is sufficient under-utilised building space within the more built up

areas of Pudsey without tearing into the few parts of natural beauty we have left e.g. Gain Lane.

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

The question itself is too vague to give any valid response. What is meant by "type of greenspace". Has the "standard" been decreased in recent years and if not, why are there some areas whose greenspace falls short of standards? Is this due to over-development of areas, which would add fuel to the arguement of reducing not increasing further building.

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

I strongly feel that all greenspace land should be protected at all costs.

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

If the land is publicly owned i.e. by the council, then resources should be made available to ensure it is looked after.

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

No as the investment would then be chanelled into other areas whereas the local residents of the site used for development would have long-term damage to their living environment by increased noise, traffic build up and the potential for increased crime which is more prevelant in built up areas.

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

Yes, children and young people particulary need space to play and enjoy and areas of natural beauty should be treasured. This is exactly the opposite to your proposal to take away green belt land from behind Daleside Road.

G6Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

179 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04818

Gloria Hartley

Representor No:

Name:


0

G10Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:

Reasons stated in previous comments - quiet, natural beauty should be retained and increased traffic at an already congested part of the area should be avoided at all costs.

G14Question Ref:

180 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02081

Haselwood

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

181 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05634

Lindsay Hawkshaw

Representor No:

Name:


1124It is with great interest that I received a letter from my local councillor today regarding land in Calverley village that is being considered as suitable for building on. Calverley is a lovely village, not too big not too small. It has two over subscribed Primary schools which feed several Secondary schools in the area. This year alone there has been a huge problem with too many children and not enough spaces by far. If further development is approved, where are these children going to get their education? It will be even more of a problem when the houses are built on the old Clariant site because as the crow flies the two Calverley schools are their closest schools. Not forgetting the applications being put forward and the houses already new built in Farsley to add to it as well.

Other infrastructure has to be carefully considered too. The roads in Calverley village are far too busy as it is being used as a short cut by rat running, fast driving commuters going between Leeds and Bradford. Surely some of the sites put forward are fields and sites where local wildlife is probably already struggling to survive on their dwindling habitats. Once these sites are built on it is then generally easier for those sites to gradually grow and grow and grow eating up space.

I feel very strongly against any further building in this area.

H1Question Ref:

1123A40491193AIt is with great interest that I received a letter from my local councillor today regarding land in Calverley village that is being considered as suitable for building on. Calverley is a lovely village, not too big not too small. It has two over subscribed Primary schools which feed several Secondary schools in the area. This year alone there has been a huge problem with too many children and not enough spaces by far. If further development is approved, where are these children going to get their education? It will be even more of a problem when the houses are built on the old Clariant site because as the crow flies the two Calverley schools are their closest schools. Not forgetting the applications being put forward and the houses already new built in Farsley to add to it as well.



H4Question Ref:

11171123B1193B4050It is with great interest that I received a letter from my local councillor today regarding land in Calverley village that is being considered as suitable for building on. Calverley is a lovely village, not too big not too small. It has two over subscribed Primary schools which feed several Secondary schools in the area. This year alone there has been a huge problem with too many children and not enough spaces by far. If further development is approved, where are these children going to get their education? It will be even more of a problem when the houses are built on the old Clariant site because as the crow flies the two Calverley schools are their closest schools. Not forgetting the applications being put forward and the houses already new built in Farsley to add to it as well.



H7Question Ref:

182 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01798

M Hector

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

183 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01801

F Hector

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

184 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01838

Ann Herridge

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

185 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05935

Paul, Andrea, Jed Hesling

Representor No:

Name:


34402120We would like to object to ALL of the above sites being used for housing development due to their poor and, in some cases, dangerous access issues. The roads in the surrounding area are grossly overloaded. The amount of traffic that has increased due to recent developments close by is becoming hazardous to pedestrians and motorists. The infrastructure to support any additional housing in the area (e.g. Roads / Doctors / Dentists/ Schools) is already stretched. There has been no upgrade to the sewerage systems (pipes) to accommodate any additional house or surface water drainage which will increase when green land is built on, thus potentially causing flooding in the lower areas caused by runoff and the extra demand on the system. We have very few areas of green land left now in Pudsey. Building on this will damage irreparably any remaining wildlife habitat that there is.

H1Question Ref:

1073aWe would like to object to ALL of the above sites being used for housing development due to their poor and, in some cases, dangerous access issues. The roads in the surrounding area are grossly overloaded. The amount of traffic that has increased due to recent developments close by is becoming hazardous to pedestrians and motorists. The infrastructure to support any additional housing in the area (e.g. Roads / Doctors / Dentists/ Schools) is already stretched. There has been no upgrade to the sewerage systems (pipes) to accommodate any additional house or surface water drainage which will increase when green land is built on, thus potentially causing flooding in the lower areas caused by runoff and the extra demand on the system. We have very few areas of green land left now in Pudsey. Building on this will damage irreparably any remaining wildlife habitat that there is.

H4Question Ref:

1073bWe would like to object to ALL of the above sites being used for housing development due to their poor and, in some cases, dangerous access issues. The roads in the surrounding area are grossly overloaded. The amount of traffic that has increased due to recent developments close by is becoming hazardous to pedestrians and motorists. The infrastructure to support any additional housing in the area (e.g. Roads / Doctors / Dentists/ Schools) is already stretched. There has been no upgrade to the sewerage systems (pipes) to accommodate any additional house or surface water drainage which will increase when green land is built on, thus potentially causing flooding in the lower areas caused by runoff and the extra demand on the system. We have very few areas of green land left now in Pudsey. Building on this will damage irreparably any remaining wildlife habitat that there is.

H7Question Ref:

186 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03734

Philip Higgins

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Definitely not! Whether classed as 'Green' or 'Greenbelt', the whole idea behind identifying these areas is to resist building on it and to maintain the areas as open, agricultural or leisure land. Green belt land should be allowed to remain in an 'open' state for

people to enjoy. Many areas contain abundant wildlife, and in a world where 'green' areas are becoming less and less common, this does not allow for easy access to the natural environment.I am of the opinion that there is a need for everyone (but more importantly, children)

to have an interest in nature and appreciate that there should be a continuing relationship between it, and our 'modern world'.I have two very young grandsons and feel very strongly about the fact that as they grow, they will not understand the needs of nature as there will be

nowhere for them to see animals and birds in their natural surroundings.To see animals in the wild is a thrilling experience and i don't want to have to rely on visits to pet shops and animal parks to teach them about nature.

H1Question Ref:

Pudsey Area - Site 3440; Site 1073a; Site 1073b; Site 2120.Although I appreciate these areas are privately owned farming sites, to build houses on them would impact dramatically on the local Owlcotes fields and woods, which have been a favourite leisure area for many

generations.Not only from an aesthetic point of view but also with regards to the abundance of wildlife in the area. To name a few, foxes, squirrels, even deer have been sited, and the birdlife includes a number of ground nesting birds.Reducing the area of green land obviously

restricts the natural habitat and could mean the loss of much of the wildlife.These small pockets of green land should be maintained and alternative areas considered for building such as brown field areas.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

187 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06242

Sue Hill

Representor No:

Name:


I would like to register my objection to further development in and around Farsley, specificallyKirklees Knoll. Our road systems are at breaking point, the schools are full, there are no enoughdoctors or dentists.I realise that people would have looked at drainage but have they looked at it properly, Farsley hassprings and becks and when it rains we get flooding, when more concrete is added, this water hasno-where to go and the floods will become a more common occurrence.Apprently the Clariant site in Pudsey has got planning consent which will add another 400 plushouses, at two cars per household, you do the maths. If Kirklees Knoll gets the go ahead thenthat's another 300 plus houses, at two cars per household, you've just added another 1400 cars tothe roads around here. Farsley is already used as a cut through to avoid Dawson's corner,Kirklees Knoll is not derelict land but high grade grazing land and this is the only thing thatseparates Farsley from Rodley, both villages would effectively lose their village character. They havealready built further down the hill to Kirklees Knoll and the traffic to get out at Bagley land and ontothe ring road at Rodley roundabout is absolutely horrendous with many vehicles using the housesalongside the canal as a shortcut, at dangerous speeds, add more cars to this and there is going tobe a major lose of life. The loss of this land would also have a detrimental effect on the localtenant farmer.I also know that the drains down to Rodley, the river and canal have historically had surface waterand sewage drainage problems and adding more houses would only make this worse.I urge you to reconsider pulling up what is effectively green belt. There is much derelict land in andaround Leeds/Bradford and once the road infrastructure is addressed then it should be this landwhich is used and not green fields (whether they are or are not green belt).Thank you for listening and I beg you to come to Farsley and around Leeds and look for yourself,not just on a map and looking at reports which may or may not be telling the whole truth.

H4Question Ref:

188 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03826

Belinda Hinsley

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I would expect brownfield and infill sites to be identified first before housing was considered on greenfield/green belt land.

H1Question Ref:

Any on greenfield green belt land

H2Question Ref:

Only where the site utilizes brownfield/infill land.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Any utilizing greenfield/green belt land.

H5Question Ref:

Not unless they are using brownfield or infill sites.

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

None of them would utilize brownfield/infill sites.

H7Question Ref:

Any not ustilizing brownfield/infill land.

H8Question Ref:

Not unless it would utilize brownfield/infill land.

H9Question Ref:

Any brownfield/infill land not identified in the plan.

H10Question Ref:

Any brownfield/infill sites should be utilized short term with any becoming available utilized medium to long term. Use any land not green filed/ green belt first.

H11Question Ref:

Any sites utilizing brownfield/infill land.

H12Question Ref:

Any utilizing brownfield/infill land.

H13Question Ref:

Any brownfield/infill land close to services.

H14Question Ref:

Any brownfield/infill land close to services.

H15Question Ref:

Please consider brownfield/infill land before destroying large swathes of the countryside and green fields. Quality of life is very important. I know we need more houses but they should be sensitively added to existing villages/towns etc without totally changing the "feel" of the

places we live in.I have no objection to the particular development on Upper Carr Lane directly opposite the cul de sac of Carr Hill Nook PROVIDED the problem of flooding is dealt with. Apart from being beautiful and green the field soaks up a lot of rain water before it then runs off onto Upper Carr Lane. If the problem of run off water going into Carr Hill Nook is not addressed in the planning approval then we will have flooding. I will hold the Council directly responsible for that as I am sure other residents will also have told you about this problem.


189 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03912

Trevor Hirons

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Building on any green field sites in Garforth is ridiculous. Traffic on A63 Selby Road and A642 Wakefield Road is already at saturation level. Queues at the junction of the two (George Roundabout) are already horrendous at busy times with traffic to and from Leeds making access dangerous. Any developments on Wakefield Road with only access to Wakefield Road would be crazy. If thousands of homes are built new schools would be essential as existing capacity would not cope. Similary existing G.P. and dental services can barely cope now. How does building up-market private homes go in hand with a traveller's site? The whole plan is idiotic and ill thought out. There seems to be no benefit

at all to residents only financially to landowners and developers and perhaps the Council. There seem to be no sense to the plan whatsoever.

H1Question Ref:

3112, 3111, 1110, 1044, 3113, 1336, 2132, 3114, 1165, 2156. In addition to the above reasons; recent sites developed in the area e.g. Harvest View, Garforth Cliff have been a shambles, creating flooding to existing properties. Some new houses have suffered subsidence!. This is what results from ill-conceived development of every piece of land whether suitable or not. More suitable sites are such as Site 1232 off the Ridge Road as this would afford easy access to the M1/A1 link road without passing along the A642. Residents of any properties built there would also not take precedence for Garforth school places, G.P. services etc.

H2Question Ref:

Sites 3112,3111,1110,1044,3113.All Wakefield has always been green belt and should remain so. Over 40 years any plan to develop this farmland has been rejected. Why change now?

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

???. See earlier comments

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Ridge Road/Peckfield Bar area

H10Question Ref:

Anywhere where they will not affect existing residents. All such sites are unnecessary.

H13Question Ref:

The Council Planning Committee seem to have taken leave of it's senses and included every bit of open land in Garforth. Think again - residents will not back these idiotic plans.


190 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01633

Lee Hirst

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Amber to Red, Low Moor Side Lane New Farnely. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

191 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05937

Cathie Hirst

Representor No:

Name:


111011142121We would like to register our opposition to the proposed residential development sites inthe Leeds Local Development plan which affect Farsley. Both sites 1110 and 2121 are important green buffers separating Farsley from Calverley. Site 1114, Kirklees Knoll, is a very important local green space. It is valuable agricultural land and its loss would be detrimental to both the tenant farmer and the population of Farsley. Farsley is a unique place to live and work and it retains a tremendous community spirit and a rare village atmosphere. We feel, along with the many residents we have spoken to, that this will be lost if the proposed developments of 592 houses are approved. All our local schools, doctors and dentists are full so another nearly 600 households are not sustainable. We do not have the infrastructure to cope. The new housing estate of 500 houses already approved and being built this year on the Farsley/Rodley Ring Road is going to cause major problems especially on the roads. Serious traffic problems already exist in the area and will be further exacerbated by that development. If the further proposed building went ahead Farsley, Rodley and Calverley would be gridlocked. We would urge you not to approve any of these proposed developments.

H4Question Ref:

192 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04587

David Hodgson

Representor No:

Name:


I wish to raise my objections to planning on sites 1110 at Rodley 1114 land at KirkleesKnoll 2121 land at Calverley Lane Farsley.My home backs onto one of these sites whichis Petrie Street Rodley which is a quiet residential cul de sac. Have you any idea whatsort of impact a development would have on peoples lives in that area. Rodley andFarsley have no amenities for any more developments, In Rodley just recently thenewsagents closed The Owl pub closed apart from the endless amount of traffic thatpasses through there is nothing in Rodley. No schools docters chenists not even an a tm machine all Leeds City Council are planning on doing is removing the remaining greens[pace that is left.Also what kind off impact do you think it will have on our propertyprices when all of a sudden we are surrounded by houses instead of green fields.Mychildren played football on the fields that you are planning to build on where arechildren going to play in the future or don't you care is it all about the money notpeoples lives.

H4Question Ref:

193 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01635

Janet Holdsworth

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

194 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03265

Mary Holmes

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1123B & 1193B.Lack of transport and infra-structure to support such large development. Plus major impact upon nature/ wild life, urban farming potential and out door access for local people (recreational purposes; health & well-being).

H4Question Ref:

1123A: 1123B: 1193B: 1193ADisagree for all reasons put above.

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

This form makes it very difficult to provide feedback


195 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02270

John Horan

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

196 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02270

John Horan

Representor No:

Name:


The site in question on Low Moorside Lane a waterlogged soggy field. Low Moorside and Lane parts of which are narrow at the present time used by horse riders and vehicular use. The building of houses on the route in question would be disastrous in terms of vehicles along a narrow road such as Low Moorside Lane, amnd also spoil the semi rural aspect of the area. The infrastructure is not in place to support further housing development in this area

H4Question Ref:

197 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02098

Greg Horncroft

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

198 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02276

R Houlding

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

199 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01649

Colin Howard

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

200 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04091

Stuart Howie

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

site ref # 1002 - this green belt site is inaccessible without the demolition of a property(ies)in the Bramhope conservation zone- demolition of home(s) to access would change the streetscape character of Creskeld lane, recently identified for conservation by the Council.- would

increase traffic on the narrow and inadequate Creskeld lane to Arthington. - development of the site would extend development into the greenbelt risking further sprawl towards Arthington- Over the past two winters, Creskeld lane has been blocked by snow, with no gritting (due

to the narrowness of the lane) beyond Breary Lane East. This would “cut off” the proposed site in future.- Any entrance to the proposed site (should property on the site be demolished to allow) would position a new junction on, or just after, a bend on a road which already is extremely

narrow, increasing danger to existing pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.- The site has no local amenities and access would be by car only with the nearest public transport being situated on the A660 a long and steep uphill walk away. Any housing on the site is therefore realistically

going to be accessed by road only - driving traffic numbers higher than on a "typical" development.- The site is home to a wide range of wildlife (bats, red kites, badgers, deer etc) and adjoined to woodland area. Development would impact negatively on the local wildlife

habitat.- The site lies on a sloping topography and is located in an area of low density housing. 23 houses is an unrealistically high number of houses to consider developing in character with the area, even if infrastructure, wildlife and other issues could be addressedTaken in

conjunction with wider proposals for Bramhope (site 1080, 3367a and 3400 - all development will contribute to congestion on the A660. This road is already extremely busy and at times it already takes 5mins plus just to cross by car e.g. to get children to the school / access the village

centre.Collectively substantial development will also highlight the lack of education, health and retail in Bramhope - which without any current capacity or plans to provide in locally - will further drive up traffic on the A660 which already struggles to cope with existing volumes.

H4Question Ref:

site ref # 1002 - this green belt site is inaccessible without the demolition of a property(ies)in the Bramhope conservation zone- demolition of home(s) to access would change the streetscape character of Creskeld lane, recently identified for conservation by the Council.- would

increase traffic on the narrow and inadequate Creskeld lane to Arthington. - Over the past two winters, Creskeld lane has been blocked by snow, with no gritting (due to the narrowness of the lane) beyond Breary Lane East. This would “cut off” the proposed site in future.- Any

entrance to the proposed site (should property on the site be demolished to allow) would position a new junction on, or just after, a bend on a road which already is extremely narrow, increasing danger to existing pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.- The site has no local amenities and

access would be by car only with the nearest public transport being situated on the A660 a long and steep uphill walk away. Any housing on the site is therefore realistically going to be accessed by road only - driving traffic numbers higher than on a "typical" development.- The

site is home to a wide range of wildlife (bats, red kites, badgers, deer etc) and adjoined to woodland area. Development would impact negatively on the local wildlife habitat.- The site lies on a sloping topography and is located in an area of low density housing. 23 houses is an

unrealistically high number of houses to consider developing in character with the area, even if infrastructure, wildlife and other issues could be addressedTaken in conjunction with wider proposals for Bramhope (site 1080, 3367a and 3400 - all development will contribute to congestion

on the A660. This road is already extremely busy and at times it already takes 5mins plus just to cross by car e.g. to get children to the school / access the village centre.Collectively substantial development will also highlight the lack of education, health and retail in Bramhope - which

without any current capacity or plans to provide in locally - will further drive up traffic on the A660 which already struggles to cope with existing volumes.

H5Question Ref:

Sites 1080, 3377a, 3400 and 1002 (per above) all have very similar issues to site 2054 which has been coded red.These sites are comparable and should be treated consistently.Therefore site 2054 should be coded amber or the other sites (listed above) coded red.

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

See comments above re consistency of treatment of site 2054.It is a bounded site, on green belt with major accessibility and local network capacity issues.

H7Question Ref:

site ref # 1002 currently amber- this green belt site is inaccessible without the demolition of a property(ies)in the Bramhope conservation zone- demolition of home(s) to access would change the streetscape character of Creskeld lane, recently identified for conservation by the

Council.- would increase traffic on the narrow and inadequate Creskeld lane to Arthington. - Over the past two winters, Creskeld lane has been blocked by snow, with no gritting (due to the narrowness of the lane) beyond Breary Lane East. This would “cut off” the proposed site in

future.- Any entrance to the proposed site (should property on the site be demolished to allow) would position a new junction on, or just after, a bend on a road which already is extremely narrow, increasing danger to existing pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.- The site has no local

amenities and access would be by car only with the nearest public transport being situated on the A660 a long and steep uphill walk away. Any housing on the site is therefore realistically going to be accessed by road only - driving traffic numbers higher than on a "typical" development.-

The site is home to a wide range of wildlife (bats, red kites, badgers, deer etc) and adjoined to woodland area. Development would impact negatively on the local wildlife habitat.- The site lies on a sloping topography and is located in an area of low density housing. 23 houses is an

unrealistically high number of houses to consider developing in character with the area, even if infrastructure, wildlife and other issues could be addressedThe above issues are all in addition to the local highways and network capacity issues set out above.

H9Question Ref:

201 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00581

D Hoyle

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Low Moor Side Lane, New FarnleyI write to protest strongly against the above proposed building plans.We have very serious concerns which I am sure you are aware of; access onto very narrowroads which reduce traffic to almost a standstill when passing one another, shortage of schoolsin the area which would involve children travelling considerable distances to existing schoolsand, but not least, the field itself is prone to flooding which, if built on, would cause increasedproblems to those living on Castle Ings estate. The cost of remedying all the above must raisethe question of affordability.The residents of New Farnley are a small community who respect and cultivate the feeling of avillage on the edge of a large city. Our small park, Community Centre, Lancastrian Schoolroom(where Summer Fetes, Gardening Club and Craft Shows are regularly held) and narrow, quietroads; used daily by local inhabitants to walk in peace by themselves, small children on bikes,mothers with prams etc. or just walking their dogs all contribute to this feeling of a village.The result is a peaceful, pleasant and relatively stress-free environment which, I am sure youwill acknowledge, is quite exceptional when one considers the hurly-burly only 4/5 miles downthe road in Leeds City Centre! The people of New Farnley chose to live here for all the reasonsstated and wholeheartedly wish to preserve its qualities against short-sighted developers whosee any spare land as building opportunities.Additionally, I protest, loud and strong, against the destruction of any of the small conservationarea which runs alongside the proposed building area. Why, in this day and age when everyoneis much more aware of what we are destroying in nature do you propose allowing this little gemof conservation to be touched? It grows wild flowers, supports butterflies and is a haven forsmall birds and mammals - please leave it to nature and not to the greedy builders or shortsighteddevelopers.Come and see for yourselves our village, walk around, appreciate the plots of greenness whichpreserve its structure and anticipate how the building of what amounts to a medium-sizedhousing estate will end the peaceful quality of our village. The villagers have worked hard todevelop and sustain the Village Green, verges (full of daffodils and crocus in Spring) plus small,colourful gardens and tubs for all to enjoy. If the developers are allowed to build houses in thegreen field on Low Moor Side Lane then this treasured and greatly appreciated aura of ruraltranquility we call New Farnley Village will vanish completely - of this there is no doubt.GONE will be the quiet roads and the safety of walkers with small children and dogsGONE will be the peaceful environment of fields and its accompanying wildlife. In the Leedsarea, there appears to be so few pockets of such environments as can be found in our village.We will lose our identity as a village and become absorbed into the mass of city housingestatesBUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, GONE will be the precious and much appreciated ambience of arural village to which we retreat from the noise, concrete and frenzied activity which is justbeyond our environment. More people generally attract more litter, noise and vandalism.We politely but forcibly ask that our small haven of quiet, scenic roads and fields, with itsaccompanying pleasure to behold, are left for us, future generations of New Farnley residentsand visitors to enjoy.Please take all our concerns seriously and reconsider the proposed building plans on the smallfield at Low Moor Side Lane, New Farnley.

H4Question Ref:

202 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00581

D Hoyle

Representor No:

Name:


1273 -I write to protest strongly against the above proposed building plans.We have very serious concerns which I am sure you are aware of; access onto very narrowroads which reduce traffic to almost a standstill when passing one another, shortage of schoolsin the area which would involve children travelling considerable distances to existing schoolsand, but not least, the field itself is prone to flooding which, if built on, would cause increasedproblems to those living on Castle Ings estate. The cost of remedying all the above must raisethe question of affordability.The residents of New Farnley are a small community who respect and cultivate the feeling of avillage on the edge of a large city. Our small park, Community Centre, Lancastrian Schoolroom(where Summer Fetes, Gardening Club and Craft Shows are regularly held) and narrow, quietroads; used daily by local inhabitants to walk in peace by themselves, small children on bikes,mothers with prams etc. or just walking their dogs all contribute to this feeling of a village.The result is a peaceful, pleasant and relatively stress-free environment which, I am sure youwill acknowledge, is quite exceptional when one considers the hurly-burly only 4/5 miles downthe road in Leeds City Centre! The people of New Farnley chose to live here for all the reasonsstated and wholeheartedly wish to preserve its qualities against short-sighted developers whosee any spare land as building opportunities.Additionally, I protest, loud and strong, against the destruction of any of the small conservationarea which runs alongside the proposed building area. Why, in this day and age when everyoneis much more aware of what we are destroying in nature do you propose allowing this little gemof conservation to be touched? It grows wild flowers, supports butterflies and is a haven forsmall birds and mammals - please leave it to nature and not to the greedy builders or shortsighteddevelopers.Come and see for yourselves our village, walk around, appreciate the plots of greenness whichpreserve its structure and anticipate how the building of what amounts to a medium-sizedhousing estate will end the peaceful quality of our village. The villagers have worked hard todevelop and sustain the Village Green, verges (full of daffodils and crocus in Spring) plus small,colourful gardens and tubs for all to enjoy. If the developers are allowed to build houses in thegreen field on Low Moor Side Lane then this treasured and greatly appreciated aura of ruraltranquility we call New Farnley Village will vanish completely - of this there is no doubt.GONE will be the quiet roads and the safety of walkers with small children and dogsGONE will be the peaceful environment of fields and its accompanying wildlife. In the Leedsarea, there appears to be so few pockets of such environments as can be found in our village.We will lose our identity as a village and become absorbed into the mass of city housingestatesBUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, GONE will be the precious and much appreciated ambience of arural village to which we retreat from the noise, concrete and frenzied activity which is justbeyond our environment. More people generally attract more litter, noise and vandalism.We politely but forcibly ask that our small haven of quiet, scenic roads and fields, with itsaccompanying pleasure to behold, are left for us, future generations of New Farnley residentsand visitors to enjoy.Please take all our concerns seriously and reconsider the proposed building plans on the smallfield at Low Moor Side Lane, New Farnley.


203 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00581

D Hoyle

Representor No:

Name:


Ref: Site-Allocations-Plan- 2123 Low Moor Side Lane, New Farnley and Plan 1273

I write to protest strongly against the above proposed building plans.We have very serious concerns which I am sure you are aware of; access onto very narrow roads which reduce traffic to almost a standstill when passing one another, shortage of schools in the area which would involve children travelling considerable distances to existing schools and, but not least, the field itself is prone to flooding which, if built on, would cause increased problems to those living on Castle Ings estate. The cost of remedying all the above must raise the question of affordability.The residents of New Farnley are a small community who respect and cultivate the feeling of a village on the edge of a large city. Our small park, Community Centre, Lancastrian Schoolroom (where Summer Fetes, Gardening Club and Craft Shows are regularly held) and narrow, quiet roads; used daily by local inhabitants to walk in peace by themselves, small children on bikes, mothers with prams etc. or just walking their dogs all contribute to this feeling of a village. The result is a peaceful, pleasant and relatively stress-free environment which, I am sure you will acknowledge, is quite exceptional when one considers the hurly-burly only 4/5 miles down the road in Leeds City Centre! The people of New Farnley chose to live here for all the reasons stated and wholeheartedly wish to preserve its qualities against short-sighted developers who see any spare land as building opportunities.Additionally, I protest, loud and strong, against the destruction of any of the small conservation area which runs alongside the proposed building area. Why, in this day and age when everyone is much more aware of what we are destroying in nature do you propose allowing this little gem of conservation to be touched? It grows wild flowers, supports butterflies and is a haven for small birds and mammals - please leave it to nature and not to the greedy builders or short-sighted developers.Come and see for yourselves our village, walk around, appreciate the plots of greenness which preserve its structure and anticipate how the building of what amounts to a medium-sized housing estate will end the peaceful quality of our village. The villagers have worked hard to develop and sustain the Village Green, verges (full of daffodils and crocus in Spring) plus small, colourful gardens and tubs for all to enjoy. If the developers are allowed to build houses in the green field on Low Moor Side Lane then this treasured and greatly appreciated aura of rural tranquility we call New Farnley Village will vanish completely - of this there is no doubt.GONE will be the quiet roads and the safety of walkers with small children and dogsGONE will be the peaceful environment of fields and its accompanying wildlife. In the Leeds area, there appears to be so few pockets of such environments as can be found in our village. We will lose our identity as a village and become absorbed into the mass of city housing estatesBUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, GONE will be the precious and much appreciated ambience of a rural village to which we retreat from the noise, concrete and frenzied activity which is just beyond our environment. More people generally attract more litter, noise and vandalism.We politely but forcibly ask that our small haven of quiet, scenic roads and fields, with its accompanying pleasure to behold, are left for us, future generations of New Farnley residents and visitors to enjoy.Please take all our concerns seriously and reconsider the proposed building plans on the small field at Low Moor Side Lane, New Farnley.

H4Question Ref:

204 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03056

Michael Hudson

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Site reference:4046. We [x] strongly object to the building of houses on this site (vicinity adjacent to Daleside Road, Pudsey), for the following reasons:1. Tree Preservation Order (of 10 October 2008, number 66, section 198 Town and Country plannng Act 1990).2. Construction of

housing on this site will affect and reduce numbers of wild animals, flora and forna, which is enjoyed by local residents as these help to give a natural and wild feel to this built up area. Species such as bats, foxes, birds including owls, bullfinches, reptiles and insects etc are a welcome

benefit to Leeds City residents, as we are so very close to Bradford built up area.3.Reduction of ease, fluency and speed of vehicular access from Daleside Road and Chatsworth area to Leeds and Bradford Road. This is already difficult at many times, due to the volume of traffic. Access from this proposed housing site would cause too much congestion, and the risk of accidents to local residents and particularly young children who

often play near the road.4.The vicinity suffers from congestion caused by LGV and HGV vehicles loading at the premises of Northern Trade Windows Ltd. The increased vehicular traffic caused would worsen this problem further.5. This area, which acts as a buffer zone, between the

two large major conurbations of Leeds and Bradford. Overpopulation and overcrowding adjacent to this buffer zone is not desirable, as it is a much needed and highly valued leisure area and green-space. It allows residents in the wider local community a visual escape from the already highly built up densely populated areas. It is worthy of note that residents of North, East and South Leeds outer suburbs have access to vast areas of such green-space. Whereas the residents of West Leeds (and East Bradford) already have much less green space, relatively speaking; as this

area is the pinch point between the two cities. 6. Increased airborne pollution, particularly from car exhausts- such as PM 2.5 to PM 10 sized particulates, and Nitrogenous gases, carbon monoxide, contributing to reduction of quality of life and reduced life expectancy. This is because the new residents will inevitably bring more traffic, not only the new residents own vehicles, but also visitors.(scientific proof for this statement is

available on request in the context of the proven link between increased exposure to exhaust gases and the affects on health mentioned).7. It would impair the aesthetic view for existing residents, who currently enjoy an open aspect with green flora, which enhances the experience of

living in this area, creating a better quality of life.8. The proposed development would cause worry and anxiety. Existing residents will worry about reduction in house value or ease of selling.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

4046 is not suitable for use a gypsy site.

H12Question Ref:

205 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05906

Lynn Hudson

Representor No:

Name:


Gain Lane 1201Having read documents regarding the above site, i welcome the move. With careful plantations, this would prove a lovely location for new homes.I can see no problems here.

H1Question Ref:

206 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00069

P Hughes

Representor No:

Name:


1193A / 4049 - I do not agree with the houses on Rodley Lane / Calverley Lane refs: 1193A / 1193B and 4049 which is in the green belt. We have houses being built on Sandez near the River & Canal. It is bad enough crossing the road with the traffic as it is you take your life in your hands.

H4Question Ref:

1193B - I do not agree with the houses on Rodley Lane / Calverley Lane refs: 1193A / 1193B and 4049 which is in the green belt. We have houses being built on Sandez near the River & Canal. It is bad enough crossing the road with the traffic as it is you take your life in your hands.

H7Question Ref:

207 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01653

Cheyl Hulale

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

208 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02100

Thomas Hulme

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

209 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01643

Steven Hunter

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

210 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02103

S Husef

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

211 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02105

Tan Husef

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

212 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03160

Jean Ingham

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Site 3440:- Reservoir, Owlcotes Road, Pudsey:-Access to this area is from Owlcotes Road this road is already congested with traffic, so many houses have been built recently in this area.Owlcotes Road runs down to Galloway Lane & this is the only exit from the West side of Pudsey to

Bradford, Calverley & surrounding districts.I am concerned of the impact on Doctors, Dentist, Schools & Public amenities in the area.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

213 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03160

Jean Ingham

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Site 2120 Hillfoot Farm Pudsey:-If this site were to be built on, it is erroding the difference between Leeds & Bradford. The 2 Cities are merging into 1 large Urban Area. The Wildlife that lives & feeds in this area will suffer, surely we should be protecting our Wildlife, not destroying the Green Fields. This land was bought several years ago with a view to changing the land into Building Land this was opposed & we were informed that the land would not be considered again before 2016. The original house, which is not derelict, was originally a Farm House the out buildings are derelict & this has been allowed to happen as the owner obviously bought the property & land with a view to changing the land to Building Land

and making a large profit & with no thought for the environment.The area surrounding has had so many new houses built recently the roads are so congested at this west side of Pudsey, Galloway Lane is the only exit from the west to Bradford, Calverley & all the surrounding Districts.With

so many new properties being built this will have an impact on Doctors, Dentists, Schools & all other Public Amenities. I am concerned about the impact on the drainage & utility services.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

214 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03160

Jean Ingham

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 1073A Owlcotes Farm Pudsey:-I am opposed to Houses being built on this land because it is erroding the difference between Leeds & Bradford & would merge the 2 Cities into 1 Urban Area. This is farm land the Wild Life of the area would suffer if houses were built. On the lower side of Owlcotes Farm is a Bridal Path, this runs from Owlcotes Road along the top of Hillfoot & splits into different path ways further along. I am

concerned regarding utilities in this area, drainage in particular, this area falls away to the top of Hillfoot Estate.Traffic congestion in this area now is bad this would increase with any new developments. So many Houses recently have been built in this area and Owlcotes Road leading to

Galloway Lane is the only exit from the West side of Pudsey to Bradford, Calverley & surrounding districts.I am concerned with regard to the impact on Doctors, Dentists, Schools & other Public Amenities building here would have.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1073B Owlcotes Farm Pudsey:-This area is Farm land if this were to be built on the Wild life would suffer. This area is surrounded by fields & woodland & if it were to be built on would errode the difference seperating Leeds & Bradford merging the 2 Cities into 1 large Urban area.With

this land falling away steeply I would be concerned regarding drainage & utilities & the impact this might have on Hillfoot Estate.Traffic congestion in this area is bad now with all the new properties that have been built recently on this West side of Pudsey. Owlcotes Road leading

down on to Galloway Lane is the only exit from the West side of Pudsey to Bradford, Calverley & surrounding Districts.I am concerned regarding Doctors, Dentists, Scolls & other Public Amenities for this area.

H7Question Ref:

215 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01802

C Jagor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

216 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00406

Jennifer Jamieson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Road systems too congested already.Local infrastructure poor - unable to sustain anymore people.

H4Question Ref:

217 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02964

Jannette Jansen Van Rensburg

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 09 July 2013 11:55To: LDF LeedsSubject: Housing Site Allocation 4046

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the proposals to possibly using this land for housing I would like to raise the following concern. Due to the developments already in the area this is the only 'green' strip of land joining Calverley and Tyersal. It is used frequently as a wildlife corridor and hunting ground by many species of animals including both bats and several differing types of birds of prey. Last month I had a Hobby hunting sparrow fledglings in my garden (it backs onto this strip of land) and a sighting of a Kestrel flying off with some small animal in its talons.

The ground in this area is clay based so becomes both rock like in summer and marshland in winter. Houses already on Daleside Road suffer greatly with this problem and torrential rain brings flood like conditions to back gardens (free swimming pools of which I have photos of). In winter just getting to the shed can involve wellies and a great deal of luck. To remedy this problem has an approximate cost of £1000 and so the remedial work has not been carried out on most gardens. Any new builds on this site would exasperate this problem and possibly cause water damage to existing houses as the drainage area is reduced due to open land been tarmacked over. Natural water run off could potentially lead to flooding of homes in the future.

As we have just had a new development of more than 200 homes at the other side of this parcel of land, there is a need for a green space for children to play on, to walk dogs on and for people to generally enjoy. This area fulfils this criteria without having too negative an impact on wildlife in summer. As it is a muddy trail in winter it is left to dog walkers unless it snows and becomes a sledging track for the locality. Far more is gained for the local children and wildlife than could be discerned from another housing complex.

Kind Regards,

[x]

H4Question Ref:

218 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01491

David & Alma Jennings

Representor No:

Name:


We are writing to object to the site allocation plan for the former Wortley High School site (Ref —4007). We object to housing been built on the site, because the road on Blue Hill Lane is not wideenough. We already encounter road rage, bad parking and blocking of driveways due to theamount of vehicles and narrowness of the road.The local high school / college (Swallow Hill Community College) is already close to capacity withpupils. Creating more houses will only bring problems with where the children would study. Wesuggest keeping the sports fields (football pitches, basketball court, tennis court and the all weatherpitch) for the local children who live in the area, and for Local schools to use for recreation.On the site of the former Wortley High School, why not provide sheltered house for the localcommunity. The older residents of the local community don't have much choice of housing in laterlife, with only a few nursing houses in the local area. There is nothing for the older person whowants to have a bit of independence (with a bit of help) but doesn't require full time looking after in anursing home. Sheltered housing would bridge this gap and give a little something back to our olderresidents.We would like the sports fields to remain sports fields as they were built for, the amount ofrecreational land around the area, is not enough for the amount of people. Build on the Olympicspirit, let's create the next generation of sporting superstars from our own doorstop!

H1Question Ref:

219 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04947

C Jennings

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Site reference:1184Reason:It is considered that this site is one of the most suitable sites for housing development. The site is well related to the existing urban area and is close to shops and services, community and leisure facilities, public transport, education and local health

facilities. The site's contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt is minimal. Therefore, the removal of the site from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing will not materially affect the efficacy of the Green Belt in this part of the district.The adjoining

settlement has capacity for additional housing and the allocation of this site can usefully contribute to meeting the acknowledged housing requirements.Development of this site would constitute sustainable development with no significant adverse impact. The site is available as

soon as required, is developable without any insurmountable physical constraints to development, and is deliverable in the short term.Further more detailed justification will be provided in due course.

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

1184 Short

H11Question Ref:

220 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02307

Molly Johnson

Representor No:

Name:


3440 – Yet again NO HIGHWAY CONCERN together with 1073A, 1073B and 2120 (total 252 houses proposed) how can there possibly be no highway concerns? (Please refer to my comments at question 1) One of the three highest land points in PUDSEY with 180o view across Leeds and Rawdon, the vista, will be completely obliterated – for what it matters! Who cares anymore?1195 – Green belt siteno highways issues raised. Water Road cannot take any more traffic. Utter chaos reigned for months with recent developments and roads works. Can the existing infrastructure – gas, electric, water and other utilities cope with further demands. Do the trees along the boundary of the site have preservation orders- something not mentioned!!!

H1Question Ref:

221 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02307

Molly Johnson

Representor No:

Name:


1073A Owlcotes FarmSite capacity 88 – Hoe many cars per household? At least 150!Only access is from Owlcotes Road, have the have the developers and planners used this road already servicing yet a further new development on Cemetery Road, Richardshaw Lane to Galloway Lane with 13 humps and a******** surfaces. Have they (developers/planners) queued at peak, hours to access Galloway Lane/ Leeds - Bradford Road railway station and will the bus service be reviewed and up graded. How any more children in 88 houses + 1073B 56 houses + 2120 -70 houses +3440 + 38 houses, Total 252 houses. Where are the schools to accommodate the extra children and problems of car parking at school starting/finishing times? And shops? Doctor’s Surgeries? WILDLIFE – it would appear that this is now no longer an issue. Who cares obviously not a consideration? Neither are the green areas and trails used by residents but the public in general. 1073B Owlcotes FarmAt least, here good sense prevails, the area abounds in wildlife, bats a protected species, deer in the wood that starches down the ring road, Foxes and a wide variety of birds including woodpeckers. A little having in a large metropolis for country levels of city dwellers to enjoy.2120 Hillfoot Farm No Highways issues raised! UNBELIEVABLEAccess has got to be on to Galloway Lane immediate before (L) turn up Owlcotes Road next to Hillfoot Surgery. Pedestrians already struggle to cross the road to shops (including pharmacy servicing the surgery). It appears that health and safety and traffic hazards are not a problem and young and old lives are not of no consequence. SUMMARYDo planners/developers take heed of congestion already caused by parked cars on main roads and outside homes in every estate? Is consideration given to difficulties experienced by initial services – ambulances and fire engines?

H4Question Ref:

222 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04035

Clare Johnson

Representor No:

Name:


Calverley and Farsley are already deficient in terms of greenspace - we cannot afford to lose any more.further development in farsley would be unsustainable, schools are already over subscribed, queueing traffic is already a problem and would only get worse.greenspace forms a buffer

between areas, and from busy city centre areas, much of it is also high grade agricultural land

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

greenspace is impoortant for health, for the environment

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

n

G4Question Ref:

it will open up too many opportunities for greedy developers to spoil areas and make money - to the cost of residents already living in the surrounding areas

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

as before

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

everybody is entitled to access to green space

G6Question Ref:

only an objection to any development of sites 1110 at Rodley, 2121 at Calverley Lane and site 1114 Kirklees Knoll, thes should be returned to green belt or protected for the next 15-20 years, any development on any of these sites would be damaging to the area and unsustainable

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:

these are used by a number of the community including children who have the right to grow up in a healthy environment with green space and access to playing pitches

G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:

223 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04035

Clare Johnson

Representor No:

Name:


any housing would be unsustainable and traffic would be a problem

G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:

unsustainable, and too close to the school site, school children should not lose their access to green space

G11Question Ref:


G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:

already lots of development in this area

G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

224 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05905

Anne Johnstone

Representor No:

Name:


1124I am writing in connection with sites 1123a, 1123b, 1117, 1193a, 1193b and 1124. Thevillage of Calverley cannot support more housing. The two primary schools do nothave the capacity and it takes at least a week to get a doctor’s appointment. Trafficthrough the village is heavy and there is congestion on a daily basis, with no respite atweekends. We do not have sufficient shops within walking distance, so in order to carryout a ‘weekly shop’, it necessitates a car journey. Using the bus is not really viable,particularly if one has children in tow or are elderly or disabled.

H1Question Ref:

1123a1193aI am writing in connection with sites 1123a, 1123b, 1117, 1193a, 1193b and 1124. Thevillage of Calverley cannot support more housing. The two primary schools do nothave the capacity and it takes at least a week to get a doctor’s appointment. Trafficthrough the village is heavy and there is congestion on a daily basis, with no respite atweekends. We do not have sufficient shops within walking distance, so in order to carryout a ‘weekly shop’, it necessitates a car journey. Using the bus is not really viable,particularly if one has children in tow or are elderly or disabled.

H4Question Ref:

1123b11171193bI am writing in connection with sites 1123a, 1123b, 1117, 1193a, 1193b and 1124. Thevillage of Calverley cannot support more housing. The two primary schools do nothave the capacity and it takes at least a week to get a doctor’s appointment. Trafficthrough the village is heavy and there is congestion on a daily basis, with no respite atweekends. We do not have sufficient shops within walking distance, so in order to carryout a ‘weekly shop’, it necessitates a car journey. Using the bus is not really viable,particularly if one has children in tow or are elderly or disabled.

H7Question Ref:

225 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01632

Kayleigh Jones

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

226 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02070

M Jones

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

227 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05645

Richard Jones

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121As a resident of Farsley who would be affected adversely by the proposed development at KirkleesKnoll, I should be grateful if you would lodge my very strong objection to the proposed loss of thissplendid piece of open agricultural land. I ask you to note my request to return the land at KirkleesKnoll to the green belt or to leave the land as it is currently designated. We really do not need thisdevelopment on this site. Not only would it ruin a wonderful piece of countryside, but moreimportantly the issues of increased traffic, overcrowding in schools and the concreting over of yetmore open countryside is not in the interests of the residents of Farsley and the surroundingdistrict. I have the same view and objection to the proposals for building on the land on CalverleyLane, opposite Kirklees Knoll.I fully appreciate that more land is needed for housing, but this is not the best solution.

H4Question Ref:

228 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03119

Shirley Jordan

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Site 2123 Low Moorside Lane, FarnleyThis site has been designated as Amber. There would be a problem with road access and the pressure that additional houses would put on local services and facilities and I believe there is a problem with drainage.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

It will depend upon accessibility and facilities. 2123

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

229 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03337

Simon Jowett

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

2123 Low Moorside New FarnleySite has a number of springs on it and was also used for clay mining and is unstable. Local farmers no longer crop for hay as dangerous to use vechiles on it.Valuable greenspace and the numerous brownfield sites in Leeds should be used before the

'easy option'of greenfield sites.Local infrastructure is not suitable, roads in New Farnley are already crumbling due to Council neglect and affect of water run off due to springs.Schools in the area already overcrowded with children living in sight of one school being transported

miles to another.

H7Question Ref:

2123 Low Moorside New FarnleySite has a number of springs on it and was also used for clay mining and is unstable. Local farmers no longer crop for hay as dangerous to use vechiles on it.Valuable greenspace and the numerous brownfield sites in Leeds should be used before the

'easy option'of greenfield sites.Local infrastructure is not suitable, roads in New Farnley are already crumbling due to Council neglect and affect of water run off due to springs.Schools in the area already overcrowded with children living in sight of one school being transported

miles to another.

H8Question Ref:

230 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02975

Debbie Judge

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 12 July 2013 10:30To: LDF LeedsSubject: Leeds Local Development Plan - Housing Site Allocations ConsultationDear SirI recently received a letter from Cllrs Andrew Carter and Rod Wood in respect of this consultation.I have since visited the siteallocations website to review the rationale for determining sites 2120and 3440 as preferential for new house building.I have comments for both of these sites that I should like to be considered and if possibleanswered.Site 3440 appears to replace the existing service reservoir for the area and is owned and operatedby Yorkshire Water. However, there is no comment in the review from them that indicates they canremove this part of their infrastructure. Having worked within the water industry for nearly 29 yearsand understanding how this reservoir is fed and subsequently feeds this area, I would be surprisedif Yorkshire Water would permit this development to go ahead. Is this proposal currentlyspeculative?Site 2120 scores 14 across the review and is supported by the ecology officer. This doesn't makesense when site 3039 which is on the other side of Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane scores poorlyand has biodiversity comments that do not support the proposal. Bats fly around the houses onthe Hillfoot estate in the summer dusk. These are likely to be roosting in the area that the ecologyofficer appears not to have visited. The trees and hedgerows have been present in those fieldssince long before I was born and I have seen the bats through my lifetime. Site 3039 scores 3 forlocal network yet 2120 scores 5 where access is to the same road - where is the quality control todetermine this? Site 3039 scores 4 for accessibility yet 2120 scores 5. This does not appear to bea consistent scoring system. If you were in the area of the junction of Waterloo Road, GallowayLane and Owlcotes Road during the morning rush-hour, you would be queueing along WaterlooRoad and Owlcotes Road to get onto Galloway Lane. This occurs every week day morning now.To filter 70 properties worth of traffic into that queue will worsen the problem.I should be grateful if you would compare and contrast the processes arriving at the scores andassessments for these two sites and also reference back to why earlier applications to convert thesite were rejected.Regards[x]

H1Question Ref:

231 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05020

Ronald Kandall

Representor No:

Name:


We have a spouse bus service and some folks can’t get on buses that do arrive. How can we accommodate more people if houses are built? Low Moor Side Road isn’t capable of taking more traffic and not suitable place for new houses. A bad idea all round. There are not enough school places for children already in village how can be made.

H4Question Ref:

232 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04740

Helen Keeling

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I strongly object to the proposal, number 2123 (new farnley - low moor/Walsh lane). My reasons are as follows:1. The local infrastructure is not supportive of 100+ extra dwellings on this small agricultural site. Both Walsh lane and Low moor roads are not built to take the extra traffic, due to

their general construction and width. Neither road allows two way traffic.2. Both roads are used regularly by horse riders and walkers (as is the tone of this area). The extra traffic would pose a danger to all road users due to the narrow and bendy roads. Walsh Lane does not have a

footpath for pedestrian and vehicle segregation. Vision is also minimal due to local vegetation adding to this hazard.3. The site is a green field site and promotes the agricultural tone of the area, many local residents choose to live in this location due to the county feel.4. There are few

local amenities in the area which would not cope with the increase in population. 5. Local schools would not support the increase in the population.Further details to support my objection:I am part way through the purchase of a property in this area, one of the main reasons for

my pending purchase is that the property backs on to beautiful fields which horses graze in. This is very few and far between in an area so close to the centre of Leeds, please don't pass this application as it would push those people that crave this type of location and lifestyle further and further out of the centre of Leeds, which would increase urban crawl and also increase carbon emissions, which lead to pollution.[x]

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Specifically referencing 2123. See previous comments.

H4Question Ref:

Site 2123. See previous comments.

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

233 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02978

P Kellett

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 15 July 2013 15:46To: LDF LeedsSubject: Local Development Framework

[x]

15/07/13

LEEDS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – CONSULTATIONHOUSING SITE ALLOCATIONS REFs. 1110, 1114, 2121

We are writing to urge the Council to decide to put land at Rodley, Kirklees Knoll and to the rear of Beech Lees from PAS land into Green Belt or at least to retain the designation as safeguarded land.

1.There are a number of brownfield sites nearby which could be used for development and a large area on Coal Hill is currently being used in this way. Wherever possible, we feel that this type of site should be developed leaving green spaces in our community. These sites provide a ‘breathing space’ between the large urban areas of Leeds and Bradford and sustain a variety of wildlife. Kirklees Knoll in particular is good quality agricultural land which is appreciated as being part of the character of the village.

2.The roads around Farsley and Rodley are becoming more and more congested and could not cope with this volume of new building in this area. The level of pollution would also increase.

3.Local schools and medical practices are already oversubscribed.

4.Farsley and Rodley villages have already undergone more than their fair share of housing development over many years.

5.Infrastructure, drains etc. cannot cope with the continued over-development of the area.

We urge you most strongly not to allow further development on this land.

Yours sincerely, [x]

H4Question Ref:

234 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00373

D Kenyon

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Insufficient schools in this area, poor roads, obviously the more houses being built will mean lots more cars also traffic in the village.We are also aware that there are lots of wildlife within the area and bats nest and live in this area.

H4Question Ref:

1273 – We think that this area will take up the green space and spoil the walks over green fields to Farnley Park and beyond making this village overall into a small town.


235 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00379

Carol Kershaw

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - The roads near the site are narrow – not suitable for higher traffic. The local school would increase traffic at a time of high traffic in the mornings. The local school may be put under pressure by an influx of children. Would the water pressure of the existing houses be lowered?

H4Question Ref:

236 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970

Keyland Developments Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


REPRESENTATION TO THE 'LEEDS CITY COUNCIL. SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN. DEVELOPMENTPLAN DOCUMENT - ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR THE PLAN. JUNE 2013'REFERENCE 3440: OWLCOTES RESERVOIR, PUDSEY, LEEDSIntroductionKeyLand Developments is the property development business of Kelda Group. As a sister company toYorkshire Water, the Company's main activity is the redevelopment and regeneration of Yorkshire Water'snon-operational sites for business and community use.The extent of Yorkshire Water's and KeyLand's ownership at Owlcotes Reservoir in Pudsey is shown onthe attached 'Site Location Plan' prepared by Turley Associates. The area of land shaded light green atOwlcotes Reservoir is surplus and ready for development now. Upon this area of land stood a service.reservoir which was demolished in 1993. To the north of this area of land stands the operational Ow'cotesReservoir; shaded blue within the red line boundary shown on the 'Site Location Plan'. This reservoirshould become available for development in the medium term.This representation seeks to support the proposed site allocation in the emerging Site Allocations Plan, butmake it clear that the two parcels of land should be treated differently; due to the different timeframes thatthey will come forward. It is anticipated that the two parcels of land will be serviced by the same accessroad — shaded dark green on the attached 'Site Location Plan'.Leeds Unitary Development Plan. Review 2006 (Leeds UDP)In the Leeds UDP, the Owlcotes Reservoir site in Pudsey forms part of an 'Urban Green Corridor', as wellas an area of 'Other Protected Open Land'. Policy N8 'Urban Green Corridors' states that the strategicnetwork of urban green corridors link the main urban area with the countryside. The Policy goes onto statethat within these corridors development proposals should ensure that any existing corridor function of theland is retained, enhanced or replaced and that where there is potential to create a link between existinggreen spaces, provision is made for one or more corridor function.It is considered that the proposed development of the surplus land at Owlcotes Reservoir accords withPolicy N8 for the following two reasons. Firstly, the function of the land is retained because only a smallpart of it is given over to development. Secondly, the enclosed nature of the area of land is such that thereis no potential to create a link with other areas of green space.Policy N11 'Other Open Land in Built Up Areas' states that there are a number of large tracts of open landin the urban areas which represent a major visual amenity. Owlcotes Hill, Pudsey is specifically identifiedwithin the Policy. The Policy seeks to retain the open character of the land and allows buildings only forfarming or recreational uses. Development of the surplus land for housing is clearly contrary to this Policy,but is justified on the basis of the limited loss of Protected Open Land; as well as the need for housing inLeeds.Site Allocations Plan. Development Plan Document - Issues and Options for the Plan. June 2013Map 20 of the 'Site Allocations Plan — Housing Sites' gives the site the reference '3440. Reservoir, North ofOwlcotes Road, Pudsey, LS28'. The site is a green coloured housing site, which the Council considers tohave the, "greatest potential to be allocated for housing". The Council's Summary Reason for ColourCoding the site green is as follows:"The site is a covered Yorkshire Water Reservoir, within existing settlement Acceptable inprinciple for residential development. No highway concerns."This representation seeks to support this site allocation as the land is immediately available for residentialredevelopment.National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)Paragraph 47 'Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes' states that to boost significantly the supplyof housing, Local Planning Authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverableand developable sites. Foot note eleven states that to be considered to be deliverable, sites should beavailable now, offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect thathousing will be delivered. To be considered to be developable, sites should be in a suitable location forhousing and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed.The surplus KeyLand site meets the deliverable and developable guidance contained within the NPPF andit is therefore appropriate that it is included within the Council's Site Allocation Document (as well as anyassociated SHLAA Document).Leeds City Council's Need for HousingThe Emerging Leeds Core Strategy identifies a need for 70,000 new homes to be built in Leeds in theperiod up to 2030. The development of the surplus land held by KeyLand will see c.10 dwellings delivered,followed by a further c.30 dwellings in the medium term when the operational reservoir site is developed.Although a small number when compared to the overall required in Leeds, the proposed development ofthis brownfield site will help the City Council meet its housing targets.Urban Design JustificationThe southern edge of the Owlcotes Hill area of Pudsey is defined by the rear of dwellings fronting Ow!cotesRoad and by Owlcotes Road itself. This proposed development site will continue that urban character andcan be seen as a natural urban extension to the west of Owlcotes Gardens (see Site Location Plan). Inaddition, the KeyLand/Yorkshire Water site is the only one in the Owlcotes Hill area of open land that isproposed for development; representing a very small part of the overall protected area of open space.ConclusionThe proposed allocation of the Keyland/Yorkshire Water land for housing is supported. The surplus land isdeliverable and developable immediately; with the rest of the site anticipated for development in themedium term. The land is sustainably located in Pudsey and would contribute to the City Council'ssignificant need for new housing.

H1Question Ref:

237 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970


Representor No:

Name:


The extent of Yorkshire Water's and KeyLand's ownership at Owlcotes Reservoir in Pudsey is shown onthe attached 'Site Location Plan' prepared by Turley Associates. The area of land shaded light green atOwlcotes Reservoir is surplus and ready for development now. Upon this area of land stood a service.reservoir which was demolished in 1993. To the north of this area of land stands the operational Ow'cotesReservoir; shaded blue within the red line boundary shown on the 'Site Location Plan'. This reservoirshould become available for development in the medium term.

H11Question Ref:

238 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970


Representor No:

Name:


3377A1060A[See full representation for plans, maps, promotional brochure]We support the rating of site reference 3377A and 1060A, South of Hough Side,Pudsey as green. We object to the rating of site reference 3377B, 1060B and 1213 south of Hough Side as Red.

The site as submitted in the development masterplan in the promotional brochurehas been split into 5 parts by Leeds City Council. We do not agree with this approachand consider the site should have been assessed comprehensively. The site comprises 20.4 hecates and is situated to the east of Pudsey town centre. The site includes Houghside sewage works which was built in the 1890s and has been redundant since 1998. The site boundaries comprise of Hough Side Road to the north with residential dwellings beyond, to the east is Pudsey Beck with open land then residential dwellings, to the south is mainly open land interspersed with residential dwellings and to the west comprises the main urban area of Pudsey. The topography of the site falls to the south and east. Landscaping is an important feature of the site with trees and hedgerows, and a public footpath runs through the site.

The sites are currently designated as Green Belt in the adopted Leeds UDPR (2006).The site is on the eastern edge of Pudsey and approximately 1.2km from the towncente. In Pudsey town centre there are a range of shops and services such assupermarkets, banks, building societies, estate agents, hairdressers, cafes and pubs.There are also numerous community facilities including a library, churches, a townhall and leisure centre. The Owlcotes Centre is 2.1km from the site which has anASDA superstore and large Marks and Spencers. In terms of local services close tothe site, there is a Post Office, newsagents and hairdressers, 700m from the site.The site has good access to public transport, education and health facilities. The siteis approximately 1.4km away from Bramley Railway Station, where regular servicesto Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Selby and Huddersfield can be accessed. There are bus stops on Swinnow Road approximately 600m from site which is amajor bus route. The following services can be accessed:• 4 / 4A – Pudsey to Seacroft via Leeds (every 10 minutes)• 9 – Horsforth to Seacroft via Pudsey, the White Rose Centre and Rothwell (everyhour)• 62 – Crossgreen to Greengates via Leeds and Armley (every hour)• 87 – Bramley to Morley via Leeds, Middleton, East Ardsley and Tingley (everyhour)• 90 – Leeds to Greengates via Wortley (every hour after 6.30pm)• 711 – Bradford to White Rose Centre via Pudsey (every hour)• X11 – Pudsey to Leeds (every hour between 7.30am and 2.00pm)• X14 / X15 – Leeds to Pudsey via Armley and Bramley (every 15 minutes)

The site is well placed to access local schools. The nearest primary schools are ParkSpring Primary School (540m away), Swinnow Primary School (725m away) andLowtown Primary School (750m away). The nearest secondary schools areCrawshaw School, a distance of 1km away, followed by Pudsey Grangefield School,1.3km away. With regard to health facilities; there are three doctors’ surgeries in Pudsey, the closest to both sites being The Gables Surgery, 800m away on Swinnow Road.There are two dentists in Pudsey, the closest to the sites being Pudsey Dental Practice, 1.4km away on Lidget Hill.

The allocation of this site for housing development is consistent with the adopted National Planning Policy Framework. [Representation sets out NPPF policy]. The development of the site is consistent with these objectives.

The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 80 that the Green Beltserves five purposes. The table below assesses this comprehensive site in relation tothese purposes:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - Development of this site would not lead to ribbon development or isolated development. The site is well connected to the built up area.

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - Development of this site would not lead to neighbouring towns merging into one another because the site has good physical boundaries including Pudsey Beck to the east and Hough Side Road to the north.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - The site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns - The site is not within or adjacent to a Conservation Area, listed building or other historical feature. Development of this site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features.

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land - Spatial Policy 1 of the Core Strategy advises that an appropriate balance of greenfield and brownfield land will be necessary to deliver the spatial development strategy. There are few derelict and brownfield sites available within the Outer West housing market area; therefore the development of greenfield sites will be necessaryin order to meet the housing requirement in the draft Core Strategy.

[Representation sets out Core Strategy policies]. The housing distribution by housing market characteristic area for the Outer West is 4,700 which is 7% of the total housing requirement for the Leeds district. The Outer West housing market contains some of the Main Urban Area and the smaller settlement ofCalverley. Therefore it can be expected that those sites located closest to the existing services and facilities in Pudsey (within the Main Urban

H1Question Ref:

239 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970


Representor No:

Name:


Area) will be allocated to meet this housing requirement. In the Outer West housing market area the Draft Core Strategy apportions 4,700 dwellings as being required throughout the plan period. Regardless of our objections to the overall housing requirement, the Outer West has outstanding permissions and allocations equating to 1,728 dwellings, this is only 36% of the requirement. The total number of ‘Green’ sites in this housing market area has a capacity for 1,705 dwellings, some 36% of the requirement. Based on this it is clear that the Council will have to allocate a high proportion of sites not identified as ‘green’ if the allocationsare to be met. This comprehensive site includes sites identified as ‘Green’ and ‘Red’and when considered collectively offer considerable social, economic and environmental benefits. Pudsey is part of the Leeds Bradford Corridor Regeneration Priority Area asidentified on Map 5 of the Draft Core Strategy. New housing development has thepotential to contribute to the regeneration of the Pudsey area and support is prioritised in the draft Core Strategy for those development opportunities in the regeneration priority areas that have the potential to provide choice, quality and affordability of housing and stimulate private sector investment.

The development of this comprehensive site would be a sustainable extension to theMain Urban Area to the east of Pudsey. The site has strong links to the existingsettlement pattern and is well contained by Hough Side Road to the north, woodlandto the east and existing development to the west. This site does not contribute to thepurposes of including land within the Green Belt and is therefore an ideal candidateto be taken out of the Green Belt given its location adjacent to the Main Urban Area.It is in a sustainable location with good public transport links as a large number ofregular bus services to a range of destinations can be accessed within a 10 minutewalking distance. The site is also close to Pudsey town centre, shops, services,health facilities and schools.

The Masterplan submitted as part of the promotional document shows the woodlandarea to the east of the site is to be retained and reserved for ecological enhancementand nature conservation. Large areas of public open space are shown and prominenthedges are retained. Potential pedestrian links are also shown, which will enhanceconnectivity between the development site, existing residential areas and the towncentre. Appropriate mitigation measures can be achieved at this site as part of thedevelopment in order to reduce any negative effects and landscape concerns. There are no major environmental constraints that would preclude development on this site.Highways surveys have been undertaken in relation to this site which establishes thataccess can be made to the wider site.

A range of social, economic and environmental benefits could be delivered including:• Delivery of new family housing including open market homes and affordable housing• Direct and indirect construction jobs• Section 106 monies in respect of transport, education, public open space• Increased expenditure in the local economy• New Homes Bonus• Provision of new public open space

This site is considered to be achievable with a realistic prospective of being deliveredwithin 5 years. Site references 3377B and 1213 are owned by Keyland Developments. Site references 1060A, 3377A and 1060B are owned by third parties and negotiations are ongoing between Keyland Developments and the third party landowners. The comprehensive site is shown on the Masterplan and should not have been considered separately by Leeds City Council. The site is in a sustainable location, suitable for the delivery of housing as detailed in this response. There are no insurmountable physical problems or limitations and as such the site is considered to be suitable for housing and there are no known viability issues restricting the site from coming forward.

240 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970


Representor No:

Name:


3377B1060B1213We object to the rating of site reference 3377B, 1060B and 1213 south of Hough Side as Red. We support the rating of site reference 3377A and 1060A, South of Hough Side,Pudsey as green.

The site as submitted in the development masterplan in the promotional brochurehas been split into 5 parts by Leeds City Council. We do not agree with this approachand consider the site should have been assessed comprehensively. The site comprises 20.4 hecates and is situated to the east of Pudsey town centre. The site includes Houghside sewage works which was built in the 1890s and has been redundant since 1998. The site boundaries comprise of Hough Side Road to the north with residential dwellings beyond, to the east is Pudsey Beck with open land then residential dwellings, to the south is mainly open land interspersed with residential dwellings and to the west comprises the main urban area of Pudsey. The topography of the site falls to the south and east. Landscaping is an important feature of the site with trees and hedgerows, and a public footpath runs through the site.

The sites are currently designated as Green Belt in the adopted Leeds UDPR (2006).The site is on the eastern edge of Pudsey and approximately 1.2km from the towncente. In Pudsey town centre there are a range of shops and services such assupermarkets, banks, building societies, estate agents, hairdressers, cafes and pubs.There are also numerous community facilities including a library, churches, a townhall and leisure centre. The Owlcotes Centre is 2.1km from the site which has anASDA superstore and large Marks and Spencers. In terms of local services close tothe site, there is a Post Office, newsagents and hairdressers, 700m from the site.The site has good access to public transport, education and health facilities. The siteis approximately 1.4km away from Bramley Railway Station, where regular servicesto Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Selby and Huddersfield can be accessed. There are bus stops on Swinnow Road approximately 600m from site which is amajor bus route. The following services can be accessed:• 4 / 4A – Pudsey to Seacroft via Leeds (every 10 minutes)• 9 – Horsforth to Seacroft via Pudsey, the White Rose Centre and Rothwell (everyhour)• 62 – Crossgreen to Greengates via Leeds and Armley (every hour)• 87 – Bramley to Morley via Leeds, Middleton, East Ardsley and Tingley (everyhour)• 90 – Leeds to Greengates via Wortley (every hour after 6.30pm)• 711 – Bradford to White Rose Centre via Pudsey (every hour)• X11 – Pudsey to Leeds (every hour between 7.30am and 2.00pm)• X14 / X15 – Leeds to Pudsey via Armley and Bramley (every 15 minutes)

The site is well placed to access local schools. The nearest primary schools are ParkSpring Primary School (540m away), Swinnow Primary School (725m away) andLowtown Primary School (750m away). The nearest secondary schools areCrawshaw School, a distance of 1km away, followed by Pudsey Grangefield School,1.3km away. With regard to health facilities; there are three doctors’ surgeries in Pudsey, the closest to both sites being The Gables Surgery, 800m away on Swinnow Road.There are two dentists in Pudsey, the closest to the sites being Pudsey Dental Practice, 1.4km away on Lidget Hill.

The allocation of this site for housing development is consistent with the adopted National Planning Policy Framework. [Representation sets out NPPF policy]. The development of the site is consistent with these objectives.

The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 80 that the Green Beltserves five purposes. The table below assesses this comprehensive site in relation tothese purposes:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - Development of this site would not lead to ribbon development or isolated development. The site is well connected to the built up area.

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - Development of this site would not lead to neighbouring towns merging into one another because the site has good physical boundaries including Pudsey Beck to the east and Hough Side Road to the north.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - The site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns - The site is not within or adjacent to a Conservation Area, listed building or other historical feature. Development of this site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features.

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land - Spatial Policy 1 of the Core Strategy advises that an appropriate balance of greenfield and brownfield land will be necessary to deliver the spatial development strategy. There are few derelict and brownfield sites available within the Outer West housing market area; therefore the development of greenfield sites will be necessaryin order to meet the housing requirement in the draft Core Strategy.

[Representation sets out Core Strategy policies]. The housing distribution by housing market characteristic area for the Outer West is 4,700 which is 7% of the total housing requirement for the Leeds district. The Outer West housing market contains some of the Main Urban Area and the smaller settlement of

H7Question Ref:

241 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04970


Representor No:

Name:


Calverley. Therefore it can be expected that those sites located closest to the existing services and facilities in Pudsey (within the Main Urban Area) will be allocated to meet this housing requirement. In the Outer West housing market area the Draft Core Strategy apportions 4,700 dwellings as being required throughout the plan period. Regardless of our objections to the overall housing requirement, the Outer West has outstanding permissions and allocations equating to 1,728 dwellings, this is only 36% of the requirement. The total number of ‘Green’ sites in this housing market area has a capacity for 1,705 dwellings, some 36% of the requirement. Based on this it is clear that the Council will have to allocate a high proportion of sites not identified as ‘green’ if the allocationsare to be met. This comprehensive site includes sites identified as ‘Green’ and ‘Red’and when considered collectively offer considerable social, economic and environmental benefits. Pudsey is part of the Leeds Bradford Corridor Regeneration Priority Area asidentified on Map 5 of the Draft Core Strategy. New housing development has thepotential to contribute to the regeneration of the Pudsey area and support is prioritised in the draft Core Strategy for those development opportunities in the regeneration priority areas that have the potential to provide choice, quality and affordability of housing and stimulate private sector investment.

The development of this comprehensive site would be a sustainable extension to theMain Urban Area to the east of Pudsey. The site has strong links to the existingsettlement pattern and is well contained by Hough Side Road to the north, woodlandto the east and existing development to the west. This site does not contribute to thepurposes of including land within the Green Belt and is therefore an ideal candidateto be taken out of the Green Belt given its location adjacent to the Main Urban Area.It is in a sustainable location with good public transport links as a large number ofregular bus services to a range of destinations can be accessed within a 10 minutewalking distance. The site is also close to Pudsey town centre, shops, services,health facilities and schools.

The Masterplan submitted as part of the promotional document shows the woodlandarea to the east of the site is to be retained and reserved for ecological enhancementand nature conservation. Large areas of public open space are shown and prominenthedges are retained. Potential pedestrian links are also shown, which will enhanceconnectivity between the development site, existing residential areas and the towncentre. Appropriate mitigation measures can be achieved at this site as part of thedevelopment in order to reduce any negative effects and landscape concerns. There are no major environmental constraints that would preclude development on this site.Highways surveys have been undertaken in relation to this site which establishes thataccess can be made to the wider site.

A range of social, economic and environmental benefits could be delivered including:• Delivery of new family housing including open market homes and affordable housing• Direct and indirect construction jobs• Section 106 monies in respect of transport, education, public open space• Increased expenditure in the local economy• New Homes Bonus• Provision of new public open space

This site is considered to be achievable with a realistic prospective of being deliveredwithin 5 years. Site references 3377B and 1213 are owned by Keyland Developments. Site references 1060A, 3377A and 1060B are owned by third parties and negotiations are ongoing between Keyland Developments and the third party landowners. The comprehensive site is shown on the Masterplan and should not have been considered separately by Leeds City Council. The site is in a sustainable location, suitable for the delivery of housing as detailed in this response. There are no insurmountable physical problems or limitations and as such the site is considered to be suitable for housing and there are no known viability issues restricting the site from coming forward.

We welcome the fact that the Site Allocations DPD does not include any suggested phasing of sites at this stage. We maintain our overall objection to Draft Policy H1 of the Core Strategy in relation to the criteria for phasing the release of housing allocations.

H11Question Ref:

Notwithstanding the site specific comments in the later section of this representation we would like to advise caution in relation to the timing of this Local Plan Site Allocations document, given the outstanding objections to the Leeds Core Strategy, and the reliance of the Allocations DPD on the Core Strategy. That said, we understand that the Council need to progress with the Site Allocations DPD and welcome the acknowledgement in Volume 1 paragraph 4.1 that should the Core Strategy change from the current proposals the site specific proposals and allocations in the Site Allocations Plan will be amended to reflect the requirements of adopted Core Strategy.


242 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03404

Robert King

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Area 2123This area is locked on 3 sides by current residential properties in what is deemed to be a semi rural location.The introduction of new housing would cause major disruption in terms of increased traffic alone as at present there is no infrastructure/ services in place to support such a development. My own property looks over this land and at present this is a relatively quiet location with open fields. Development here would have a hugely detrimental effect on the whole of the current village not to mention the negative effect on house prices.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

See previous comments

H4Question Ref:

See previous comments

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

243 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03107

Tina Kinnar

Representor No:

Name:


n

G2Question Ref:

Although some parts of this area of Leeds have a surplus of green space, the majority of people do not live close by to green areas and often they are at the top of steep hills, which doesn't make them accessible to all.

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

Only some people are close to the greenspace, and I doubt you'd be creating more greensapce in areas where it is in deficit. Do not turn Leeds into more of a concrete jungle than it already is.

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

Improve any sites that are not up to scratch. Humans need outdoor space and greenery to live happily.

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

Humans need outdoor space and greenery to live happily.

G6Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:

There is very little greenspace in the immediate area such as parks etc, especially in the Tong Road area so these should be kept and not released as housing.

G11Question Ref:

244 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03107

Tina Kinnar

Representor No:

Name:



G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

As a long term resident in the area I miss the fact that there are no parks close by to the Tong Road/Whingate area and more should be done to retain and improve those that do exist.


245 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05094

Suzie Knight

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1193a & site 4049 - Amber to Red (Assumed)In reply to your letter regarding Rodley and Calverley's housing site allocationconsultation, I would like to go on record as having serious concerns. We are alreadyhaving a small town built on the site of the old clariant factory with little thought forschools, shops or transport. Rodley lane and the horsforth to rodley part of the ring roadand the calverley road to greengates crossroads are already a car park during rush hour,the traffic at the lower horforth roundabout increasingly backed up, traffic from rawdontowards the ringroad can take half an hour queuing just to cross the ringroad.But apparently we have room for 163 more houses, which will house double that numberof people, most of whom will have a car each and more children with nowhere to go toschool.May I ask what provisions are being made to bring services tothis increasingly overpopulated area with such limited transport links? A bus every halfhour which only runs till 10.30pm and takes 40minutes to get you to town, and no accessto a train line unless you're driving anyway.And what has happened to the green belt laws which are supposed to protect beautifulareas like this from the kind over excessive building that is being suggested?

H4Question Ref:

Site 1193b - Red Agreed (Assumed)In reply to your letter regarding Rodley and Calverley's housing site allocationconsultation, I would like to go on record as having serious concerns. We are alreadyhaving a small town built on the site of the old clariant factory with little thought forschools, shops or transport. Rodley lane and the horsforth to rodley part of the ring roadand the calverley road to greengates crossroads are already a car park during rush hour,the traffic at the lower horforth roundabout increasingly backed up, traffic from rawdontowards the ringroad can take half an hour queuing just to cross the ringroad.But apparently we have room for 163 more houses, which will house double that numberof people, most of whom will have a car each and more children with nowhere to go toschool.May I ask what provisions are being made to bring services tothis increasingly overpopulated area with such limited transport links? A bus every halfhour which only runs till 10.30pm and takes 40minutes to get you to town, and no accessto a train line unless you're driving anyway.And what has happened to the green belt laws which are supposed to protect beautifulareas like this from the kind over excessive building that is being suggested?

H7Question Ref:

246 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03766

Susan Lacey

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Sites 1110 and 2121 form important parts of the green buffer separating Farsley from CalverleySIte 1114 - Kirklees Knoll is high grade agricultural grazing land. Its loss would affect the viability of the tenant farmer's business, and be highly detrimental development to the

character of Farsley.Further to these comments, I would like to refer you to the objections page of the planning applications in view of Kirklees Knoll, where I would re-iterate my previous comments detailing a wide range of detrimental concerns to the sustainability of the area.

H1Question Ref:

Sites 1110 and 2121 and Site 1114As above please refer to planning application comments made in which I refer to my opposition of these allocations

H2Question Ref:

I believe that sites 1110, 2121 and 1114 should be colour coded green for the same reasons as previously stated in my comments to the application for housing at site 1114 Kirklees Knoll, all three of these sites are unsuitable for development and should be returned to the green belt.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1110, 2121 and 1114 should be returned to the green belt as soon as possible, the allocation of future housing developments will be seriously detrimental to the sustainability of the area. See my comments in my letter of opposition to the development of Kirklees Knoll

H4Question Ref:

1110, 2121 and 1114, reasons as given previously in this questionnaire

H5Question Ref:

No

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Unknown at this present time

H7Question Ref:

No information

H8Question Ref:

No information

H9Question Ref:

Brown field sites away from the green belt and Farsley village should be allocated for future housing

H10Question Ref:

Gypsy sites would create the same detrimental issues already referred to in my letter of opposition to development for all sites.

H12Question Ref:

No for the same reasons opposition to development has been set down in my letter.

H14Question Ref:

No information

H15Question Ref:

247 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00295

Gary Lambert

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - This site has a status PAS and supports wildlife such as bats, tawny owls, kestrels (in serious decline), hares, rabbits, foxes, redwing, fieldfare, mistlethrush and woodpecker to name but a few.The Council should, regardless of broad brush directives from the Government, be actively developing existing brownfield sites and therefore minimising the environmental impact.

H4Question Ref:

248 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03190

Claire Lambert

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Across the road at the old sandoz factory there is a site already planned for 331 dwellings, i am concerned that no extra schools are being built to acommadate this houses let alone the traffic, Rodley roundabout along with horsforth roundabout is horrendous at peak times, what is proposed to

ease this situation on adding a potential 600 cars to the mix from sandoz???We enjoy our green land around our homes and the reason we purchased our house in the first place. I would feel cheated if this was to go ahead and also worried about my childrens future for schooling.

H1Question Ref:

Site 1193aSite 1193bSite 4049For all the reasons above

H2Question Ref:

N/A

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 1193b Across the road at the old sandoz factory there is a site already planned for 331 dwellings, i am concerned that no extra schools are being built to acommadate this houses let alone the traffic, Rodley roundabout along with horsforth roundabout is horrendous at peak times, what

is proposed to ease this situation on adding a potential 600 cars to the mix from sandoz???We enjoy our green land around our homes and the reason we purchased our house in the first place. I would feel cheated if this was to go ahead and also worried about my childrens future for schooling.

H4Question Ref:

Site 1193asite 1193bsite 4049please read previos notes

H5Question Ref:

yes 1193A & 4049 for all the previous reasons

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Not at all what a ridiculous suggestion

H12Question Ref:

249 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05104

Jane Lawrence

Representor No:

Name:


[x]

Leeds City Council24th June 2013Local Development FrameworkThoresby House2 Rossington StreetLeedsLS2 8HD

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: DEVELOPMENT SITES IN CALVERLEY AND RODLEY. SITE REFERENCE NUMBERS 1117, 1124, 1123A, 1123B, 1124, 1123A AND 1123B.

I am writing to express concerns with regards to the proposed developments stated above.

There are four major issues that will have a tremendous impact on the infrastructure in the village of Calverley which will also affect Rodley. They are as follows:

1 Schools2 Traffic3 Flooding4 Amenities.

Firstly the issues with the schools it is a well known fact that some people who reside in the village of Calverley cannot at present get a place in either of the two village schools because they are oversubscribed. This also has a knock on effect to people living in Rodley as they have no local school as it was closed and at present children use the schools in Calverley.

The traffic really needs no further explanation Calverley already easily gets gridlocked without any further traffic being added to the situation.

The flooding issue cannot be ignored. Already the fields that we have cannot cope with the amount of water that flows in and around Calverley. There are springs under the houses around the area of the old reservoir which was turned into flats. This in itself caused water to run down into Upper Carr Lane. We do not need more tarmac or concrete to add to the situation. A resident in Foxholes had to dig a trench to protect his property from water coming off the fields which would be where sites 1123A and 1123B are proposed.

With regard to the amenities. At present when you ring the Doctors Surgery you cannot get an appointment unless you are at deaths door. The park in the summer is packed full when we do have some good weather. The Beavers, Cubs and Scouts are all oversubscribed. At present the play area in the park is useful for up to 8 year olds.

So unless the development plan is proposing to build another School, park, Scout Hut and Doctors surgery along with roads the villages of Calverley and Rodley cannot cope with the proposed extra development.

Yours faithfully

[x]

H1Question Ref:

250 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05104

Jane Lawrence

Representor No:

Name:


[x]


Dear Sir/Madam










Yours faithfully

[x]

H4Question Ref:

251 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05104

Jane Lawrence

Representor No:

Name:


[x]


Dear Sir/Madam










Yours faithfully

[x]

H7Question Ref:

252 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00375

John Leach

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Why build houses in a small village that has small back roads in a farming area.

H4Question Ref:

2123 - There are no school places for these homes so why build here.

H4Question Ref:

253 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS07137

Tom Leadley

Representor No:

Name:


Disagree with Council's green assessment, think the site should be red

H1Question Ref:

Disagree with Council's green assessment, think the site should be amber

H1Question Ref:

Agree with green allocation

H1Question Ref:

Site 148 - Part of the Thorpe Brickworks site, a UDP employment allocation. Much of it has gone to housing already, so the rest should follow. Remain green.

Site 1064B - Boundaries of 1064A and 1064B must be adjusted carefully to match recent Planning permission and Sec 106 agreed planted buffer. Remain green.

Site 1072 - A brownfield enclave within Green Belt, adjoining existing houses. Remain green.

Site 1143 - This group of sites forming overall 1143 would in whole or part be sprawl tending to close the gap between Tingley and East Ardsley. Also, 1143C is playing fields. All of 1143 should be red.

Site 1258 - Could be developed along with cleared working men's club site using Red Wood, otherwise Westerton Wood, as a firm rear boundary. Remain green

Site 1281B - Capacity over-stated; linked to 1281B which has outline planning permission. Look at 1064A&B to draw boundaries. Remain green.

Site 1336 - Green Belt and important in maintaining open views over Ardsley Reservoir and the South Pennines. Unlike 1258, has no firm southern boundary. Green to red.

H1Question Ref:

Disagree with Council's amber assessment, think the site should be red

H4Question Ref:

We don't believe that the large, isolated site at Tingley Station, LDF site 2127, would be suitable for housing; it was meant to accommodate large-scale employment uses which might have appeared if a supertram route had passed on its way to a terminus nearby at Blackgates on the A650. Perhaps it shouldn't have been removed from Green Belt in the UDP; it should now be marked red against housing purposes; it might have a different LDF colour coding for another use, or might remain PAS.

H4Question Ref:

Site 141 - A large late Victorian stone-built textile mill urgently in need of refurbishment; should be good for far more than 36 dwellings. Amber to green.

Site 309 - This should be green though reduced in size to match the UDP non-Green Belt enclave around Thorpe Hall, which was for employment rather than housing. Amber to green.

Site 1096 - Scope limited by railway and motorway nearby, but, unimplemented permission granted several years ago for conversion of older farm buildings. Amber to green.

Site 1099B - UDP Inspector believed 1099A & B to be undevelopable because of motorway passing on an embankment. Amber to red.

Site 1220A - Important in the Green Belt gap between Morley and Leeds. Amber to red.

Site 2036 - Close to town centre; Listed Buildings and protected trees are constraints which shouldn't be insurmountable. Amber to green.

Site 2098C - Would be a narrow extension at the edge of an estate before land falls away from the Middleton plateau. Amber to green.

Site 2127 - An unfortunate UDP PAS allocation which, if it were possible, ought to be returned to Green Belt. Amber to red.

Site 2155 - Together with 2128 and others, would be part of an incoherent sprawl linking Tingley and East Ardsley. Amber to red.

Site 3386 - Next to brownfield site 637 marked green. The two could be developed together; on edge of Leeds Main Urban Area. Amber to green.

Site 3467 - Must be co-ordinated with sites nearby and boundaries which should be drawn to reflect the recent Planning permission granted to Barratt Homes and the associated Sec 106 buffer-strip agreement. Remain amber.

Site 4029 - Needs to be red to protect employment. Amber to red.

H4Question Ref:

Disagree with Council's amber assessment, think the site should be green

H4Question Ref:

254 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS07137

Tom Leadley

Representor No:

Name:


Agree with amber allocation

H4Question Ref:

Site 1207 - Mostly in current employment use; at risk of flooding. Remain red.

Site 2095 - Needs study; northern end might be green giving enabling development and neighbours to Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monument; southern part should be red. Red to amber.

H7Question Ref:

Agree with red allocation

H7Question Ref:

The logic behind the HMCA boundaries hasn't been set out in any understandable way; it is believed that they were drawn up by outside consultants rather than council officers. We believe that the boundary of the Outer South West Hly!CA isn't rational. To help public understanding and coherent decision making, City Council ward boundaries should be followed by those of the HMCAs wherever possible; if there has to be deviation from ward boundaries, it should be explained and justified.

See rep for full details.


In our list, current UDP Protected Areas of Search (PAS sites) are additionally marked with a star before their LDF numbers. We realise that there is little prospect of any of them being returned to Green Belt during the Green Belt boundary review, despite some of them arguably having been rather ill-chosen; the legal obstacles would be insurmountable. Even so, there is a need for PAS in the LDF, and we believe that by and large what serves as PAS under the UDP should continue to do so in the LDF; such sites would be amber rather than green or red.



Leeds does have scope to expand along the northern and eastern margins of its main urban area without harmful coalescence or infilling of strategic Green Belt; the danger of undue expansion of the built up area in Outer South West is that it would push West Yorkshire towards becoming a continuous conurbation, another Birmingham or Greater Manchester, with consequent harm to quality of life and discouragement of inward investment. This would be especially so if combined with uncoordinated extensive development in nearby parts of Bradford, Kirklees and Wakefield.



If much new house building takes place in OSW, there will be a need for new primary and high schools. High schools need large sites; we believe that such sites would best be found on PAS land, to avoid large incursions into Green Belt. Many sites, especially infill, brownfield and windfall, aren't big enough to take a school even though their accumulating totals of dwellings might be quite large. Everyone should be aware that there is no presumption of housing on PAS land; its reservation is for wider strategic land supply purposes.

See rep for full details


We disagree fundamentally with the LDF claim that there is an objectively assessed need for 74,000 new dwellings within the life of the LDF.



We believe that none of the PAS land should be allocated for housing at this stage; some PAS sites might go for housing in a future five year review, others might be the only sites big enough to take schools and other extensive single uses and should be strategically reserved for that purpose. We recognise that even in a thorough Leeds-wide Green Belt review it is most unlikely that any PAS site would be returned to Green Belt.



There is particular difficulty with a group of sites on Bruntcliffe Road. A recent planning permission caused some confusion by deviating from UDP allocation boundaries; the boundaries, capacities and colour codes need sorting out. This group is made up of LDF sites 1064A red, 1064B green, 1281A lime green, 1281B green and 3467 amber. We have left these untouched.


255 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS07137

Tom Leadley

Representor No:

Name:


No explanation or justification has been put forward for the housing targets in the various HMCAs; it is unclear why Outer South West has been allocated 11% of the Leeds-wide total, whilst A ire borough and Outer North West have 3% each and Outer South has 4%.



At 10.3.1 there is a table of sites with unimplemented or part-implemented housing planning permissions. Some of these may have had the benefit of more than one permission, only one of which could be turned into bricks and mortar, so the "unimplemented" list may not be entirely realistic.



256 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05424

Helen Ledger

Representor No:

Name:


Appendix 1 33/8x Oldfield Lane N6 allocation deletion.Sport England’s statutory role and our playing field policy will still apply on this playing field site now no longer used even though this is identified in the referenced SPD. We would oppose its N6 allocation deletion as this would fail to recognise the site former use and current land use as playing fields/sport and recreation facilities.Wortley is identified as having a local deficiency in outdoor sport, something this site could help rectify. Regard has to be had to the evidence available and ensure if developed the outdoor sports facilities are replaced like for like in a suitable location.Land no longer in use for sport is not an argument for its disposal to other uses. In Sport England’s experience it is more likely this is down to the site owner closing the site off ratherthan lack of demand to make use of the playing field for sport.Furthermore, an assessment on whether other open space typologies are more suitable is required before this is lost to housing development

G7Question Ref:

The Manor, Stony Royds, FarsleyThis is a current development plan protected pitch N6 allocation. We would object to this change unless one or more of our policy exceptions are met, as set out above, exceptions E1 – E5. Land no longer in use for sport is not an argument for its disposal to other uses. In Sport England’s experience it is more likely this is down to the site owner closing the site off rather than lack of demand to make use of the playing field.

G8Question Ref:

Wortley High School, Blue Hill Lane, WortleyThis is a current development plan protected pitch N6 allocation. We would object to this change unless one or more of our policy exceptions are met, as set out above, exceptions E1 – E5. Land no longer in use for sport is not an argument for its disposal to other uses. In Sport England’s experience it is more likely this is down to the site owner closing the site off rather than lack of demand to make use of the playing field.

G11Question Ref:

Dick Lane, PudseyThis is a current development plan protected pitch N6 allocation. We would object to this change unless one or more of our policy exceptions are met, as set out above, exceptions E1 – E5. Land no longer in use for sport is not an argument for its disposal to other uses. In Sport England’s experience it is more likely this is down to the site owner closing the site off rather than lack of demand to make use of the playing field.

G14Question Ref:

257 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04418

Gaby Lees

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

This is not a yes/no question.Some of the green areas are very large - if all these are developed it will put huge strain on local schools and transport networks which are already working to (and sometimes over) capacity. It is impossible to comment further without knowing what measures (if any) the council plan to take to ameliorate this. An additional rail station at Newlay would help - as would additional school places across the area

H1Question Ref:

119937610331299A6261202for reason see above

H2Question Ref:

no

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Yes - see previous comments

H9Question Ref:

YesGypsy Traveller sites should be small with green areas for children to play and have good access to local schools and amenities. Too often they are built in industrial areas or on sites considered unsuitable for regular housing (perhaps because of flooding) and this is NOT

satisfactory.4055405633842354057all have potential for mixed housing including gypsy traveller sites. Traveller sites accomodate fewer families and have less long term environmental impact than other forms of housing and if this were explained clearly to local residents there may be less resitance to accommodating traveller sites. I assume local schools would also receive aditonal advice and support in accommodating traveller children who remain amongst the lowest attaining pupils in British schools. Perhaps if greater thought were given to creating suitable, family friendly sites, close to the best schools, this would not be the case.

H12Question Ref:

no

H13Question Ref:

possibly - but why do you want to segregate the elderly in this way?

H14Question Ref:

258 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05651

Christine & Malcolm Levi

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121We write to register our desire that these pieces of land should be kept as safeguarded land or returned to the green belt.Our primary reason for concern is on the grounds of unsustainability on the current local infrastructures, which can only be pushed tobreaking point with the addition of the recently approved development of over 500 houses on the Clariant/Sandoz site just along the ringroad. This approved development will have a major impact on the local area and community and make the any application for either/both theCalverley Lane/Kirklees Knoll sites even more unsustainable.The highways infrastructure is in our opinion completely inadequate to accommodate an additional residential dwellings, the majority ofwhich would access the sites via Bagley/Calverley Lanes, which are already existing areas of congestion and would only cause additional jamsand bottlenecks locally in Rodley and Farsley .Currently, all local schools, doctors, and dentists are at maximum capacity and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, which onlyhighlights that there is insufficient local education, health, and welfare provision for volume additional dwellings.We believe that this protected area of search land can only be considered for housing as part of the council’s new local development plan; andas such if considered unsustainable should be returned to green belt or maintained as safeguarded land.

H4Question Ref:

259 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06136

Michael Levi

Representor No:

Name:


I would like to voice my objection to the proposed building of houses on these plots of land:Plot No. 3033 - Highfold FarmPlot No.1104- Greenside FarmPlot No. 2162- Warm LanePlot No. 1211 -Gill LaneMy objections are based on the following reasons:1. Loss of Green belt-Brown field sites should be allocated first. Building on our fields is a lucrativeoption for both the council and the Housing developers, but it is our countryside and wildlife thatwill be destroyed. Furthermore it will promote urban sprawl as Leeds and Bradford continue tomerge.2. Highways-Our already congested roads cannot take an increase in traffic. The A65 andApperley Lane are often at a standstill and increased congestion will encourage "rat running".3. Lack of facilities-there is already a lack of school places and full doctors and dentists and noplans to build more.4. Heritage-Development of these green fields will have an everlasting, negative effect on thesettling of the listed buildings in this area eg: High Fold Farm, Low Hall and the conservation areaof Little London.

H1Question Ref:

260 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02519

Margaret Helen Liddle

Representor No:

Name:


2123 Low Moor Side New Farnley - Amber to Red.Why do they have to build more properties in this area. Over 40 years ago a petition was sent around the village to stop building on the butterfly sanctuary at this time there was only houses on castle ings & wolley avenue since then hundreds of houses have been built, quite enough as far as I am concerned. A much needed service is all the roads in new farnley which are in a terrible condition.

H4Question Ref:

261 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02720

Ann Lightwing

Representor No:

Name:


In principle green belt lands should not be used for housing. Morrison’s head office is situated on green lane which produces a huge amount of additional traffic particular around rush hour periods. Residents of Sunny Bank Lane have seconds to get onto the main Leeds/Bradford Road between the change of traffic lights on Gain Lane and Leeds/Bradford Road. Main Leeds/Bradford Road is always very busy. This causes extra pollution and noise. On many occasions I cannot sleep with bedroom windows open due to the sound of the traffic at night (often motorbikes). There may be limited access from development on to Sunnybank Lane which again, will cause extra pollution and noise. Public transport will become busier due to additional residents. Due to extra volume of traffic it may be necessary to change traffic light systems at the bottom of Gain Lane and Leeds/Bradford Road. I therefore oppose building on this site proposed site.

H1Question Ref:

262 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02720

Ann Lightwing

Representor No:

Name:


This building is privately owned. The factory is used to store cars. Planning permission has been applied to develop the offices at the front of the building into bathroom showroom. Houses cannot be built on a car park as this would restrict access to factory. Sunnybank Lane Is a quiet road, extra houses would create extra traffic, noise and pollution. When building new houses next to a rundown factory I personally think it will look very unattractive. Whist building is in progress the bottom of Sunnybank Lane will become muddy and my driveway will become dirty. It will be more difficult to access onto the main Leeds/Bradford Road and traffic lights may have to be built to enable ease of access building on the car park should not be allowed.

H1Question Ref:

263 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04843

Kristoffer Lilley

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Sufficient greenspace should be left untouched for the community to enjoy. Already in Farsley, Greespace has been destroyed with the development on Bagley Lane.

H1Question Ref:

Sites : 1110, 1114, 2121These sites should remain as Greenspace and not be developed for housing. They provide excellent scenery and add to the character of the area. Additionally there is already too much traffic on the roads in Farsley Village and any additional housing would add to this leading to more accidents as well as additional noise and air pollution.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Sites 1110, 1114, 2121These sites are greenspace, have always been greenspace and should remain so for the enjoyment of the residents of Farsley.

H4Question Ref:

1110, 1114, 2121These sites should remain as Greenspace as they have always been.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

No.

H12Question Ref:

No.

H13Question Ref:

Greenspace should not be disturbed. There are already too many cars on our roads and additional housing would only make this issue worse.


264 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04338

Kerry Little

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Some sites may be suitable but I can only comment on sites in my local area - see comments below

H1Question Ref:

2120As highlighted in the 'Development Plan Document' there is a an electricity pylon in the central area of the site which would restrict access to the site. Also the electricity cables hang low (tree height) across the middle of the field so this would restrict building underneath the cables, this needs to be investigated further. Also, the railway line would restrict building on the site. I would also query the impact to the highways as the only entrance and access to the site would be via Galloway Lane as traffic is very busy up to the roundabout to access the A647. The potential to build houses would impact on local amenities as the site would fall into Pudsey so potential residents would access local GP surgeries, schools extra. There are already a lot of new residential sites in Pudsey with 100+ new family sized homes so any further building which have serious implications on local amenities especially primary school places. The impact on local amenities needs to be investigated further. Also, the average price for a family home (new builds) in Pudsey are over £200k so I feel that any new housing development would be priced too high for many local people to afford. There is a need for more affordable houses for local people, again this is an issue that needs to be

investigated. There are also some conservation issues in respect of wildlife - there is a family of deer that are seen regularly in the field (at least every other day) and bats have also be seen flying in the field. The issue of bats roosting needs to be investigated further. There is also a flood

risk with the land as the field lies at the bottom of the Hillfoot estate and Olwcotes Road and is therefore at the foot of the hill. As a result of this water obviously runs down into the field and has caused flooding in the field - this is a serious issue and needs to be investigated further. Finally, there are not many open brown field sites in Pudsey as all other housing developments have been on existing industrial sites so it seems such a shame to build on an open field and the impact that this has on wildlife etc.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

2120 - long term if it is considered as a potential site but see previous reasons opposing future development

H11Question Ref:

265 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06201

Simon Lock

Representor No:

Name:


I hereby express my delight at what i consider to be an excellent proposal for newhomes off of Gain Lane.The land is of no recreational loss to anyone, and this housing would bring a new leaselife to the area.With multiple large supermarkets very close by, including GP,s, vets, sport centre, andmuch more this would be perfectly placed to bring more money in to the area. Withmany schools within walking distance, this is truly an fantastic proposal. WoodhallRoad has long been an area of fly tipping, for 20 plus years, and rubbish dumped overwalls in to the fields. At last some positive news.New family's have something to look forwards to. There own homes. Well done LeedsCouncil.

H1Question Ref:

266 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06225

Bob, Pauline, Nicholas And Christopher Lock

Representor No:

Name:


I am writing on behalf of my family of four adults regarding your proposals in your Local Development Plan for Housing Site Allocations, specifically for sites numbered 1207 [assume they mean 1201] and 4047 on your plan. We would like you to appreciate that we object to your allocation of these sites for potential housing in the most strongest terms. More ill thought out potential sites might be hard to find. The site 1207 is directly behind our property at [x], and though it is fair to say that we do not want development on this site for personal reasons, there are other factors which far outweigh our mere personal feelings :The site is part of the Green Belt corridor between Bradford and Leeds and our contention is that Green spaces in our small country should not be developed. There are a considerable number of sites either already with permission for housing development or are brownfield sites, which should be used first before consideration is given to using ANY other land. We appreciate that this Development Plan has been formulated at the behest of the Government whose statistics for new housing are driving such plans. We contend that the statistics are not necessarily accurate and that the requirements today, as determined by the Government, are often changed later. However, once building has taken place on a particular piece of land, there is no going back and the " damage " is done forever. Decisions are often taken for pure economic reasons without consideration of any wider impact.We presume you are aware of the total traffic chaos that prevails around the Thornbury roundabout, Parachute Regiment roundabout and the Ring Road roundabout at the Owlcoates Centre for a considerable part of each day. Morrisons Supermarket have recently moved their headquarters to a property on Gain Lane ................just at the side of your proposed development site................and this has brought about even more car movements. Even by building an additional tier to their car park, this has not relieved the traffic and parking congestion in the area. Now YOU are wanting, potentially, to add possibly as many as 400 vehicles to this problem, by the housing development!!!!!!!! Lunacy????????We also appreciate that the Local Authority is making an attempt to alleviate some of this traffic chaos by their recent plans for changes to the Parachute Regiment roundabout. It is our contention, however, that this plan is doomed to failure, as the " problem " is not at THIS roundabout but at the Owlcoats Centre/Ring Road roundabout. Only time will tell who is right. If it IS ourselves then greater consideration to our concerns should be given.The area of land at 4042, if it were developed, would also add to this traffic chaos.The area 1207 contains a pond and we should require confirmation that there are no endangered or protected species within it. This pond is fed by many streams and the outfall is directed somewhere towards the main Leeds/ Bradford road. We are most concerned as to where all this water would go if a development were to take place.There are bats in the area and we understand that they roost in the farm buildings at the top of Sunnybank Avenue. We do not know if the farm buildings form part of your proposed development site. If so, further consideration should be given to this matter.There is a public right of way through the site and we should like details as to how this will be dealt with in your proposals.

As officers of the City, please take a visit sometime to this part of the City and see for yourselves the immense traffic problems, of which, taking into consideration your proposals, you are totally unaware. But yet, you have a "solution " ( ?? ) as mentioned above. Were there to be some major incident along this Leeds/ Bradford corridor; as there is no other easily available route between the Cities............................... disaster????????We have not even mentioned as yet the issues of doctors, dentists, schools etc etc that an influx of all the people in the 196 units that are proposed would require. Presumably you have this matter well in hand????To sum up......................we feel that sites 1207, 4047 and 649 should not be considered for housing development at this time, and should be designated NOT suitable for housing.

H1Question Ref:

Although site 649 does not directly affect us, this site is on the VERY edge of the biggest traffic problem of the area, namely the Ring Road/ Owlcoates Centre roundabout. Building here is guaranteed to bring even more traffic chaos, if this were possible!!!!As officers of the City, please take a visit sometime to this part of the City and see for yourselves the immense traffic problems, of which, taking into consideration your proposals, you are totally unaware. But yet, you have a "solution " ( ?? ) as mentioned above. Were there to be some major incident along this Leeds/ Bradford corridor; as there is no other easily available route between the Cities............................... disaster????????We have not even mentioned as yet the issues of doctors, dentists, schools etc etc that an influx of all the people in the 196 units that are proposed would require. Presumably you have this matter well in hand????To sum up......................we feel that sites 1207, 4047 and 649 should not be considered for housing development at this time, and should be designated NOT suitable for housing.


267 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06750

Michael Long

Representor No:

Name:


1. Housing SitesIn order to assess the site we have considered the following accessibility criteria:• Access to the Core Bus Network- within 400m of 4 buses per hour to Leeds, Wakefield or Bradford;• 20 minutes to primary health;• 20 minutes to primary education;• 30 minutes to a secondary school.The assessments undertaken are based on the current public transport network. For this consultation Metro have compared the outputs of these accessibility criteria against the RAG classifications given by the council. The results for the housing sites are shown in proceeding tables:Table 1 -Green sites with poor accessibilityTable 2- Amber sites with poor accessibilityTable 3- Red sites with poor accessibilityTable 4- Green and Amber Sites within the Core Public Transport NetworkTable 5- Red Sites within the Core Public Transport Network [See full representation submitted for details of the tables]

Green Sites outside the Core Public Transport NetworkTable 1 below contains sites that are classified as 'Sites which have potential to be allocated for housing' but fall outside 400m of the current core bus network. Consideration needs to be given to if these sites would be able to meet the LDF public transport accessibility requirements should housing be brought forward. Significant developer contributions will be required at these sites to improve the public transport to meet the council LDF accessibility policies; particularly in the larger sites should these be brought forward for development. These include SHLAA ref: 2062, 1032, 1046, 1017 & 1055.Sites which fall marginally outside the 400m catchments and have high bus frequencies or are small sites low capacity are less of concern but are flagged up nonetheless.The table also includes accessibility assessments results to access other services and facilities within acceptable journey times on public transport.

[see table in full representation submitted which lists sites]

H1Question Ref:


Amber Sites outside the Core Public Transport NetworkTable 2 below contains sites that are classified as 'Sites which have potential but issues or not as favoured as green sites' but fall outside 400m of the current core bus network. Consideration needs to be given to if this site would be able to meet the LDF public transport accessibility requirements should housing be brought forward. We are be minded to recommend that these site were not prioritised for housing until other more accessible site have been considered. Sites which fall marginally outside the 400m catchments and have high bus frequencies or are small low capacity sites are less of concern but are flagged up nonetheless.


H4Question Ref:

268 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06750

Michael Long

Representor No:

Name:



Red Sites outside the Core Public Transport NetworkTable 3 below contains sites that are classified as 'Sites not considered suitable for allocation for housing' and fall outside 400m of the current core bus network. Consideration needs to be given to if this site would be able to meet the LDF public transport accessibility requirements should housing be brought forward. We agree that these sites would not be suitable for housing development.


H7Question Ref:

Metro have assisted the council in providing accessibility assessment mapping for the all the site allocations in the consultation. The following tables provide a summary of the accessibility ·analysis undertake for the housing and employment allocations. [See representation submitted for details of the tables referred to]. The assessments are intended to give a strategic overview of the accessibility of the allocations. Detailed site by site analysis would still be required as if these sites are brought forward for development.General CommentsMetro encourages developments to be located close to the existing public transport network. By locating developments close to existing public transport, sustainable travel becomes a more realistic alternative to the car. The LDF policy on accessibility promotes this approach and places an expectation on developers to improve public transport services to a minimum level if they locate away from the core network. By allocating sites that are located in accessible areas, the cost to developers, in terms of public transport mitigation, on the whole, will be reduced.However, we recognise that some land allocations outside this the core public transport network will inevitably be required. The challenge is to ensure that where inaccessible sites are selected, the public transport network can be enhanced to accommodate the prop·osed developments through the commercial network or through developer subsidy (through section 106 payments).


269 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06750

Michael Long

Representor No:

Name:


2. Employment SitesA basic accessibility assessment has been undertaken for the Employment sites. In order to assess the site we have considered the following accessibility criteria:• Access to the Core Bus Network - within 400m of 4 buses per hour to Leeds, Wakefield or Bradford;The RAG approach we have added is based on the proximity to the core bus network:• Green - Sites within 400 metres from the core network;• Amber- Sites between 401 and 600 metres from the core network;• Red - Sites over 600 metres from the core network.It should be noted that the RAG assessment is based on the current network and should be used as an indication of the sites accessibility. A number of the larger sites are inevitably classed as Red due the size of the allocation (over 400m) and due to the fact the existing uses do not require bus services (i.e. they are Greenfield site). Where Amber and Red sites are brought forward, there will be an expectation of thedeveloper to raise public transport levels to accessibility levels set out in the LDF policy i.e. 4 buses per hour to Leeds, Wakefield or Bradford.

[See representation submitted for full details and table of sites. This rep no. is linked to sites in Outer West]

E1Question Ref:



E3Question Ref:

Metro have assisted the council in providing accessibility assessment mapping for the all the site allocations in the consultation. The following tables provide a summary of the accessibility ·analysis undertake for the housing and employment allocations. The assessments are intended to give a strategic overview of the accessibility of the allocations. Detailed site by site analysis would still be required as if these sites are brought forward for development.General CommentsMetro encourages developments to be located close to the existing public transport network. By locating developments close to existing public transport, sustainable travel becomes a more realistic alternative to the car. The LDF policy on accessibility promotes this approach and places an expectation on developers to improve public transport services to a minimum level if they locate away from the core network. By allocating sites that are located in accessible areas, the cost to developers, in terms of public transport mitigation, on the whole, will be reduced.However, we recognise that some land allocations outside this the core public transport network will inevitably be required. The challenge is to ensure that where inaccessible sites are selected, the public transport network can be enhanced to accommodate the prop·osed developments through the commercial network or through developer subsidy (through section 106 payments).





270 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01788

Katt Love

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

271 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01790

John Love

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

272 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05217

Andy Lowe

Representor No:

Name:


I write to object in the strongest terms to the proposalto build new housing around Calverley village. Namely atthe following sites; 1117,1123a,1123b,1193b,1193a.This is green belt land and should never be built upon.Furthermore, the small amount of green space between theLeeds ring road and the Harrogate Road as it crossesgreengages is all that is left preventing the conurbationsof Bradford and Leeds becoming one continuous urbansprawl. We should not build over the last few pieces ofopen space between these two very different cities.Lastly these proposed sites are not only beautiful greenspaces but home to what is left of the local nature, andan important habitat for birds, squirrels, deer, badger,owls and bats to name but a few.

H4Question Ref:

I write to object in the strongest terms to the proposalto build new housing around Calverley village. Namely atthe following sites; 1117,1123a,1123b,1193b,1193a.This is green belt land and should never be built upon.Furthermore, the small amount of green space between theLeeds ring road and the Harrogate Road as it crossesgreengages is all that is left preventing the conurbationsof Bradford and Leeds becoming one continuous urbansprawl. We should not build over the last few pieces ofopen space between these two very different cities.Lastly these proposed sites are not only beautiful greenspaces but home to what is left of the local nature, andan important habitat for birds, squirrels, deer, badger,owls and bats to name but a few.

H7Question Ref:

273 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02108

Gill Lych

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

274 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05965

G Lythe & Family

Representor No:

Name:


1195We note that our client’s land is referenced as site 1195. As such it is identified to be one of the “Sites which have greatest potential to be allocated for housing”. We support this categorisation and agree development of the site is suitable, available and deliverable.Impact on Green BeltThe site is currently bounded by existing residential development to the north and east, and there is sporadic development to the south. The site is well contained by trees to the south, which act as an appropriate land feature to define the outer edge of the site and create a strong defensible boundary. The defensible boundary is further defined by the change of topography along the southern boundary of the site, which slopes steeply into the valley of Tyersal Beck. On this basis, the Council is correct to suggest the site “is well contained by trees along the boundary and this limits the potential for unrestricted sprawl into the Green Belt.” This conclusion is also consistent with the Council’s views of the site when it was included as an allocation in the draft Leeds Unitary Development Plan. In the draft Leeds UDP, the site was allocated for development along with land to the east under reference H4:30. The allocation included details of the requirement for a landscaping scheme to enhance existing trees, shrubs, stone walls bordering the site, with particular attention along the Green Belt boundary.

HighwaysThe Council is also correct to conclude that the “site has a road frontage. No Highways issues raised.” The site has previously been the subject of discussions with the Council’s Highways Department. The discussions led to an appropriate junction being designed onto Waterloo Road that meets necessary highways standards. Furthermore, internal access arrangements to serve the proposed dwellings can be met satisfactorily.

DensityWe are in the process of designing an appropriate layout for the scheme that will confirm the capacity for the site taking into account all necessary developer contributions and current design standards. The purpose of the exercise is because the draft UDP allocation was for 20 dwellings and we note the Council is now suggesting 35 dwellings. Both of these densities have been informed by assumptions set out in national planning guidance rather than the actual capacity of the site taking into account more detailed considerations including provision for affordable housing and open space on site. We will provide information on density and layout in due course.

Public Right of WayDevelopment of the site should not affect any established Public Rights of Way, including the Bridleway along Bradley Lane and the footpath south of the site.

UtilitiesWe can confirm necessary utilities are available to the site. We do not expect there to be any capacity issues with any of the services, including drainage.

Flood RiskThe site is in flood risk zone 1, which means that in principle residential development is acceptable.

SustainabilityThe site is on the edge of Pudsey, which is an established settlement within Leeds. Pudsey has all necessary services and facilities to serve existing and new residents, including schools, health services, sports facilities and shops. There is also a train station. There is a bus stop adjacent to the site and also on the opposite side of the road to the site, which provide direct and regular services into Pudsey and Leeds City Centre. The number of units proposed is not disproportionate to the size of settlement and is therefore unlikely to cause any adverse impact on Pudsey. Confirmation that there are no highways matters also demonstrates the scheme will not cause any significant detrimental impact on the highways network.

DeliverabilityA planning application has previously been drafted and submitted to Leeds City Council for a residential development proposal, which included details of all necessary developer contributions, and details of Highways improvements, landscaping and drainage. The application was subject to discussions with Officers at the time. Officers appear to have been satisfied the proposal was acceptable and development was appropriate. Unfortunately, circumstances changed because the UDP Inspector recommended the site should not be removed from the Green Belt at that point in time. It meant the application had to be withdrawn. The planning application demonstrates the proposal was deliverable and all the detailed matters were found acceptable. We see no reason why this should have changed given no new prohibitive costs have been identified and there are no new physical constraints preventing development. Furthermore, all detailed considerations can be satisfactorily addressed.

AvailabilityWe wish to stress that the site is available for development immediately. My client wishes to progress a planning application at the earliest opportunity.

SuitabilityThe site is an isolated and self-contained field that is not best or most versatile agricultural land. Development of the site will therefore see more productive use of a single parcel of land that is already bounded by residential development within an established settlement. The only matter which stands in the way of development is the Green Belt designation which is merely a policy constraint rather than a more significant physical or nature conservation constraint.

CONCLUSIONWe support the allocation of site 1195 for residential development. In principle, the site is suitable for development and we believe the site to be deliverable. We see no reason why the site should not be allocated for development in the draft Site Allocations Plan. Especially as the Council has identified that it is suitable for development.

H1Question Ref:

275 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05000

G Lythe

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:





H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

1195 Short

H11Question Ref:

276 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02966

Jonathan Mackey

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 11 July 2013 15:40To: LDF LeedsSubject: Housing site allocations - 1117 and 1193aI am writing to express my strong agreement that site 1117 is not suitable forhousing. The site represents the tiny amount of Green Belt remaining thatseparates the two major cities of Leeds and Bradford at this point. It also providesan historic access route from Calverley village to the river and Canal. Its losswould be significant to a large number of residents.Site 1193a also forms part of the Green Belt that gives Calverley its separateidentity. If the Green Belt separation is reduced that identity and the village'sconservation status will be eroded.Regards[x]

H4Question Ref:

[x]Sent: 11 July 2013 15:40To: LDF LeedsSubject: Housing site allocations - 1117 and 1193aI am writing to express my strong agreement that site 1117 is not suitable forhousing. The site represents the tiny amount of Green Belt remaining thatseparates the two major cities of Leeds and Bradford at this point. It also providesan historic access route from Calverley village to the river and Canal. Its losswould be significant to a large number of residents.Site 1193a also forms part of the Green Belt that gives Calverley its separateidentity. If the Green Belt separation is reduced that identity and the village'sconservation status will be eroded.Regards[x]

H7Question Ref:

277 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02966

Jonathan Mackey

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1193a also forms part of the Green Belt that gives Calverley its separateidentity. If the Green Belt separation is reduced that identity and the village'sconservation status will be eroded.

H4Question Ref:

I am writing to express my strong agreement that site 1117 is not suitable forhousing. The site represents the tiny amount of Green Belt remaining thatseparates the two major cities of Leeds and Bradford at this point. It also providesan historic access route from Calverley village to the river and Canal. Its losswould be significant to a large number of residents.

H7Question Ref:

278 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02088

Hollie Magee

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

279 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02088

Hollie Magee

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

280 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02090

A Magee

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

281 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06414

C Makin

Representor No:

Name:


3081APegasus strongly support the identification of site 3081A as a green site representing land most suitable site to consider allocating for future housing development in the Outer South Market Character Area. Site 3081 should be included wholly within a single market character area. The entirety of the site is physically and visually linked to Robin Hood so should be considered within the relevant housing character area of this settlement.

Site CharacteristicsThe total site area of land at Hope Farm is 30 hectares (75 acres). This includes land forming a ‘buffer’ area along the motorway corridor outside the extent of the proposed residential development area (see submitted Vision Document). The predominate use of the site is for arable crop growing. Hope Farm farmhouse and various redundant farm buildings are located to the immediate west of Middleton Avenue, accessed from Wakefield Road. The land is bounded by the M1/M621 corridor to the west, Sharp Lane to the south and the A61 Wakefield Road to the east. To the north are residential properties and recreational land off Middleton Lane. North west of the site extending northwards is further arable land associated with Hope Farm (see Figure 1). The character of the area is defined by the residential uses which surround the site to three sides. The motorway corridor and associated infrastructure dominates the landscape to the west.

Unrestricted Sprawl- Would the development of the site lead to ribbon development? – No. The development of the site would not be ‘ribboned’ – it would not radiate away from the settlement in a lineal or sprawling manner. The residential area at Glebe Crescent/Middleton Avenue to the north and the development at Jarvis Walk to the south protrude westwards encroaching towards the motorway corridor. Development on the site would infill the gap between this existing built form.- Would the development of the site result in isolated development not connected to existing boundaries? - No. Land at Hope Farm is contained on three sides by built form. The urban edge setting; the dominance of and proximity to the motorway corridor; the influence of human activity, and the surrounding road network all contribute to the site being contained.- Is the site is well connected to the built up area? – Yes. Land at Hope Farm is well related and linked to Robin Hood. Given the particular characteristics of the site and its containment the potential for sprawling form into open countryside is considered to be low.- Would development of the site effectively round off the settlement pattern? - Yes. Development on the site would infill the gap between the existing built form to the north and south. - Do natural or physical features provide an existing barrier between the existing the urban area of Robin Hood and undeveloped land? - No. There are no strong physical boundaries between the urban edge and the site. It has long stretches of road frontage to both Wakefield Road and Sharp Lane thus it is easily accessible and visible from urban area of Robin Hood.- Summary - We strongly support the authority’s assessment that the site has low potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl.

Merging of Settlements- Would development lead to physical connection of settlements? - No. The development of the site would not lead to the merger of Robin Hood with another settlement. The western extent of the urban edge of Robin Hood is presently defined by development at Middleton Avenue and Jarvis Walk and also by the farm complex of Hope Farm. Development would better incorporate these outlying residential areas, effectively ‘rounding off’ the settlement pattern in the north west of the settlement.- Do natural / physical features provide a good existing barrier to contain development? Yes. The M1/M621 corridor forms a strong, permanent, defensible barrier to enclose development at land at Hope Farm. The Farm complex and Middleton Avenue define the extent of built form to the north and north west. Significant opportunities for landscape enhancement to the motorway corridor exist to further define this barrier.- Summary - The development of the site will not result in the merging of Robin Hood with another settlement. The site also benefits from readily recognisable and permanent physical boundaries that define the western extent of the site. It is therefore our view that the development of the site will not lead to coalescence.

Countryside encroachment- Is there a strong defensible boundary between the existing urban area and the site? – No. There are no strong physical boundaries between the urban edge and the site. It has long stretches of road frontage to both Wakefield Road and Sharp Lane with minimal boundary treatments.- Does the site provide access to the countryside? - No. There are no public rights of way through the site. A public bridleway exists along the northern boundary providing access between Robin Hood and Belle Isle via a motorway underpass. Opportunities exist to improve connectivity between the existing urban area of Robin Hood to areas of greenspace within the site. The site can also serve to improve pedestrian and cycle links to the existing Strategic Green Infrastructure Network beyond the motorway to the west byproviding safe and legible routes to the designated bridleway. Land at Hope Farm is not a designated park or greenspace.- Does the site include local or national conservation designated areas? – No.- Does the site include protected woodlands/trees/hedgerow or significant unprotected tree/hedge cover? – No. - Does the site include Grade 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land? – Yes.- Does the site contain buildings? - Yes. The site contains the farmhouse at Hope Farm and a variety of redundant farm buildings. In addition to these buildings the site contains a double row of high voltage electricity pylons running north to south close to the western boundary of the site following the M1 corridor.- Are these in agricultural use? - Yes. A residential unit is also present on the site (Hope Farmhouse) - Summary - The site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside in this part of the district from encroachment.

Historic Character - Is the site adjacent to a conservation area, listed building or other historic feature? If yes, could development preserve the character of this asset? - No. There are no designated heritage assets within the site. The nearest listed building is the Clock Tower at St George’s Hospital approximately 1km away. The nearest Conservation Area is at Rothwell approximately 1.5km to the east.

Overall green belt ConclusionsThe selective Green Belt review in the Leeds district is justified by exceptional circumstances to meet an overriding need for housing development. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that authorities should take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The Green Belt Assessment for land at Hope Farm demonstrates that the site can make a significant contribution to meeting the development land supply needs in a sustainable way which would be least damaging to the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt.

Access, Highways & AccessibilityThe relationship of the site with the urban area of Robin Hood will allow people to undertake day-to-day activities by sustainable modes of travel.

H1Question Ref:

282 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06414

C Makin

Representor No:

Name:


A range of bus services are readily accessible from the immediate road network surrounding the site. Service 110, for example, stops on Wakefield Road on the site boundary with buses every 10 minutes getting into Leeds within a 15 minute journey time.

A range of local facilities are available within walking and cycling distance in Robin Hood. These include a primary school, secondary school, convenience shop, Post Office, pharmacy, doctors, Public Houses, food takeaways, petrol filling station and hairdressers. A wider range of services are also available at nearby Rothwell and Belle Isle/Middleton. The site is also of an appropriate scale and location to offer the opportunity for ancillary non-residential uses for which there may be a local need to improve social sustainability. Such opportunities can be explored further through the advancement of the Plan process. We support the access ranking in the Site Assessment. Robin Hood is a settlement strategically placed on the highway network. Utilising the site’s existing connections to the strategic highway network and to the main urban area we can create new infrastructure connections to provide appropriate, permeable and safe access into the site for private cars and for cyclists and pedestrians. This will include two priority junctions: one from the A61 Wakefield Road; and one from Sharp Lane. The external network capacity effects have been assessed through feasibility work. No major transport infrastructure is required. The site will provide for improvements to the off-site highway network, and to pedestrian, cycle and public transport provision in compliance with the Authority’s requirements. We do not share the Highway Agency’s view that it is “likely to require significant physical mitigation.”

BiodiversityThe site does not comprise a statutory or non-statutory designated ecological site. It has low overall ecological value due to the intensive arable use.

Land at Hope Farm – Drainage & UtilitiesThe site is located within Flood Zone 1. As such there are no reasonably available sites for residential development with a lower probability of flooding than land at Hope Farm (NPPF, para 101). Flood risk and drainage matters have been assessed through feasibility work. The development of land at Hope Farm will avoid increased vulnerability to flood risk impacts of climate change. The site is capable of supporting a robust sustainableurban drainage system.

Built HeritageThere are no designated heritage assets within the site. The nearest listed building is the Clock Tower at St George’s Hospital approximately 1km away. The nearest Conservation Area is at Rothwell approximately 1.5km to the east.

SummaryIt is our view is that opportunities exist to achieve sustainable development at land at Hope Farm and we welcome the authority’s favourable assessment of the site. We note that the site has been split and that the most westerly 8ha of the site (3081B – falling within the Inner Market Character Area) has been rejected for the reason that it is “not well related to the urban area and no existing defensible boundary. Development would constitute urban sprawl”. Notwithstanding our comments above and in regard to the delineation of Market Character Areas (Section 4), our proposals provide a comprehensive framework for the whole of site 3081 to achieve development needs in a sustainable way which would be least damaging to the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt, and which promote opportunities to enhance the landscape character of the motorway corridor.

As demonstrated above and in the accompanying Vision Document [see representation], the site is not subject to any technical or environmental constraints that would prevent it from coming forward and is achievable without significant adverse environmental impacts (NPPF, para 152). Its allocation would be in conformity with the spatial development strategy in the Core Strategy and would ensure the long term sustainable growth of Robin Hood/Lofthouse.

129A Main Street, Carlton - The lack of suitable access is a constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability. The need to access the site through adjacent land presents deliverability questions. Until such time as this can be resolved the site cannotbe considered one of the most suitable sites in the Market Character Area.

3445A Leadwell Lane, Robin Hood. It is recognised that part of this site has the potential to infill the frontage of Leadmill Lane. It is not considered, however, that development should extend further east or north than 146 Leadmill Lane. The Green Belt in this location is open and there is no defined boundary to the north and east of the site which would contain development or prevent it from encroaching towards Rothwell. The potential forsprawl and coalescence is considered to be greater than low.

3085 The Grange, Leeds Road. We would question whether the assessment is correct in stating that the site is surrounded on three sides by development. Residential uses exist to the south and west but apart from a cul-de-sac at the junction of Green Lane and Cemetery Lane to the south east corner, no development exists to the eastern or northernboundaries of the site. There is no strongly defined boundary to the north. The Site Assessment concludes that there is high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl. Furthermore the topological character of site 3085 is such that it is prominent to the north west thus the perceived impact of development sprawl and encroachment towards Carlton would be heightened. We would therefore question the overall effect on Green Belt purposes. Incorrect site area given in Site Assessment (3.91).

H2Question Ref:

283 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06414

C Makin

Representor No:

Name:


3081BIt is noted that the western extent of land at Hope Farm (3081B) has been identified as red (falling within the Inner Housing Market Area). Please refer to the submitted Vision Document[see representation] which presents a comprehensive framework for site 3081 to achieve development needs in a sustainable way which would be least damaging to the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt. Site 3081 should be included wholly within a single market character area. The entirety of the site is physically and visually linked to Robin Hood so should be considered within the relevant housing character area of this settlement.

Our client’s landownership extends to the entirety of the agricultural holding at Hope Farm. A plan of my client’s land ownership is shown below [see representation].

Site CharacteristicsThe total site area of land at Hope Farm is 30 hectares (75 acres). This includes land forming a ‘buffer’ area along the motorway corridor outside the extent of the proposed residential development area (see submitted Vision Document). The predominate use of the site is for arable crop growing. Hope Farm farmhouse and various redundant farm buildings are located to the immediate west of Middleton Avenue, accessed from Wakefield Road. The land is bounded by the M1/M621 corridor to the west, Sharp Lane to the south and the A61 Wakefield Road to the east. To the north are residential properties and recreational land off Middleton Lane. North west of the site extending northwards is further arable land associated with Hope Farm (see Figure 1). The character of the area is defined by the residential uses which surround the site to three sides. The motorway corridor and associated infrastructure dominates the landscape to the west.

Unrestricted Sprawl- Would the development of the site lead to ribbon development? – No. The development of the site would not be ‘ribboned’ – it would not radiate away from the settlement in a lineal or sprawling manner. The residential area at Glebe Crescent/Middleton Avenue to the north and the development at Jarvis Walk to the south protrude westwards encroaching towards the motorway corridor. Development on the site would infill the gap between this existing built form.- Would the development of the site result in isolated development not connected to existing boundaries? - No. Land at Hope Farm is contained on three sides by built form. The urban edge setting; the dominance of and proximity to the motorway corridor; the influence of human activity, and the surrounding road network all contribute to the site being contained.- Is the site is well connected to the built up area? – Yes. Land at Hope Farm is well related and linked to Robin Hood. Given the particular characteristics of the site and its containment the potential for sprawling form into open countryside is considered to be low.- Would development of the site effectively round off the settlement pattern? - Yes. Development on the site would infill the gap between the existing built form to the north and south. - Do natural or physical features provide an existing barrier between the existing the urban area of Robin Hood and undeveloped land? - No. There are no strong physical boundaries between the urban edge and the site. It has long stretches of road frontage to both Wakefield Road and Sharp Lane thus it is easily accessible and visible from urban area of Robin Hood.- Summary - We strongly support the authority’s assessment that the site has low potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl.

Merging of Settlements- Would development lead to physical connection of settlements? - No. The development of the site would not lead to the merger of Robin Hood with another settlement. The western extent of the urban edge of Robin Hood is presently defined by development at Middleton Avenue and Jarvis Walk and also by the farm complex of Hope Farm. Development would better incorporate these outlying residential areas, effectively ‘rounding off’ the settlement pattern in the north west of the settlement.- Do natural / physical features provide a good existing barrier to contain development? Yes. The M1/M621 corridor forms a strong, permanent, defensible barrier to enclose development at land at Hope Farm. The Farm complex and Middleton Avenue define the extent of built form to the north and north west. Significant opportunities for landscape enhancement to the motorway corridor exist to further define this barrier.- Summary - The development of the site will not result in the merging of Robin Hood with another settlement. The site also benefits from readily recognisable and permanent physical boundaries that define the western extent of the site. It is therefore our view that the development of the site will not lead to coalescence.

Countryside encroachment- Is there a strong defensible boundary between the existing urban area and the site? – No. There are no strong physical boundaries between the urban edge and the site. It has long stretches of road frontage to both Wakefield Road and Sharp Lane with minimal boundary treatments.- Does the site provide access to the countryside? - No. There are no public rights of way through the site. A public bridleway exists along the northern boundary providing access between Robin Hood and Belle Isle via a motorway underpass. Opportunities exist to improve connectivity between the existing urban area of Robin Hood to areas of greenspace within the site. The site can also serve to improve pedestrian and cycle links to the existing Strategic Green Infrastructure Network beyond the motorway to the west byproviding safe and legible routes to the designated bridleway. Land at Hope Farm is not a designated park or greenspace.- Does the site include local or national conservation designated areas? – No.- Does the site include protected woodlands/trees/hedgerow or significant unprotected tree/hedge cover? – No. - Does the site include Grade 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land? – Yes.- Does the site contain buildings? - Yes. The site contains the farmhouse at Hope Farm and a variety of redundant farm buildings. In addition to these buildings the site contains a double row of high voltage electricity pylons running north to south close to the western boundary of the site following the M1 corridor.- Are these in agricultural use? - Yes. A residential unit is also present on the site (Hope Farmhouse) - Summary - The site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside in this part of the district from encroachment.

Historic Character - Is the site adjacent to a conservation area, listed building or other historic feature? If yes, could development preserve the character of this asset? - No. There are no designated heritage assets within the site. The nearest listed building is the Clock Tower at St George’s Hospital approximately 1km away. The nearest Conservation Area is at Rothwell approximately 1.5km to the east.

Overall green belt ConclusionsThe selective Green Belt review in the Leeds district is justified by exceptional circumstances to meet an overriding need for housing development. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that authorities should take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The Green Belt Assessment for land at Hope Farm demonstrates that the site can make a significant contribution to meeting the development land supply needs in a sustainable way which would be least damaging to the purposes and

H3Question Ref:

284 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06414

C Makin

Representor No:

Name:


integrity of the Green Belt.

Access, Highways & AccessibilityThe relationship of the site with the urban area of Robin Hood will allow people to undertake day-to-day activities by sustainable modes of travel. A range of bus services are readily accessible from the immediate road network surrounding the site. Service 110, for example, stops on Wakefield Road on the site boundary with buses every 10 minutes getting into Leeds within a 15 minute journey time.

A range of local facilities are available within walking and cycling distance in Robin Hood. These include a primary school, secondary school, convenience shop, Post Office, pharmacy, doctors, Public Houses, food takeaways, petrol filling station and hairdressers. A wider range of services are also available at nearby Rothwell and Belle Isle/Middleton. The site is also of an appropriate scale and location to offer the opportunity for ancillary non-residential uses for which there may be a local need to improve social sustainability. Such opportunities can be explored further through the advancement of the Plan process. We support the access ranking in the Site Assessment. Robin Hood is a settlement strategically placed on the highway network. Utilising the site’s existing connections to the strategic highway network and to the main urban area we can create new infrastructure connections to provide appropriate, permeable and safe access into the site for private cars and for cyclists and pedestrians. This will include two priority junctions: one from the A61 Wakefield Road; and one from Sharp Lane. The external network capacity effects have been assessed through feasibility work. No major transport infrastructure is required. The site will provide for improvements to the off-site highway network, and to pedestrian, cycle and public transport provision in compliance with the Authority’s requirements. We do not share the Highway Agency’s view that it is “likely to require significant physical mitigation.”

BiodiversityThe site does not comprise a statutory or non-statutory designated ecological site. It has low overall ecological value due to the intensive arable use.

Land at Hope Farm – Drainage & UtilitiesThe site is located within Flood Zone 1. As such there are no reasonably available sites for residential development with a lower probability of flooding than land at Hope Farm (NPPF, para 101). Flood risk and drainage matters have been assessed through feasibility work. The development of land at Hope Farm will avoid increased vulnerability to flood risk impacts of climate change. The site is capable of supporting a robust sustainableurban drainage system.

Built HeritageThere are no designated heritage assets within the site. The nearest listed building is the Clock Tower at St George’s Hospital approximately 1km away. The nearest Conservation Area is at Rothwell approximately 1.5km to the east.

SummaryIt is our view is that opportunities exist to achieve sustainable development at land at Hope Farm and we welcome the authority’s favourable assessment of the site. We note that the site has been split and that the most westerly 8ha of the site (3081B – falling within the Inner Market Character Area) has been rejected for the reason that it is “not well related to the urban area and no existing defensible boundary. Development would constitute urban sprawl”. Notwithstanding our comments above and in regard to the delineation of Market Character Areas (Section 4), our proposals provide a comprehensive framework for the whole of site 3081 to achieve development needs in a sustainable way which would be least damaging to the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt, and which promote opportunities to enhance the landscape character of the motorway corridor.

As demonstrated above and in the accompanying Vision Document [see representation], the site is not subject to any technical or environmental constraints that would prevent it from coming forward and is achievable without significant adverse environmental impacts (NPPF, para 152). Its allocation would be in conformity with the spatial development strategy in the Core Strategy and would ensure the long term sustainable growth of Robin Hood/Lofthouse.

1261 - The lack of suitable access is a significant constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability and the need to access the site through adjacent land presents deliverability questions. It is noted that the Council’s Highway department do not support the site.

129B - The site does not presently have a highway frontage. We would question whether Pit Field Lane could form a suitable access. The lack of suitable access is a constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability and the need to access the site through adjacent land presents deliverability questions. Until such time as this can be resolved the site cannot be considered as a suitable site in the Market Character Area. Carlton is a small village with limited local services. Development on the scale proposed (in conjunction with sites 507 and 129A) could vastly overwhelm the role and function of this small village. This would be contrary to the spatial approach in the Core Strategy.

143 - Paragraph 101 states that development “should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding”. There are reasonably available sites appropriate for development in the Market Character Area at lesser risk of flood, therefore site 143 is notconsidered suitable for residential allocation.

1224 - The lack of suitable access is a significant constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability.

1225A - The only point of access is a narrow farm track from Pinfold Lane which would be unsuitable for residential development. The lack of suitable access is a significant constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability. The need to access the site through adjacent land presents deliverability questions. It is noted that the Site Assessment does not include an assessment of accessibility.

1225C - The lack of suitable access is a significant constraint in terms of being able to demonstrate developability. The need to access the site through adjacent land presents deliverability questions. Furthermore, it is not evident that suitable access can be secured from Church Lane for site 1224.

H5Question Ref:

285 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06414

C Makin

Representor No:

Name:


Other than site 3081B, we agree that sites that have been identified as red in the Outer South Market Character Area are not suitable for allocation for future housing development.

H7Question Ref:

3081A3081BThe NPPF is clear that authorities must identify a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide a five year supply (plus buffer) against their housing requirements, and identify a supply of specific, developable sites for growth for years 6-10 and, where possible, years 11-15. The site will make a valuable contribution with the delivery of approximately 400 dwellings to meet the District’s quantitative housing requirements as well as meeting the qualitative need to provide family and affordable housing within the area. It has been demonstrated that land at Hope Farm (site 3081) offers a suitable location for growth. The Concept Plan for the site illustrates how development could be delivered taking into consideration the site conditions. The site is owned by a single landowner and there is an intention to develop the site. There are thus no legal or ownership constraints such as multiple landowners, ransom strips or tenancies. The site is readily available. The landowner will continue agricultural production on the remaining northern portion of Hope Farm which is not proposed for allocation (see Figure 1). A range of national and local housebuilders have expressed considerable interest in progressing the site sufficient to support delivery of around 400 homes, associated infrastructure and greenspace. There is the potential to commence development on the site in the short term.

H11Question Ref:

[representation summarises Core Strategy approach].Pegasus do not dispute that Leeds’ extant UDP housing allocations may currently be considered to be specific deliverable sites sufficient to contribute to a five year housing land supply, where there is a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. However, historic housing allocations should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and consultation prior to being identified as developable over the plan period, otherwise the plan cannot be considered sound. Our position is that extant UDP housing allocations should be objectively assessed as part of the Site Assessment process.

Other than for the Green Belt assessment, there is no accompanying methodology to explain the procedures for deriving or analysing site information. We question the transparency and robustness of the Council’s approach in this regard. By way of an example; there is no explanation in the Site Allocations Plan of the scoring/ranking attributed to the section ‘Summary of Infrastructure provider comments and other planning requirements’ on the pro-forma. How has scoring been attributed for accessibility, access and local network? What are the respective score thresholds? It has proven difficult to comment on the relative highway, access and accessibility attributes of individual sites and provide meaningful comments without full knowledge of how a score has been derived. We reserve the right to comment further upon the assessment methodology and its outputs during subsequent consultations of the plan.

Priority at settlement level will firstly be to previously developed land and buildings within the settlement, other suitable infill sites, then key locations identified as sustainable extensions to the relevant settlement. It is evident from the Site Assessments for the Outer South East MCA that limited opportunities exist to meet the housing requirement without looking to sustainable greenfield extension sites.

Our comments relating to the Inner Area and Outer South West Area are in regard to the identification and delineation of boundaries of these Market Character Areas. We do not consider that they accurately represent logical or appropriate geographic areas and we consider that they should be re-drawn. The purpose of defining Housing Market Characteristic Areas is to reflect the diverse nature and characteristics of housing markets across the city. These areas should take account of topographical and settlement spatial definitions as well as operational housing markets in terms of house prices and land values. They reflect geographical areas that people tend to associate with finding properties to live in. It is not evident why the settlement of Robin Hood with Lofthouse has been split between three different housing market areas – Inner, Outer South and Outer South West. Robin Hood with Lofthouse is a defined settlement within a geographic area demonstrating comparative market conditions thus logic would dictate that the entirety of the settlement is considered within a single market area. We therefore consider that the Market Character Area for the Outer South area should be re-drawn to include the entirety of the settlement of Robin Hood with Lofthouse. The M1/M621 forms a clear and defined geographic boundary between Inner Leeds/Outer South West Leeds and Outer South Leeds. It would be a logical boundary to separate market areas.


286 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04645

Emma Maltas

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

They are small developments spread out so not to flood a particular area. They should have little effect on schools, access to health and the road network.

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 1110, 1114, 2121 and 1123A are far too large and close to the ring road. They are all clustered together which will have a massive impact on health, education and traffic. These areas are high quality pasture land, beautiful green space which Rodley, Farsley and Calverly are fast running short of. Once this land is gone it is gone forever completely spoiling the environment for this generation and generations to come. These sites will not be designated for affordable housing, the developers will sell them at a premium to make as much money as possible for that is all they are bothered about. I have no idea who on earth can afford to buy them in this time of austerity, my husband and I work full time in middle income jobs and no way could we afford the £300kplus price tag which I'm sure these houses will command. The developers are taking advantage of the Government's plan to 'get building' and are building on green field sites, when there are lots of brown field sites yet to be developed in the city, they are greedy land grabbers. I also think that old council housing should also be developed, for example on the Broadleas, Broadlea Oval has alot of garden space which is large and redundant, the flats on there could be demolished and at least 8 times the housing currently there could be developed. It will not create local jobs or long term jobs, it is a short term fix. Moving onto the traffic, anybody who has to use the ring road/Bagley Lane and Rodley Lane on a regular basis will known that it is severely congested, it is already not fit for purpose, nevermind with the thousands of extra cars these potential developments will create. Education, Rodley does not have a primary school, I fear that when I have children I will have to travel miles to a school because of all these new houses. The primary schools are full, I really do not think there is money in the pot for a brand new school. The local Doctors are also getting ridiculous, getting an appointment is impossible. I have had to keep a dentist in Wakefield because there isn't an nhs one taking patients near us. The government set the housing targets before the downturn, there is not the demand for as much housing now.

H4Question Ref:

Please see previous answer.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

They are again green sites.

H7Question Ref:

Sites 1110, 2121, 1114 and 1132A. They are green field sites and should form part of the green belt. Save our green spaces!

H9Question Ref:

Old council housing sites should be redeveloped. The garden sizes were far too generous when they were first developed and many do not keep up to them. The Broadlea estate is an example of such. This was very well done on the Fairfield estate. I have not looked at the 'Holbeck' area, but vast areas of old houses and flats have been demolished, I would hope that area would be fit for large scale development.

H10Question Ref:

None of the sites I have mentioned previously should be developed full stop. They should be returned to the green belt.

H11Question Ref:

NO.

H12Question Ref:

There are none that I have seen in this area of maps, ideally elderly housing need to be near a town centre for easy walking distance to bus stops or town centres.

H14Question Ref:

I am quite frankly appauled that the developers would consider the areas I have mentioned. I will fight to the bitter end to stop it. Local villagers are sick to death of developers taking over our green spaces.


287 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

TWIMCWith reference to Leeds Outer West Greenspace Allocations Map 20.In regard specifically to Sites 1201 (Gain Lane) and 4047 (

Sunny Bank Lane/A647).I would like to submit objections to the proposed housing at the above two sites.The resultant increased traffic either side of this crucial and busy junction between Gain Lane and the A647 would benefit neither present residents nor new residents. It

would only make an unbearable and increasing traffic congestion problem worse.It would have a proportionate impact on congestion at Pudsey roundabout, too.The only benefit would be to those developing the land for profit, at the detriment of current and prospective residents

alike.The end consequence of congestion by further and continual development will be to strangle the local economy, reduce the attractiveness of the area, and drive residents away.

H1Question Ref:

Sites 1201 (Gain Lane) and 4047 ( Sunny Bank Lane/A647).1.These two sites represent increasingly-rare green space, and non residential areas besides the Leeds-Bradford green-belt. 2.This residential locality and adjacent green-belt land area is under increasing pressure from the

ever-rising traffic congestion around the adjacent A647.3.At the very nexus of this green-belt residential locality is the "Thornbury Gyratory", a very large, currently three-carriage roundabout. I have observed it change from a quiet single carriageway area of well-used

recreational land into a gridlocked major traffic hub for Leeds and Bradford, and as a M606/M62/M621 thoroughfare. 4.I have lived by and commuted from this gyratory for 36 years, and ever year it has become more congested, more noisy, more polluted and more difficult to commute

to and from.5.Poor forward planning on the environmental impact around this gyratory have led to the current and worsening above-situation. 6.Over the last 10-15 years, The whole 360 degrees of this gyratory has been under-going continual, intense retail and commercial development

at the severe detriment to traffic flow.7.There has been no corresponding rise in the quality of life in the area, no increase in neither community oriented nor local business schemes. 8.The beneficiaries have been large corporations, whilst surrounding local pubs and small shops have

folded.9.The ensuing impact of traffic congestion is already at breakpoint, and getting worse, with both morning and evening rush hour periods each approaching three hour intolerable peaks.10. As a consequence, I already have great difficult getting onto the A647 from Sunny Bank

Lane, and have to carefully plan my movements to minimise the impact of this already- intolerable congestion.11. The traffic flow of Gain Lane in itself is a major problem already, and not at all dealt with. The installation of the Morrisons HQ has given nothing to the local community other

than a major parking and congestion issue, meaning local residents', and commuters' quality of life is suffering.12. To illustrate the scale of the problem, the installation of a two storey new car park in the Morrisons HQ in the last year or two has had no practical impact on the

parking and traffic problem in the rush hours.13. The Hovis bakery on Gain Lane has been having its own heavy congestive impact due to its increasing intensity and use of larger HGVs to carry its produce. 14. So to add housing developments on Gain Lane and Sunny Bank Lane

would make a critical situation fatal for existing and any prospective residents.15. Where would additional traffic go?16. I strongly object to Sunny Bank Lane itself becoming a target to filter increased traffic off Gain Lain and back on to the A647: it is a narrow, quiet country lane, abutting green-belt, with a few quiet homes to one side, and lined with trees, and hedgerows full of natural wildlife habitats on the other.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

not relevant to my current objections.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

288 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


I enclose my objection letter in its entirety, since there was not enough room in the previous entry boxes.TWIMCWith reference to Leeds Outer West Greenspace Allocations Map 20.In regard specifically to Sites 1201 (Gain Lane) and 4047 ( Sunny Bank Lane/A647).I would

like to submit objections to the proposed housing at the above two sites.The resultant increased traffic either side of this crucial and busy junction between Gain Lane and the A647 would benefit neither present residents nor new residents. It would only make an unbearable and

increasing traffic congestion problem worse.It would have a proportionate impact on congestion at Pudsey roundabout, too.The only benefit would be to those developing the land for profit, at the detriment of current and prospective residents alike.The end consequence of congestion

by further and continual development will be to strangle the local economy, reduce the attractiveness of the area, and drive residents away.These two sites represent increasingly-rare green space, and non residential areas besides the Leeds-Bradford green-belt. This

residential locality and adjacent green-belt land area is under increasing pressure from the ever-rising traffic congestion around the adjacent Leeds-Bradford Road (A647) .At the very nexus of this green-belt residential locality is the "Thornbury Gyratory", a very large,

currently three-carriage roundabout. I have observed it change from a quiet single carriageway area of well-used recreational land into a gridlocked major traffic hub for Leeds and Bradford, and as a M606/M62/M621 thoroughfare. I have lived by and commuted from this gyratory

for 36 years, and ever year it has become more congested, more noisy, more polluted and more difficult to commute to and from.Poor forward planning and ill-considered developments, ( and a lack of joint-consideration and lack of co-operation by the Bradford and Leeds Councils who

preside over the area) on the environmental impact around this gyratory have led to the current and worsening above-situation. Over the last 10-15 years, The whole 360 degrees of this gyratory has been under-going continual, intense retail and commercial development at the severe

detriment to traffic flow.There has been no corresponding rise in the quality of life in the area, no increase in neither community oriented nor local business schemes. The beneficiaries have been large corporations, whilst surrounding local pubs and small shops have folded.The

ensuing impact of traffic congestion is already at breakpoint, and getting worse, with both morning and evening rush hour periods each approaching three hour intolerable peaks (this is a shocking 6 hr period of congestion per weekday in a residential area adjacent to green-belt).

As a consequence, I already have great difficult getting onto the A647 from Sunny Bank Lane, and have to carefully plan my movements to minimise the impact of this already- intolerable congestion.The traffic flow of Gain Lane in itself is a major problem already, and not at all dealt

with. The installation of the Morrisons HQ has given nothing to the local community other than a major parking and congestion issue, meaning local residents', and commuters' quality of life is suffering. To illustrate the scale of the problem, the installation of a two storey new

car park in the Morrisons HQ in the last year or two has had no practical impact on the hellish parking and traffic problem in working hours and rush hours.The Hovis bakery on Gain Lane has been having its own heavy congestive impact due to its increasing intensity and use of larger

HGVs to carry its produce. So to add housing developments on Gain Lane and Sunny Bank Lane would make a critical situation fatal for existing and any prospective residents. Where would additional traffic go?I strongly object to Sunny Bank Lane itself becoming a target to filter

increased traffic off Gain Lain and back on to the A647: it is a narrow, quiet country lane, abutting green-belt, with a few quiet homes to one side, and lined with trees, and hedgerows full of natural wildlife habitats on the other.[x]


289 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


Subject: new housing proposal objection

TWIMC

With reference to Leeds Outer West Greenspace Allocations Map 20.

In regard specifically to Sites 1201 (Gain Lane) and 4047 ( Sunny Bank Lane/A647).

I would like to submit objections to the proposed housing at the above two sites.

The resultant increased traffic either side of this crucial and busy junction between Gain Lane and the A647 would benefit neither present residents nor new residents.

It would only make an unbearable and increasing traffic congestion problem worse.

It would have a proportionate impact on congestion at Pudsey roundabout, too.

The only benefit would be to those developing the land for profit, at the detriment of current and prospective residents alike.

The end consequence of congestion by further and continual development will be to strangle the local economy, reduce the attractiveness of the area, and drive residents away.

1. These two sites represent increasingly-rare green space, and non residential areas besides the Leeds-Bradford green-belt.

2. This residential locality and adjacent green-belt land area is under increasing pressure from the ever-rising traffic congestion around the adjacent Leeds-Bradford Road (A647) .

3. At the very nexus of this green-belt residential locality is the "Thornbury Gyratory", a very large, currently three-carriage roundabout. I have observed it change from a quiet single carriageway area of well-used recreational land into a gridlocked major traffic hub for Leeds and Bradford, and as a M606/M62/M621 thoroughfare.

4. I have lived by and commuted from this gyratory for 36 years, and ever year it has become congested, more noisy, more polluted and more difficult to commute to and from.

5. Poor forward planning and ill-considered developments, ( and a lack of joint-consideration and lack of co-operation by the Bradford and Leeds Councils who preside over the area) on the environmental impact around this gyratory have led to the current and worsening above-situation.

6.Over the last 10-15 years, The whole 360 degrees of this gyratory has been under-going continual, intense retail and commercial development at the severe detriment to traffic flow.

7. There has been no corresponding rise in the quality of life in the area, no increase in neither community oriented nor local business schemes.

8. The beneficiaries have been large corporations, whilst surrounding local pubs and small shops have folded.

9. The ensuing impact of traffic congestion is already at breakpoint, and getting worse, with both morning and evening rush hour periods each approaching three hour intolerable peaks (this is a shocking 6 hr period of congestion per weekday in a residential area adjacent to green-belt).

10. As a consequence, I already have great difficult getting onto the A647 from Sunny Bank Lane, and have to carefully plan my movements to minimise the impact of this already- intolerable congestion.

11. The traffic flow of Gain Lane in itself is a major problem already, and not at all dealt with. The installation of the Morrisons HQ has given

H1Question Ref:

290 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


nothing to the local community other than a major parking and congestion issue, meaning local residents', and commuters' quality of life is suffering.

12. To illustrate the scale of the problem, the installation of a two storey new car park in the Morrisons HQ in the last year or two has had no practical impact on the hellish parking and traffic problem in working hours and rush hours.

13. The Hovis bakery on Gain Lane has been having its own heavy congestive impact due to its increasing intensity and use of larger HGVs to carry its produce.

14. So to add housing developments on Gain Lane and Sunny Bank Lane would make a critical situation fatal for existing and any prospective residents.

15. Where would additional traffic go?

16. I strongly object to Sunny Bank Lane itself becoming a target to filter increased traffic off Gain Lain and back on to the A647: it is a narrow, quiet country lane, abutting green-belt, with a few quiet homes to one side, and lined with trees, and hedgerows full of natural wildlife habitats on the other.

Dr K S Manik37 Sunny Bank Lane BD3 7DG

291 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 1201 (Gain Lane) and 4047 ( Sunny Bank Lane/A647). Green to Red (Assumed).

I would like to submit objections to the proposed housing at theabove two sites.The resultant increased traffic either side of this crucial and busyjunction between Gain Lane and the A647 would benefit neitherpresent residents nor new residents.It would only make an unbearable and increasing traffic congestionproblem worse.It would have a proportionate impact on congestion at Pudseyroundabout, too.The only benefit would be to those developing the land for profit, atthe detriment of current and prospective residents alike.The end consequence of congestion by further and continualdevelopment will be to strangle the local economy, reduce theattractiveness of the area, and drive residents away.1. These two sites represent increasingly-rare green space, and nonresidential areas besides the Leeds-Bradford green-belt.2. This residential locality and adjacent green-belt land area is underincreasing pressure from the ever-rising traffic congestion around theadjacent Leeds-Bradford Road (A647) .3. At the very nexus of this green-belt residential locality is the"Thornbury Gyratory", a very large, currently three-carriageroundabout. I have observed it change from a quiet singlecarriageway area of well-used recreational land into a gridlockedmajor traffic hub for Leeds and Bradford, and as a M606/M62/M621thoroughfare.4. I have lived by and commuted from this gyratory for 36 years, andever year it has become congested, more noisy, more polluted andmore difficult to commute to and from.5. Poor forward planning and ill-considered developments, ( and alack of joint-consideration and lack of co-operation by the Bradfordand Leeds Councils who preside over the area) on the environmentalimpact around this gyratory have led to the current and worseningabove-situation.6.Over the last 10-15 years, The whole 360 degrees of this gyratoryhas been under-going continual, intense retail and commercialdevelopment at the severe detriment to traffic flow.7. There has been no corresponding rise in the quality of life in thearea, no increase in neither community oriented nor local businessschemes.8. The beneficiaries have been large corporations, whilst surroundinglocal pubs and small shops have folded.9. The ensuing impact of traffic congestion is already at breakpoint,and getting worse, with both morning and evening rush hour periodseach approaching three hour intolerable peaks (this is a shocking 6 hrperiod of congestion per weekday in a residential area adjacent togreen-belt).10. As a consequence, I already have great difficult getting onto theA647 from Sunny Bank Lane, and have to carefully plan mymovements to minimise the impact of this already- intolerablecongestion.11. The traffic flow of Gain Lane in itself is a major problem already,and not at all dealt with. The installation of the Morrisons HQ hasgiven nothing to the local community other than a major parking andcongestion issue, meaning local residents', and commuters' quality oflife is suffering.12. To illustrate the scale of the problem, the installation of a twostorey new car park in the Morrisons HQ in the last year or two hashad no practical impact on the hellish parking and traffic problem inworking hours and rush hours.13. The Hovis bakery on Gain Lane has been having its own heavycongestive impact due to its increasing intensity and use of largerHGVs to carry its produce.14. So to add housing developments on Gain Lane and Sunny BankLane would make a critical situation fatal for existing and anyprospective residents.15. Where would additional traffic go?16. I strongly object to Sunny Bank Lane itself becoming atarget to filter increased traffic off Gain Lain and back on tothe A647: it is a narrow, quiet country lane, abutting greenbelt,with a few quiet homes to one side, and lined withtrees, and hedgerows full of natural wildlife habitats on theother.

H1Question Ref:

292 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02990

Ks Manik

Representor No:

Name:


293 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03600

Peter Margerrison

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

Site Ref 4046Suitable for housing development. However the proposed access to the site at the bottom of Daleside Road would result in increased traffic from Galloway Lane via the Chatsworths and Daleside Grove or from Leeds/Bradford Road along Daleside Road where roadside

parking of vehicles currently creates traffic movement. A much easier access to the site would surely be from Dick Lane through the Mid-Point development.

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Site Ref 4045 Due to the steeply sloped area it would be more suitable for development as parkland but with reservations as to its use. Currently illegal activities by off-road motorcyclists create anti-social nuisance to residents in the neighbourhood.

H7Question Ref:

294 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01830

P Markham

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

295 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04974

Marshalls Mono Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


Site 3445A

The initial “Call for Sites” assessment identified the site as being within the “green” category whichidentifies sites which the Council consider have the greatest potential for housing. We fully agreewith the Council’s initial assessment and believe there are significant benefits in allocating this sitefor residential development. These benefits are considered in detail in the subsequent section ofthis letter.


H1Question Ref:

Site 1035


See also representation submitted for full details.

H1Question Ref:

Site 1072



H1Question Ref:

Site 1035

AchievabilityParagraph 40 of the SHLAA guidance states that:“a site is achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect thathousing will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentiallya judgement about the economic viability of a site, and the capacity of the developerto complete and sell the housing over a certain period”.As noted above, the site is located in an attractive area which would attract residential housebuilders. This has been confirmed by local Agents Adair Paxton who advise that there are relativelyhigh residential values in parts of Oulton and Woodlesford and the site is semi-rural and inherentlyattractive (see letter from Adair Paxton at appendix 6). It is considered that due to the currentagricultural use of the land, the abnormal costs associated with development are low and as suchthe site would be economically viable for residential development.The Council’s updated SHLAA review (2012) also concludes that the site is achievable fordevelopment in the long term (11 + years). We welcome the Council’s assessment that the site isachievable however, it is considered that the development of the site could be achieved in the shortterm (0-5 years).Taking the above information into consideration, it is considered that the site is achievable forresidential development.


H11Question Ref:

296 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04974

Marshalls Mono Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


Site 344A

AchievabilityParagraph 40 of the SHLAA guidance states that:“a site is achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that housing willbe developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentially a judgement aboutthe economic viability of a site, and the capacity of the developer to complete and sell thehousing over a certain period”.Page 7As noted above, the site is located in an attractive area which would attract residential housebuilders. It is considered that due to the current agricultural use of the land, the abnormal costsassociated with development are low and as such the site would be economically viable forresidential development.Advice from local agent Adair Paxton (See Appendix 6) confirms that houses in this area would beattractive to future residents. The Agent confirms that the local area has seen a steady andconsistent house building for the last 15 years or so and this is a popular and well-establishedresidential location. Furthermore, Adair Paxton refer to a very similar site which was sold a little tothe west of the site at Leeds Road, Robin Hood just over a year ago. The sale of that site showeda healthy demand from major house builders.The site is therefore considered to be achievable in the short term (0-5 years).

See also representation submiited for full details.

H11Question Ref:

Site 1072

AchievabilityParagraph 40 of the SHLAA guidance states that:“a site is achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that housing willbe developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentially a judgement aboutthe economic viability of a site, and the capacity of the developer to complete and sell thehousing over a certain period”.As noted above, the site is located in an attractive area which would attract residential housebuilders. It is considered that due to the current agricultural use of the land, the abnormal costsassociated with development are low and as such the site would be economically viable forresidential development.Advice from a local agent Adair Paxton (See Appendix 6) confirms that houses in this area wouldbe attractive to residential developers. The site has excellent motorway accessibility and is ideallysuited for mid-price range speculative housing. The Agent refers to a similar site which is located 4miles to the north east which sold with very healthy demand just over a year ago with a number ofmajor house builders competing to buy it.The Council’s SHLAA identifies the site as being achievable for development in the long term (11 +years). We welcome the conclusion that the site is achievable but it is considered that the site isachievable in the short term (0-5 years).


H11Question Ref:

297 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02071

B Martin

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

298 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02267

Gilbert Martin

Representor No:

Name:


2123 Low Moor Side New Farnley. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

299 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02267

Gilbert Martin

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Having lived facing the field on Low Moor Side Lane, New Farnley for 78 years, the land is most sustainable for building, due to being undermined i.e. coal and fine clay.The ield over the years has sunk in various places of up to four feet.Low Moor Side is too narrow for more traffic.

H4Question Ref:

300 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01810

Mason

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

301 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01669

J Maynand

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

302 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04190

Sue Mccreath

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site ref: 1202 Newlaithes Fields: identified as suitable for 185 housesReasons to object against development of site 1202:Impact on GreenbeltThe site is an important open space, which provides the local community with recreational space, and is the only open space that

residents/children can reach without crossing the busy highways.Impact on Greenfield The site has not been developed before and it is important to retain it as an open space due to the reasons given above. It will seriously impact upon the quality of life of the residents in the

Victorias and surrounding area.Impact on important landscape features of habitats This site borders a developed residential area and as such is important in order to retain the balance of open green space and developed areas. More green space is needed, not more houses in this

particular part of Horsforth.Proximity to ServicesThere will not be enough local school places to support the development. Horsforth junior schools are already approaching maximum capacity, and the secondary schools are already over-subscribed.In addition to this there will be no

pre-school nursery places available from September 2013, nor are there out of school places available.Neither are there enough GP or dental surgeries in the area to support such an increase in population.The only sports facilities in the area are Holt Park, Cookridge, or Hall Park.

Proximity to highways and transport infrastructure: The area is unsuitable for further development due to the amount of traffic on the main A

roads (A65 and outer ring road). The problem is particularly acute at Horsforth due to the boundaries of the river and canal channelling the traffic onto the 2 roads previously mentioned. Although there is a bus route on the A65, this is hardly fit for purpose now, with journey times into and out

of Leeds at peak travel time still taking 1 hr, which is ridiculous for a 5 mile journey. There is no train station at this side of Horsforth for residents to use. Opportunity for placemakingThis site should not be developed as to develop it would detract from the area, not add to it. The local

residents would have to bear an increase in local residential traffic along narrow parked up streets, which are already congested, increase travel time to work, pressure on local services such as schools, surgeries, local amenities etc.

H4Question Ref:

As previous answer

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1015, 2160,2046Impact on GreenbeltThe site is an important open space, which provides the local community with recreational space, and is the only open space that residents/children can reach without crossing the busy highways.Impact on Greenfield The site has not been

developed before and it is important to retain it as an open space due to the reasons given above. It will seriously impact upon the quality of life of the residents in the surrounding area.Impact on important landscape features of habitats This site are bordered by developed residential areas

and as such is important in order to retain the balance of open green space and developed areas. More green space is needed, not more houses.Proximity to ServicesThere will not be enough local school places to support the development. Horsforth junior schools are already

approaching maximum capacity, and the secondary schools are already over-subscribed.In addition to this there will be no pre-school nursery places available from September 2013, nor are there out of school places available Neither are there enough GP or dental surgeries in the area

to support such an increase in population.The only sports facilities in the area are Holt Park, Cookridge, or Hall Park. Proximity to highways and transport infrastructure: The area is unsuitable for further development due to the amount of traffic on the main A roads (A65 and outer ring

road). The problem is particularly acute at Horsforth due to the boundaries of the river and canal channelling the traffic onto the 2 roads previously mentioned. Although there is a bus route on the A65, this is hardly fit for purpose now, with journey times into and out of Leeds at peak travel time

taking 1 hr, which is ridiculous for a 5 mile journey. Opportunity for placemakingThese sites should not be developed as housing development would detract from the area, not add to it. The local residents would have to bear an increase in local residential traffic along narrow parked up streets, which are already congested, increase travel time to work, pressure on local services such as schools, surgeries, local

amenities etc.

H7Question Ref:

As above

H8Question Ref:

No - none

H10Question Ref:

No sites should be developed in the short medium or long term, but particularly not site 1202 Newlaithes Fields due to the reasons given in answer to above questions.

H11Question Ref:

303 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04190

Sue Mccreath

Representor No:

Name:


The developments in Horsforth and particularly site 1202 cannot be viewed in isolation, they must be considered in the light of the impact of developments already given planning permission along the A65/outer ring road corridor, (1339,3016,626,376) due to the problems with the local geography (river and canal) and lack of adequate public transport in the area and the problems that these factors will cause. For all the reasons stated in the answers above : lack of preschool places in Horsforth, lack of school (junior and high) places in Horsforth, pressure on local services

eg GP and dental practices, and also local amenities eg parks, play areas and leisure centres.I would also like to point out that the publicity for the consultation sessions could have been greatly improved by the use of advertising in local supermarkets and the local free papers (eg Wharfe Valley Times). I feel that the City Council should consider more practical avenues to reach the local communities it is saying it is trying to reach, One-stop shops and local libraries are all very well, but only a limited percentage of the population will use these facilities, whereas the free

papers are delivered to every home in Horsforth, and the local supermarket cannot be overlooked.I would also like to make the point that planning should be longer term than it has been up to now to avoid unnecessary local junior school closures when a population boom is around

the corner and the different council departments – planning, education, highways etc should have a co-ordinated and integrated plan.


304 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04387

James McGuinness

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Insufficient Inrastructure

H1Question Ref:

Site 1114 - Kirklees Knoll.The existing site at Towler Drive which backs onto the proposed site at Kirklees Knoll now has two cars per dwelling and there is often a queue to gain access to Rodley on a morning and it is almost impossible at times just to negotiate the through roads of the

estate.If the Kiklees Knoll developement is go ahead there is the potential for a further 800 or so vehicles having to access an already over used road system in an attempt to access the ring road.The first port of call for those dwellings to pick up shopping other than a trip to the

supermarket is Farsley which would not be able to cope with the additional traffic.There is a potential for a further 800 children requiring schooling within 4 - 5 years and there is not the capacity to accomodate these additional children.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

See previous comment regarding Site 1114 - Kirklees Knoll

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

305 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04631

Alison Mcmurtry

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

3sites in our area have already been identified and not as yet been developed- Clariant, Kirkstall Forge and Woodside Quarry. It would make more sense to complete these developments and ensure that extra housing is still needed/ wanted in the area before devastating all our green space. Also there are plenty of "brown site" areas along the road towards Kirkstall and the city centre which could be developed first.

H1Question Ref:

4095 New York Lane3331 Knott Lane3329 Layton LaneWe live on the A65 and traffic congestion is already an issue. It can take 30 mins to drive less than 1 mile to the Esso roundabout in Horsforth at 8am with local residents trying to get to work. The offer of increasing public transport on a temporary basis by the Clariant team was already insufficient to match the pressures that their proposed development will add to our

roads.Schools are already over subscribed: Gps and hospitals are struggling to meet increasing healthcare demands.Rawdon and Horsforth risk merging into a long sprawl rather than 2 distinct areas.We worry about the effect on the wildlife in this unique and beautiful environment,

which is currently enjoyed by many, as well as pollution to the beck.We wonder why the council seems determined to destroy what little green belt we have left - and why it seems incapable of even ensuring completion of one of three planned developments before the situation is reassessed.

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

1110,1114, 2121Allow alternative traffic routes to city centre and spread out the new developments which will spread out the demand on local services.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Sites already identified as suitable should be developed and populated first then the situation reassessed.

H11Question Ref:

306 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03059

Annie Mcnally

Representor No:

Name:


Do not build on any greenspaces in Leeds until all your brownfield sites are used up

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

n

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

Yes, it's beautiful and leave it alone!

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:


G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

307 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03059

Annie Mcnally

Representor No:

Name:


Leave greenspace alone and build on brownfield sites first


308 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06219

Merchant County Developments

Representor No:

Name:


625 Canal Wharf, Wyther Lane, KirkstallThe site is shown with a lime green colouration and the stated capacity figure is 84 units. Within Table 11.4.3 the Canal Wharf site (with Reference no. 2403210) is shown witha red notation indicating that it has been removed from the Assessment of Sites withEmployment Potential following the grant of residential consent on the site. [Representation sets out Site Allocs comments relating to the site].

Planning BackgroundOutline Planning Permission was granted on the Canal Wharf site for residential development (84 units) on the 17 May 2007 (Application Reference No.P/24/225/04/OT). This consent was subsequently extended (Application Reference No.10/01114/EXT) with permission granted on the 8 June 2010. The consent however lapsed in June this year.

Sites Allocations Plan Suggested Revisions to recognise the appropriate potential of the site to provide an element of the housing land supply for the Outer West:1 Reference to the Canal Wharf site within Table 11.3.1 should be removed as the siteno longer has the benefit of planning permission.2 The Canal Wharf site should be specifically allocated for residential development andgiven a green colour status within the plan and identified with a capacity of 84 unitsreflective of the previous planning permissions on the site.3 The Canal Wharf site has the following credentials for residential allocation:i) It is a brownfield site.ii) It is situated within the urban area.iii) It is located in a highly sustainable context.iv) It has had the benefit of previous consents for residential development.v) There are no technical or infrastructure reasons precluding its development forresidential use.vi) The site is already included within the Site Allocations Plan Housing Land Supplyfigures for the Outer West Area (as evidenced within Table 11.3.1).Consequently its allocation would merely transfer this supply figure from commitments to part of the residual provision for the area.vii) There have been no material changes in circumstance since residential use wasconsidered appropriate on the site.

H1Question Ref:

625 Canal Wharf, Wyther Lane, KirkstallThe site is shown with a lime green colouration and the stated capacity figure is 84 units. Within Table 11.4.3 the Canal Wharf site (with Reference no. 2403210) is shown witha red notation indicating that it has been removed from the Assessment of Sites withEmployment Potential following the grant of residential consent on the site. [Representation sets out Site Allocs comments relating to the site].

Planning BackgroundOutline Planning Permission was granted on the Canal Wharf site for residential development (84 units) on the 17 May 2007 (Application Reference No.P/24/225/04/OT). This consent was subsequently extended (Application Reference No.10/01114/EXT) with permission granted on the 8 June 2010. The consent however lapsed in June this year.

Sites Allocations Plan Suggested Revisions to recognise the appropriate potential of the site to provide an element of the housing land supply for the Outer West:1 Reference to the Canal Wharf site within Table 11.3.1 should be removed as the siteno longer has the benefit of planning permission.2 The Canal Wharf site should be specifically allocated for residential development andgiven a green colour status within the plan and identified with a capacity of 84 unitsreflective of the previous planning permissions on the site.3 The Canal Wharf site has the following credentials for residential allocation:i) It is a brownfield site.ii) It is situated within the urban area.iii) It is located in a highly sustainable context.iv) It has had the benefit of previous consents for residential development.v) There are no technical or infrastructure reasons precluding its development forresidential use.vi) The site is already included within the Site Allocations Plan Housing Land Supplyfigures for the Outer West Area (as evidenced within Table 11.3.1).Consequently its allocation would merely transfer this supply figure from commitments to part of the residual provision for the area.vii) There have been no material changes in circumstance since residential use wasconsidered appropriate on the site.


309 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00257

Yvette Micklewaite

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - I cannot believe that you are planning to build a large number of houses on the land on Low Moor Side Lane which backs on to my house . To start with the narrow road could not cope with the extra traffic these houses would bring and the land itself looks over my property and would be very invasive of my privacy. We bought this property because of its semi-rural outlook and I am sure would then de-value it. The whole area is largely populated and the local schools are full to capacity so where would the children go to school?I totally oppose this building site going ahead as I am aware the whole of New Farnley is.Where would the road leading into the housing estate be situated? Low Moor Side Lane certainly can't cope with any more traffic.

H4Question Ref:

310 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06341

Mark Mills

Representor No:

Name:


Seacroft Centre Boundary

The RPT supports the proposed change to Seacroft Centre Boundary along the northern section of Seacroft Crescent and along North Parkway and York Road. However over the coming years there is potential for Seacroft Centre to change further through the possibility of service colocation which may reduce the land demand for ‘town centre uses’ particularly to the west of Seacroft Crescent.

Armley Centre Boundary

The RPT support the proposed changes to the Armley Centre Boundary.

Middleton Ring Road Centre Boundary

Support the extension of the centre boundary.

R1Question Ref:

311 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05427

Dick Milner

Representor No:

Name:


I have now seen the Housing Site Allocation Plan as it affects the village of Calverley andwould like to make the following comments with reference to the area marked 1123AAs we are told that there will be a need for our farms to be more productive in the future itwould seem perverse to build on good pasture land which is used annually to raise cattle.Two public footpaths cross this land, one between Woodhall Road. and Shell Lane, the otherbetween Woodhall Road. and Priesthorpe Road., both of which are valuable amenities usedby local residents and rambling groups from the wider area. These would be lost if this landwere to be developed.The entrance to any such development from Woodhall Road would be on a steep hill,immediately below a blind corner and summit onto a road plagued by speeding traffic, a longstanding problem which the various authorities seem unable or unwilling to solve.During periods of heavy rain, which will probably become more frequent, this land acts as asump, preventing significant run-off to the properties lower down the hill. This naturalabsorber of rain water would be compromised by building on the land. We already havewater flowing down the road during heavy rain which suggests the existing surface waterdrainage system is barely adequate at the moment.

H4Question Ref:

312 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03683

Joanne Mitchell

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Some of sites identified as 'green' are an erosion of the city's greenbelt areas and some are not sustainable planning.

H1Question Ref:

Site reference 3455B does not constitute sustainable planning as it does not ensure vitality of the city centre, nor protect the green belt land as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.Residential development on this site would not provide residents accessible local services

that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being as the local schools are already full and there is a lack of public transport or community amenities on the upper part of Tong Road.Development of this site will not make it easier to create jobs in the

city or replace poor design with better design, and would contravene all five principles of green belt protection: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.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 3455A is unsuitable for all the reasons provided for 3455B with the added problem of poor and dangerous site access.

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Site number 254 should be considered for short term development.

H11Question Ref:

313 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03653

Ailsa Mkayers

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

1. No new sewers have been built in New Farnley since the original ones were built.2. Over six housing developments have taken place in the last 40 years some of which have been very large. 3. There has been a number of individual houses already built.The site proposed No 2123 is

not suitable because of mining subsidence.4. The site entrance is onto a very narrow road that can not accommodate some vehicles passing in the opposite way.5. There are not enough primary school places to accommodate extra children.6. There is only one shop in the area.7. Low

Moor side Lane has already low visibility for any transport8. This site has many problems with flooding, especially into the gardens of the houses adjacent to the proposed site.PLANNING DO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT FOR THE NEW

FARNLEY AREA.

H1Question Ref:

New Farnley, Low Moor side Lane, Ref:- 2123Please see above.

H2Question Ref:

Site Reference is 2123 and this should have been designated as Green Belt area.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VILLAGE DEISIGN STATEMENT AND ALL THE ISSUES THAT OTHER RESIDENTS HAVE PUT FORWARD.THIS AREA IS ALSO KNOW FOR IT BAT COLLONY AND ALSO THE ADJOINING BUTTERFLY FIELD

AREA.


314 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03617

Andrew Moody

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

All fields around Calverley, particularly those on the boarder with Bradford should be allocated as "Green Belt" and not for development.

H1Question Ref:

The areas 1124 and 1123 should extend up to the boundary with Bradford.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1123A / 1193A. Calverley is already over populated, the schools are over subscribed and suffering from Rat running due to the already over congested road infrastructure, more housing is unsustainable in this area.

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Generally Leeds is over populated to the South and West, if Leeds are to meet the obligations on house building this should be done to the North and East as there is far more land available on this side of Leeds, i.e land around the A1(M).

H10Question Ref:

A strong message should be sent to any potential Developer looking at building in Calverley/ Farsley /Horsforth that unless substantial money is invested in Schools and road infrastructure that Planning Permission will not be granted. The area already suffers huge problems with traffic and this is before the housing development on Horsforth Ringroad which will only make matters worse.


315 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02073

F Moran

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

316 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02904

Carol Mordey

Representor No:

Name:


3440 Green to Red.Dear Sirs \We received a letter from Colin Carter & Colin Wood of Calverley & Farsley wards, with regard to the proposed field sites for housing in our area. I enclose a copy of my reply to this letter, which has also been sent to various local councillors. As you will see we are vehemently against this building work mainly because the roads infrastructure cannot cope now let alone when other housing is developed. We trust we can rely on you to put our comments forward when it comes to decision time. My husband and I have just been to Pudsey Civic Centre, to view for ourselves the plans for the proposed building of yet more houses in Pudsey. You will be aware that already over 300 houses have, or are in the process of being built to the West side of Pudsey, i.e. Cemetery Road, Waterloo Road, Gibraltar Road (off Waterloo Road) Bradley Lane (off Waterloo Road) The Marsh and Carlisle Road/ New Street.The road congestion at present on Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and Cemetery Road/Owlcotes is at saturation point and at peak times is grid-locked! Traffic builds up along Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and up Owlcotes, heading for Thornbury Barracks roundabout. Likewise traffic heading into Pudsey at this roundabout, backs down to Owlcotes roundabout, Thornbury Roundabout and Woodhall Road. To add to this congestion the no. 4 bus seems to have adopted Galloway lane as its terminus, now that the route has been extended from Waterloo, thus virtually reducing the road to one lane. The pedestrian crossing sited almost on the roundabout also adds to the problems. A journey of 5 mins from our house at Hillfoot, to Calverley now can take up to 30mins at peak times.Can you imagine what an impact another two hundred or so houses being built in this location would mean?Each household will have a t least 1 car. If you include the houses mentioned above already being built, that’s another 500+ cars all trying to move around at the same time, on top of the ones already on the road. Our schools are at capacity with no room to extend, our doctors/dentists struggling to cope with patient levels. The infrastructure is just not in place to cope, not to mention drains and sewage levels. As you have gathered from this letter, we and a multitude of neighbours strongly oppose these development plans, and trust that our voices will be heard.

H1Question Ref:

2120 Green to Red.Dear Sirs, We received a letter from Colin Carter & Colin Wood of Calverley & Farsley wards, with regard to the proposed field sites for housing in our area. I enclose a copy of my reply to this letter, which has also been sent to various local councillors. As you will see we are vehemently against this building work mainly because the roads infrastructure cannot cope now let alone when other housing is developed. We trust we can rely on you to put our comments forward when it comes to decision time. My husband and I have just been to Pudsey Civic Centre, to view for ourselves the plans for the proposed building of yet more houses in Pudsey. You will be aware that already over 300 houses have, or are in the process of being built to the West side of Pudsey, i.e. Cemetery Road, Waterloo Road, Gibraltar Road (off Waterloo Road) Bradley Lane (off Waterloo Road) The Marsh and Carlisle Road/ New Street.The road congestion at present on Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and Cemetery Road/Owlcotes is at saturation point and at peak times is grid-locked! Traffic builds up along Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and up Owlcotes, heading for Thornbury Barracks roundabout. Likewise traffic heading into Pudsey at this roundabout, backs down to Owlcotes roundabout, Thornbury Roundabout and Woodhall Road. To add to this congestion the no. 4 bus seems to have adopted Galloway lane as its terminus, now that the route has been extended from Waterloo, thus virtually reducing the road to one lane. The pedestrian crossing sited almost on the roundabout also adds to the problems. A journey of 5 mins from our house at Hillfoot, to Calverley now can take up to 30mins at peak times.Can you imagine what an impact another two hundred or so houses being built in this location would mean?Each household will have a t least 1 car. If you include the houses mentioned above already being built, that’s another 500+ cars all trying to move around at the same time, on top of the ones already on the road. Our schools are at capacity with no room to extend, our doctors/dentists struggling to cope with patient levels. The infrastructure is just not in place to cope, not to mention drains and sewage levels. As you have gathered from this letter, we and a multitude of neighbours strongly oppose these development plans, and trust that our voices will be heard.

H1Question Ref:

1073a Amber to Red.Dear Sirs \We received a letter from Colin Carter & Colin Wood of Calverley & Farsley wards, with regard to the proposed field sites for housing in our area. I enclose a copy of my reply to this letter, which has also been sent to various local councillors. As you will see we are vehemently against this building work mainly because the roads infrastructure cannot cope now let alone when other housing is developed. We trust we can rely on you to put our comments forward when it comes to decision time. My husband and I have just been to Pudsey Civic Centre, to view for ourselves the plans for the proposed building of yet more houses in Pudsey. You will be aware that already over 300 houses have, or are in the process of being built to the West side of Pudsey, i.e. Cemetery Road, Waterloo Road, Gibraltar Road (off Waterloo Road) Bradley Lane (off Waterloo Road) The Marsh and Carlisle Road/ New Street.The road congestion at present on Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and Cemetery Road/Owlcotes is at saturation point and at peak times is grid-locked! Traffic builds up along Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and up Owlcotes, heading for Thornbury Barracks roundabout. Likewise traffic heading into Pudsey at this roundabout, backs down to Owlcotes roundabout, Thornbury Roundabout and Woodhall Road. To add to this congestion the no. 4 bus seems to have adopted Galloway lane as its terminus, now that the route has been extended from Waterloo, thus virtually reducing the road to one lane. The pedestrian crossing sited almost on the roundabout also adds to the problems. A journey of 5 mins from our house at Hillfoot, to Calverley now can take up to 30mins at peak times.Can you imagine what an impact another two hundred or so houses being built in this location would mean?Each household will have a t least 1 car. If you include the houses mentioned above already being built, that’s another 500+ cars all trying to move around at the same time, on top of the ones already on the road. Our schools are at capacity with no room to extend, our doctors/dentists struggling to cope with patient levels. The infrastructure is just not in place to cope, not to mention drains and sewage levels. As you have gathered from this letter, we and a multitude of neighbours strongly oppose these development plans, and trust that our voices will be heard.

H4Question Ref:

317 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02904

Carol Mordey

Representor No:

Name:


1073b keep RedDear Sirs \We received a letter from Colin Carter & Colin Wood of Calverley & Farsley wards, with regard to the proposed field sites for housing in our area. I enclose a copy of my reply to this letter, which has also been sent to various local councillors. As you will see we are vehemently against this building work mainly because the roads infrastructure cannot cope now let alone when other housing is developed. We trust we can rely on you to put our comments forward when it comes to decision time. My husband and I have just been to Pudsey Civic Centre, to view for ourselves the plans for the proposed building of yet more houses in Pudsey. You will be aware that already over 300 houses have, or are in the process of being built to the West side of Pudsey, i.e. Cemetery Road, Waterloo Road, Gibraltar Road (off Waterloo Road) Bradley Lane (off Waterloo Road) The Marsh and Carlisle Road/ New Street.The road congestion at present on Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and Cemetery Road/Owlcotes is at saturation point and at peak times is grid-locked! Traffic builds up along Waterloo Road/Galloway Lane and up Owlcotes, heading for Thornbury Barracks roundabout. Likewise traffic heading into Pudsey at this roundabout, backs down to Owlcotes roundabout, Thornbury Roundabout and Woodhall Road. To add to this congestion the no. 4 bus seems to have adopted Galloway lane as its terminus, now that the route has been extended from Waterloo, thus virtually reducing the road to one lane. The pedestrian crossing sited almost on the roundabout also adds to the problems. A journey of 5 mins from our house at Hillfoot, to Calverley now can take up to 30mins at peak times.Can you imagine what an impact another two hundred or so houses being built in this location would mean?Each household will have a t least 1 car. If you include the houses mentioned above already being built, that’s another 500+ cars all trying to move around at the same time, on top of the ones already on the road. Our schools are at capacity with no room to extend, our doctors/dentists struggling to cope with patient levels. The infrastructure is just not in place to cope, not to mention drains and sewage levels. As you have gathered from this letter, we and a multitude of neighbours strongly oppose these development plans, and trust that our voices will be heard.

H7Question Ref:

318 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06826

Morley Town Council Planning Committee

Representor No:

Name:


Disagree with Council's green assessment, think the site should be amber

H1Question Ref:

Disagree with Council's green assessment, think the site should be red

H1Question Ref:

Agree with green allocation

H1Question Ref:

Site 148 - Part of the Thorpe Brickworks site, a UDP employment allocation. Much of it has gone to housing already, so the rest should follow. Remain green.

Site 1064B - Boundaries of 1064A and 1064B must be adjusted carefully to match recent Planning permission and Sec 106 agreed planted buffer. Remain green.

Site 1072 - A brownfield enclave within Green Belt, adjoining existing houses. Remain green.

Site 1143 - This group of sites forming overall 1143 would in whole or part be sprawl tending to close the gap between Tingley and East Ardsley. Also, 1143C is playing fields. All of 1143 should be red.

Site 1258 - Could be developed along with cleared working men's club site using Red Wood, otherwise Westerton Wood, as a firm rear boundary. Remain green

Site 1281B - Capacity over-stated; linked to 1281B which has outline planning permission. Look at 1064A&B to draw boundaries. Remain green.

Site 1336 - Green Belt and important in maintaining open views over Ardsley Reservoir and the South Pennines. Unlike 1258, has no firm southern boundary. Green to red.

H1Question Ref:

Agree with amber allocation

H4Question Ref:

We don't believe that the large, isolated site at Tingley Station, LDF site 2127, would be suitable for housing; it was meant to accommodate large-scale employment uses which might have appeared if a supertram route had passed on its way to a terminus nearby at Blackgates on the A650. Perhaps it shouldn't have been removed from Green Belt in the UDP; it should now be marked red against housing purposes; it might have a different LDF colour coding for another use, or might remain PAS.

H4Question Ref:

Site 141 - A large late Victorian stone-built textile mill urgently in need of refurbishment; should be good for far more than 36 dwellings. Amber to green.

Site 309 - This should be green though reduced in size to match the UDP non-Green Belt enclave around Thorpe Hall, which was for employment rather than housing. Amber to green.

Site 1096 - Scope limited by railway and motorway nearby, but, unimplemented permission granted several years ago for conversion of older farm buildings. Amber to green.

Site 1099B - UDP Inspector believed 1099A & B to be undevelopable because of motorway passing on an embankment. Amber to red.

Site 1220A - Important in the Green Belt gap between Morley and Leeds. Amber to red.

Site 2036 - Close to town centre; Listed Buildings and protected trees are constraints which shouldn't be insurmountable. Amber to green.

Site 2098C - Would be a narrow extension at the edge of an estate before land falls away from the Middleton plateau. Amber to green.

Site 2127 - An unfortunate UDP PAS allocation which, if it were possible, ought to be returned to Green Belt. Amber to red.

Site 2155 - Together with 2128 and others, would be part of an incoherent sprawl linking Tingley and East Ardsley. Amber to red.

Site 3386 - Next to brownfield site 637 marked green. The two could be developed together; on edge of Leeds Main Urban Area. Amber to green.

Site 3467 - Must be co-ordinated with sites nearby and boundaries which should be drawn to reflect the recent Planning permission granted to Barratt Homes and the associated Sec 106 buffer-strip agreement. Remain amber.

Site 4029 - Needs to be red to protect employment. Amber to red.

H4Question Ref:

Disagree with Council's amber assessment, think the site should be red

H4Question Ref:

319 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06826


Representor No:

Name:


Disagree with Council's amber assessment, think the site should be green

H4Question Ref:

Site 1207 - Mostly in current employment use; at risk of flooding. Remain red.

Site 2095 - Needs study; northern end might be green giving enabling development and neighbours to Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monument; southern part should be red. Red to amber.

H7Question Ref:

Agree with red allocation

H7Question Ref:

There is particular difficulty with a group of sites on Bruntcliffe Road. A recent planning permission caused some confusion by deviating from UDP allocation boundaries; the boundaries, capacities and colour codes need sorting out. This group is made up of LDF sites 1064A red, 1064B green, 1281A lime green, 1281B green and 3467 amber. We have left these untouched.


The logic behind the HMCA boundaries hasn't been set out in any understandable way; it is believed that they were drawn up by outside consultants rather than council officers. We believe that the boundary of the Outer South West Hly!CA isn't rational. To help public understanding and coherent decision making, City Council ward boundaries should be followed by those of the HMCAs wherever possible; if there has to be deviation from ward boundaries, it should be explained and justified.



At 10.3.1 there is a table of sites with unimplemented or part-implemented housing planning permissions. Some of these may have had the benefit of more than one permission, only one of which could be turned into bricks and mortar, so the "unimplemented" list may not be entirely realistic.



If much new house building takes place in OSW, there will be a need for new primary and high schools. High schools need large sites; we believe that such sites would best be found on PAS land, to avoid large incursions into Green Belt. Many sites, especially infill, brownfield and windfall, aren't big enough to take a school even though their accumulating totals of dwellings might be quite large. Everyone should be aware that there is no presumption of housing on PAS land; its reservation is for wider strategic land supply purposes.



In our list, current UDP Protected Areas of Search (PAS sites) are additionally marked with a star before their LDF numbers. We realise that there is little prospect of any of them being returned to Green Belt during the Green Belt boundary review, despite some of them arguably having been rather ill-chosen; the legal obstacles would be insurmountable. Even so, there is a need for PAS in the LDF, and we believe that by and large what serves as PAS under the UDP should continue to do so in the LDF; such sites would be amber rather than green or red.



We believe that none of the PAS land should be allocated for housing at this stage; some PAS sites might go for housing in a future five year review, others might be the only sites big enough to take schools and other extensive single uses and should be strategically reserved for that purpose. We recognise that even in a thorough Leeds-wide Green Belt review it is most unlikely that any PAS site would be returned to Green Belt.



Leeds does have scope to expand along the northern and eastern margins of its main urban area without harmful coalescence or infilling of strategic Green Belt; the danger of undue expansion of the built up area in Outer South West is that it would push West Yorkshire towards becoming a continuous conurbation, another Birmingham or Greater Manchester, with consequent harm to quality of life and discouragement of inward investment. This would be especially so if combined with uncoordinated extensive development in nearby parts of Bradford, Kirklees and Wakefield.



320 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06826


Representor No:

Name:


No explanation or justification has been put forward for the housing targets in the various HMCAs; it is unclear why Outer South West has been allocated 11% of the Leeds-wide total, whilst A ire borough and Outer North West have 3% each and Outer South has 4%.



We disagree fundamentally with the LDF claim that there is an objectively assessed need for 74,000 new dwellings within the life of the LDF.



321 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02719

Keith Morley

Representor No:

Name:


Having refused planning applications in the past, why does Leeds City Council think the time is right to develop this land? Every year sees more traffic on the poorly maintained roads in the area, and to swap us with any more houses and the vehicles that will come with them will be a very real hazard for young and old alike the area has already been raped over the years. No more please. What does the highways department think about swamping the narrow country lanes with ever increasing traffic? Access to and from the proposed site via Low Moorside Lane will double the amount of traffic thru the village to the detriment of everyone. How much more traffic will be using Lawns Lane? School run, Short cuts to the Ring Road? As a cyclist frequently using Low Moorside Lane, Lawns Lane, Chapel Lane, I know what hazard heavy traffic presents, and a good many kids are kept away from the playgrounds and parks for that very reason. This area is fast taking on a look of a trading estate, which vehicles parked upon the pavement some completely on (illegally)

H4Question Ref:

322 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01651

John Morris

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

323 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04833

Stephen Morris

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Proposed site 4046 (site which has potential but issues or not as favoured as green sites). This piece of land, a disused golf course, is the last & only piece of green-belt separating Leeds and Bradford. Previous owners of this land have tried to build on it, including a proposed football ground (Bradford Park Avenue, I believe), and all have been turned down by both Leeds & Bradford City Councils for the very reason that, according to Andrew Carter in a letter to me dated 22/7/2008, 'the land is Green Belt and both the Ward Councillors and Leeds City Council's Planning Authority would be very strongly opposed to any building on this valuable piece of Green Belt that separates Leeds from Bradford'!

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

site 4046 - see previous answer!

H4Question Ref:

Site 4046 - see previous answers!

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Sites 1117/1123B/1193B/1253/1187 - all in Calverley. I wonder how many councillors live in Calverley?

H7Question Ref:

No details, but how many houses does Leeds City Council own that are either unoccupied or in need of knocking down and replacing? And how many Brownfield sites could be used for housing/conversion to flats (eg. old mills/factories and the like) before using up 'valuable' Green Belt land?

H10Question Ref:

324 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00374

Sue Mosley

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – A site which has potential for housing development but issues or not favoured as ‘green sites’.Against any form of development on this site.Reasons:Over the past 20 years two further private developments have gone ahead with over 100 s/4 bedroomed houses being built, this increase in local populate has already had dramatic effect on local schools as they are always now oversubscribed which means local residents have to travel out of area to take children to school. Although massive increase in population of New Farnley – no additional public facilities have been provided and extra traffic now going through heavily populated areas, increasing risk of accidents, already some traffic calming measures were put in place around ten years ago because of increase in traffic flow. The proposed site has always been thought of as green belt and the local residents will also be spoilt by looking into this development. New Farnley has a ‘village feel’ and with a new housing development site proposed, if this goes ahead, this will take away the village feel.

H4Question Ref:

325 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01806

C Mould

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

326 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02259

Keith Moxon

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Field off low moor side, New Farnley, Amber to Red. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

327 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05734

Lisa Mulherin

Representor No:

Name:


3081 A (and 3081 B in Inner South) Hope Farm – I disagree with the designation of these sites (which have been artificially split between SHMCAs) as Green. They should be Red. These sites are Green Belt and are currently in agricultural use. The scale of housing put forward here – 374 houses – would irrevocably change the character of Robin Hood. It would erode the separation between the communities of Robin Hood, Middleton and Rothwell Haigh. The sheer volume of houses proposed on this one site is unsustainable given that the local schools (Primary and Secondary) are full already, that the Doctors surgery is at capacity and that the shopping facilities in the village are limited.3085 The Grange, Leeds Road, Lofthouse – I disagree with the designation of this site as Green. It should be Red. This site is Green Belt. It is not surrounded on three sides by development as stated in the consultation document. There is limited development on the three smallest parts of the 7 sided shape of this site (unless we are counting the cemetery). Consequently the proposals would amount to unrestricted urban sprawl into the Green Belt. If allowed to be developed this site would irrevocably change the character of the village of Lofthouse, which to date retains a semi-rural feel on the outskirts of both Leeds and Wakefield. It would lead to the loss of prime agricultural land in the famous Rhubarb Triangle. The sheer volume of houses proposed is unsustainable as the local schools (Primary and Secondary) are full already, the Doctor’s surgery is at capacity and Cemetery Lane and Green Lane/Jumbles Lane are not designed to support the additional volume of traffic. It is hard to believe that no highways issues have been raised given that highways issues are already a concern in the local area in terms of speed and volume of traffic along the Leeds Road and Green Lane/Jumbles Lane. There are concerns about additional flooding in the area if the natural soakaway in the farmer’s fields is lost because it has been built over. Yorkshire Water have had to undertake extensive work this year to remedy existing flooding to homes on Green Lane because the drainage systems could not cope with the existing flow of run-off water from the land uphill which includes this site.3445 A Leadwell Lane, Robin Hood – This is a more sustainable size of site. It would be relatively well contained rounding off the residential area adjoining the existing settlement to the west and south. However, Robin Hood remains a semi-rural area and should not be described as urban in the consultation document.536 Nook Farm, West Ardsley – I do not support the Green designation of this site. Haigh Moor Road has been subject to a substantial degree of house building in recent years and the road is increasingly hazardous as a result. Pressure on school places and doctors surgeries in this area already makes this site unsustainable and given the overlap and clear linkages between this site and 3373 I could not support this site as essentially an access point for a much larger development with an even more harmful impact on the character and sustainability of the village.562 East Ardsley old Primary School site – I support the Green designation of this site which is brownfield, has had previous planning permission and is well contained within the existing settlement in the village.1029 Land off Longthorpe Lane, Thorpe – I support the Green designation of this site which is well contained and of a sustainable size and nature. Any development here should contribute to expansion of Thorpe Primary School.1032 “The Church Fields”, East Ardsley - I cannot support the Green designation of this site in the plan as the local community fiercely object to the development of these fields which they state are well used for informal recreation and which form the green lungs of the village. The scale of development proposed is too great and would irrevocably change the character of the village and place unsustainable strain on already over-stretched school places and doctors surgeries.1143B Land off OldThorpe Lane, Tingley –It is Green Belt, would be contingent on development on the neighbouring site, therefore resulting in an unsustainable level of new housing in this one location and would result in urban sprawl. Concerns have also been raised by a resident about the air pollution levels which are significant in this vicinity near to the motorway and Tingley roundabout. Pollution levels should be thoroughly checked out in this area and around junction 41 before any further housing is built in either of these two locations.im I do not believe this Green Belt site is suitable for housing development. The South Eastern corner of the site is used for the annual circus and is currently designated as Park and Ride in the UDP. Retention as Park and Ride would be preferable if we are to have any hope of improving public transport links in the area. An extension of the NGT system to Tingley would be welcome.1143D Land off Old Thorpe Lane, Tingley -This Green Belt site should be redesignated Red. It is unsustainable in size and scale and would expose the adjacent sites to further unrestricted urban sprawl. Local schools have already been expanded to meet existing demand for places and the GP surgery is reported by local residents to be struggling to meet demand.1258 Land to rear of Westerton Road, Tingley – This scale of this site is more sustainable. It is however Green Belt and brownfield sites should be exhausted first.1330B Jude’s Pond, West Ardsley – The consultation document does not make clear the current status of this site. Recent experience of the “development” of the adjoining site does not inspire confidence in the developer’s approach to working with the local community. If done with due care and attention to the local environment and with respect for the local community this would be a relatively sustainable addition.2128 New Lane, East Ardsley – This is a relatively sustainable level of development, but the local school and GP’s surgery is at capacity. Moor Knoll Lane is essentially a country lane which would not cope with a much greater volume of traffic and there are already significant traffic and access problems at the school end of the road.3365 Westerton Road, Tingley – this site is too large and sprawling. A smaller scale proposal might have been supportable here. The site proposed eats too far in to theGreen Belt and would alongside the adjoining site be unsustainable in this location because of pressure on existing amenities (schools and GPs especially.)3373A and C either side of Haigh Wood – 274houses across these sites are unsustainable. There is a significant lack of school places. Both Hilltop and Westerton Primary are full. Hilltop is a tightly constrained PFI site and it is hard to see how it could be expanded. Westerton is already 3 form entry. Public transport links are terrible. For those reliant on public transport it is a two hour round trip to the GPs on Bradford Road. Open views across Haigh Wood would inevitably be damaged (a feature that a previous planning inspector was keen to maintain. Access to site 3373C would be potentially dangerous exiting on to Batley Road at the brow of the hill near Hilltop Primary. These Green Belt sites should be re-designated Red.3456A Ardsley Reservoir – This Green Belt site should be re-designated Red because of cumulative impact of new developments along Haigh Moor Road in recent years makes this proposal unsustainable. It would also protect the openness across to the reservoir.

H1Question Ref:

328 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05734

Lisa Mulherin

Representor No:

Name:


4004 Thorpe Hill Farm – This site is also supposedly Green Belt but is in industrial use. This site could potentially be used for housing in the future. I support the amber designation.2127 Tingley Station – This would lead to the development of a whole new village unconnected to the existing settlements. Existing schools, GPs surgeries in the area could not sustain this level of development. Considerable transport improvements would be required. It ought to be Red as with neighbouring site 2099.2105 Healey Croft ATC, Tingley – A smaller scale development on this site might be acceptable. It is part brownfield. Part however should be retained for recreational greenspace. Given that my ward is deficient in outdoor sports and children and young people’s equipped play I would welcome consideration of some different outdoor sports use for part of this site e.g. tennis courts.1274 and 2155 Land off Ardsley Common – each of these sites would be unacceptable. They are too large and individually they would result in an unsustainable development due to lack of school places, doctors surgeries, dentists and inadequate public transport. Collectively they are completely unacceptable and should be made Red.1143F Land off Common Lane (not Old Thorpe lane as it states in the document) – much of this site has been prone to flooding in recent years. A proper flood analysis should be carried out. The proposed scale of development would be harmful to this relatively small part of the settlement of East Ardsley, fundamentally altering its character. Local schools (at Thorpe and East Ardsley) are full and residents report lengthy waits to see a GP. This site is unsustainable and should be re-designated Red. 1069 Manor Farm, East Ardsley – Keep as amber. Some additional housing here may be acceptable, and would increase natural surveillance of the cricket ground which has been the subject of a number of anti-social behaviour attacks, but not on the scale proposed and I have serious concerns about the highways access onto Bradford Road.1067B off Pilden Lane – I believe this should be re-designated Red. It is GreenBelt. The Highways access is simply unacceptable for the additional number of houses proposed.1261 Church Farm etc – I disagree with the designation of this site. It should be Red. The site is Green Belt, is currently in agricultural use and forms an important part of the famous Rhubarb Triangle. There is no suitable access point. Only two possible access points – one of which is currently in employment use, the other would result in significant additional vehicle movements through Church Farm Croft exiting out onto the A61 by the Doctors Surgery. This is already a difficult junction due to the parking generated by the surgery and neighbouring Church. Neither access point would be suitable for the volume of traffic housing on this scale would generate.3088 Land East of Shop Lane – this site is also in the Green Belt and is right on the boundary with Wakefield. I welcome the fact that it is not listed as Green but believe the number of houses proposed in this small settlement would have a significant impact on that community.309 Thorpe Hall, Thorpe on the Hill – I support the Amber designation of this site. I would be willing to support limited development on this site. The Listed Thorpe Hall should be protected in any such proposal and sensitively redeveloped to meet today’s housing needs.

H4Question Ref:

1030 Pymont Farm - I agree that this should be red for the reasons set out in the consultation document – GreenBelt, access and that it does not relate well to the existing development. If development were allowed on this site it would also make it more difficult to protect the rest of the Green Belt around this site. Residents have suggested that this site might make a useful extension to the cemetery.1050 Land off Westfield Road – I agree that this site should be red for the reasons set out in the consultation document. Green Belt, scale doesnot relate well to existing settlement and would result in significant urban sprawl.2103 Allotments Copley Lane – I support the designation of this site as Red. In response to question G9 this site and the neighbouring site need to be retained as an important local amenity greenspace – they are currently used for allotments, a community orchard and community garden.2104 Leeds Road Lofthouse – I support the designation of this site as Red for the reasons set out in the consultation document.3084 Cemetery Lane, Lofthouse – I support the designation of this site as Red for the reasons set out in the consultation document.3445B Leadwell Lane, Robin Hood – I support the designation of this site as Red. Again this is a Green Belt site and one that is not connected to the existing residential area. The site is significant in size and scale and would have a harmful impact on the Green Belt function of separating settlements – in this case Robin Hood and its neighbouring town of Rothwell.173 The Peg Football Ground, East Ardsley – I support this designation as Red for the reasons set out in the consultation document.314 Boyle Hall, West Ardsley – I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document.1067A off Woodhouse Lane – I wholeheartedly support the Red designation of this site. Development here would lead to unrestricted urban sprawl into the Green Belt as well as being unsustainable in school, GP surgery and public transport terms.1068 Stoney Lane, East Ardsley – I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document.1143A Land off Old Thorpe Lane,Tingley – This site is not suitable for development and should stay Red. It is Green Belt, would be contingent on development on the neighbouring site, therefore resulting in an unsustainable level of new housing in this one location and would result in urban sprawl. Concerns have also been raised by a resident about the air pollution levels which are significant in this vicinity near to the motorway and Tingley roundabout. Pollution levels should be thoroughly checked out in this area and around junction 41 before any further housing is built in either of these two locations.1143C Spinkwell Lane Playing Fields, Tingley – this site should be protected as playing fields. It is not suitable for housing!1143E Tingley Athletic Ground, East Ardsley – as per comments for 1143C this site should be protected for playing fields. It is not suitable for housing!1260 N and S of Batley Road, West Ardsley – a completely unacceptable and unsustainable scale of development. The site is Green Belt. This would lead to erosion of the separation between districts and intolerable pressure on the very limited local amenities.2096 West Wood Road, Middleton, 2099 Dunningley Hill Farm and 2104 Leeds Road, Lofthouse – I support the Red designation of these sites for the reasons set out in the consultation document.3075 Scrapyard, Thorpe Lane, Middleton – Whilst supposed to be Green Belt this site is currently in use as a scrap yard. Enforcement action is being sought by a Middleton Councillor. The site as it stands extends too far to the South and is not well enough connected to existing settlements. Access onto Thorpe Lane would also need to be well thought out given the bend in the road here.3320 Thorpe Villa and Middleton Lane, Thorpe – I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document and because of the need to retain the separation between settlements.3372 East of Baghill Road - I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document.3373B Haigh Wood, West Ardsley - I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document. This wood is well used and much loved by the local community and walkers and cyclists from further afield and must be protected.3456B Ardsley Reservoir - I support the Red designation of this site for the reasons set out in the consultation document and because it would lead to the erosion of the separation between the villages of East and West Ardsley.

H7Question Ref:

329 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05734

Lisa Mulherin

Representor No:

Name:


My ward of Ardsley & Robin Hood is comprised of most of the villages between the towns of Morley and Rothwell at the southern most point of the Leeds District. The villages are almost all historic industrial communities most of which were linked to coal mines with a lead works, brick works and rail industry which closed many years ago, but they remain quite distinct in identity and proud of their heritage.

In recent years there has already been considerable new build in across the ward, with Robin Hood, Thorpe and West Ardsley seeing the bulk of this. The new housing has almost all been sold on the basis of being commuter-belt with ease of access to the motorways being seen as an important selling point for developers. That has in turn taken its toll on the communities that have been host to the new housing with increasing pressure on decreasing amenities (shops, post offices, pubs have closed, doctors surgeries and schools are at capacity, bus routes have been cut and road networks are struggling to cope with the volume of additional traffic.) Promises of additional capacity adjacent to the Ardsley Sidings development (a GP surgery, dentists, children’s day nursery and mini-supermarket) have not materialised due to the downturn in the economy, but the additional housing (over 400 houses in that immediate vicinity) still came.

It is understandable that set against this back drop local residents are deeply concerned about the scale of the site allocations being consulted upon in our area. There are 4924 houses across the green and amber sites in the three consultation documents relating to the Ardsley & Robin Hood ward. 2628 of these are in the Green Belt.

My constituents rightly feel that they have not had sufficient opportunity to consider and comment on the proposals in their area. As a ward Councillor I called for Drop-in consultation meetings at both sides of my ward. I was successful in winning the case to get a formal Drop-in consultation meeting in East Ardsley which served East Ardsley and Tingley well and which had some attendance from West Ardsley too. However my call to have a Drop-in event at the other side of my ward at Lofthouse or Robin Hood was turned down.

I and my ward colleague have taken copies of the consultation documents and feedback forms to Tenants and Residents Association meetings, Community Groups, PACT meetings, left copies in the Ardsley/Tingley Library and Lofthouse Community Centre. We have supported local residents who have drafted leaflets to deliver in their local area to draw people’s attention to the consultation and the need to register their views. We advertised the Drop-in session in East Ardsley through local Church and community noticeboards, through the East Ardsley Primary School newsletter and St Michael’s Church bulletin as well as a press release which was published in the Morley Observer. Despite all of this many residents are only learning of the proposals in their area very late in the day. For that reason I have called for an extension of the consultation to enable them to register their views.

As that extension has not been forthcoming, I wish to record my comments on the following sites in my ward and be clear that they primarily reflect the concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents in those areas.

A general observation I will make is that it seems unjust that so many large sites in Ardsley & Robin Hood have been subdivided (a prime example being site 1143) to make them seem more acceptable when large sites in neighbouring areas do not appear to have been treated in the same way. Subdividing sites does not reduce their overall impact when several of them are proposed for development. The cumulative impact of several medium size sites is just as harmful.


A general observation I will make is that it seems unjust that so many large sites in Ardsley & Robin Hood have been subdivided (a prime example being site 1143) to make them seem more acceptable when large sites in neighbouring areas do not appear to have been treated in the same way. Subdividing sites does not reduce their overall impact when several of them are proposed for development. The cumulative impact of several medium size sites is just as harmful.Additional site recommendation – the former health centre site just behind the library on Bradford Road. From memory this site previously had planning permission.


330 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02880

Hazel Murgatroyd

Representor No:

Name:


The traffic on Whitehall Road is already horrendous, with many not keeping the speed limit. More houses mean more traffic and already wwe take our life into our hands trying to cross the road. There is a blind corner further on the road and more traffic would be a nightmare

H1Question Ref:

The traffic on Whitehall Road is already horrendous, with many not keeping the speed limit. More houses mean more traffic and already wwe take our life into our hands trying to cross the road. There is a blind corner further on the road and more traffic would be a nightmare

H7Question Ref:

331 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04972

National Grid

Representor No:

Name:


National Grid has appointed AMEC to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regards to the current consultation on the above document.Overview – National GridNational Grid is a leading international energy infrastructure business. In the UK National Grid‟s business includes electricity and gas transmission networks and gas distribution networks as described below.Electricity TransmissionNational Grid, as the holder of a licence to transmit electricity under the Electricity Act 1989, has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical transmission system of electricity and to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.National Grid operates the national electricity transmission network across Great Britain and owns and maintains the network in England and Wales, providing electricity supplies from generating stations to local distribution companies. We do not distribute electricity to individual premises ourselves, but our role in the wholesale market is key to ensuring a reliable and quality supply to all. National Grid‟s high voltage electricity system, which operates at 400,000 and 275,000 volts, is made up of approximately 22,000 pylons with an overhead line route length of 4,500 miles, 420 miles of underground cable and 337 substations. Separate regional companies own and operate the electricity distribution networks that comprise overhead lines and cables at 132,000 volts and below. It is the role of these local distribution companies to distribute electricity to homes and businesses.To facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity, National Grid must offer a connection to any proposed generator, major industry or distribution network operator who wishes to generate electricity or requires a high voltage electricity supply. Often proposals for new electricity projects involve transmission reinforcements remote from the generating site, such as new overhead lines or new development at substations. If there are significant demand increases across a local distribution electricity network area then the local network distribution operator may seek reinforcements at an existing substation or a new grid supply point. In addition National Grid may undertake development works at its existing substations to meet changing patterns of generation and supply.Gas TransmissionNational Grid owns and operates the high pressure gas transmission system in England, Scotland and Wales that consists of approximately 4,300 miles of pipelines and 26 compressor stations connecting to 8 distribution networks. National Grid has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical transmission system for the conveyance of gas and respond to requests for new gas supplies in certain circumstances.New gas transmission infrastructure developments (pipelines and associated installations) are periodically required to meet increases in demand and changes in patterns of supply. Developments to our network are as a result of specific connection requests e.g. power stations, and requests for additional capacity on our network from gas shippers. Generally network developments to provide supplies to the local gas distribution network are as a result of overall demand growth in a region rather than site specific developments.Gas DistributionNational Grid also owns and operates approximately 82,000 miles of lower-pressure distribution gas mains in the north west of England, the west Midlands, east of England and north London - almost half of Britain's gas distribution network, delivering gas to around 11 million homes, offices and factories. National Grid does not supply gas, but provides the networks through which it flows. Reinforcements and developments of our local distribution network generally are as a result of overall demand growth in a region rather than site specific developments. A competitive market operates for the connection of new developments.National Grid and Local Development Plan DocumentsThe Energy White Paper makes clear that UK energy systems will undergo a significant change over the next 20 years. To meet the goals of the white paper it will be necessary to revise and update much of the UK‟s energy infrastructure during this period. There will be a requirement for:� an expansion of national infrastructure (e.g. overhead power lines, underground cables, extending substations, new gas pipelines and associated installations); and� new forms of infrastructure (e.g. smaller scale distributed generation, gas storage sites).Our gas and electricity infrastructure is sited across the country and many stakeholders and communities have an interest in our activities. We believe our long-term success is based on having a constructive and sustainable relationship with our stakeholders. Our transmission pipelines and overhead lines were originally routed in consultation with local planning authorities and designed to avoid major development areas but since installation much development may have taken place near our routes.We therefore wish to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) which may affect our assets including policies and plans relating to the following issues:� any policies relating to overhead transmission lines, underground cables or gas pipeline installations;� site specific allocations/land use policies affecting sites crossed by overhead lines, underground cables or gas transmission pipelines;� land use policies/development proposed adjacent to existing high voltage electricity substation sites and gas above ground installations;� any policies relating to the diverting or undergrounding of overhead transmission lines;� other policies relating to infrastructure or utility provision;� policies relating to development in the countryside;� landscape policies; and� waste and mineral plans.In addition, we also want to be consulted by developers and local authorities on planning applications, which may affect our assets and are happy to provide pre-application advice. Our aim in this is to ensure that the safe and secure transportation of electricity and gas is not compromised.National Grid infrastructure within Leeds City Council’s administrative areaElectricity TransmissionNational Grid‟s high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines / underground cables within Leeds City Council‟s administrative area that form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales include the following:� VR line – 275kV route from Kirkstall substation in Leeds to Bradford West substation in Bradford, passing through Leeds� VR Cable – 275kV route from Kirkstall substation in Leeds to Skelton Grange substation in Leeds (underground cable).� XK line – 275kV route from Skelton Grange substation in Leeds to Monk Fryston substation in Selby� 4ZZ line – 275kV route from Monk Fryston substation in Selby to Bradford West substation in Bradford� PHG line – 400kV route from Knaresborough substation in Harrogate to Thorp Arch in LeedsThe following substations are also located within the administrative area of Leeds City Council:� Kirkstall Substation - 275kV� Skelton grange Substation - 275kVNational Grid has provided information in relation to electricity transmission assets, including maps and GIS shape files showing their broad locations, via the following internet link:http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNWGas TransmissionNational Grid has the following gas transmission assets located within the administrative area of Leeds City Council:


332 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04972

National Grid

Representor No:

Name:


PipelineFeeder Detail19897 Feeder Pannal / CawoodNational Grid has provided information in relation to gas transmission assets, including maps and GIS shape files showing their broad locations, via the following internet link:http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNWElectricity and Gas DistributionNorthern Power Grid owns and operates the local electricity distribution network in Leeds City Council‟s administrative area.Northern Gas Networks owns and operates the local gas distribution network in Leeds City Council‟s administrative area.Contact details for Northern Power Grid and Northern Gas Networks can be found on the Energy Networks website: www.energynetworks.orgSpecific CommentsThe following sites identified in the Issues and Options consultation are crossed by National Grid high voltage electricity transmission assets:� Site Ref: 1053A: Northern Part of site, Pollard Lane, Newley. Crossed by VR overhead line (275kV).� Site Ref: 3454/1340. New Wortley. Crosses VR underground cable route (275kV).� Site Ref: 1175a. Land to the east of Brigshaw Lane, Kippax. Crossed by XK overhead line (275kV).Due to the presence of the above assets in relation to potential housing sites, National Grid would like the following comments to be taken into consideration.Overhead Line crossing through a site / close proximityNational Grid does not own the land over which the overhead lines cross, and it obtains the rights from individual landowners to place our equipment on their land. Potential developers of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. Because of the scale, bulk and cost of the transmission equipment required to operate at 400kV National Grid only supports proposals for the relocation of existing high voltage overhead lines where such proposals directly facilitate a major development or infrastructure project of national importance which has been identified as such by central government. Therefore we advise developers and planning authorities to take into account the location and nature of existing electricity transmission equipment when planning developments.National Grid prefers that buildings are not built directly beneath its overhead lines. This is for two reasons, the amenity of potential occupiers of properties in the vicinity of lines and because National Grid needs quick and easy access to carry out maintenance of its equipment to ensure that it can be returned to service and be available as part of the national transmission system. Such access can be difficult to obtain without inconveniencing and disturbing occupiers and residents, particularly where properties are in close proximity to overhead lines.The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. To comply with statutory safety clearances the live electricity conductors of National Grid‟s overhead power lines are designed to be a minimum height above ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site.National Grid seeks to encourage high quality and well planned development in the vicinity of its high voltage overhead lines. Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route should be used to make a positive contribution to the development of the site and can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court. National Grid, in association with David Lock Associates has produced „A Sense of Place‟ guidelines, which look at how to create high quality development near overhead lines and offers practical solutions which can assist in avoiding the unnecessary sterilisation of land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines.„A Sense of Place‟ is available from National Grid and can be viewed at:www.nationalgrid.com/uk/senseofplaceFurther information regarding development near overhead lines and substations is available here:http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/devnearohl_final/pdf/brochure.htmUnderground cable crossing through / near a siteOur underground cables are protected by renewable or permanent agreements with landowners or have been laid in the public highway under our licence. These grant us legal rights that enable us to achieve efficient and reliable operation, maintenance, repair and refurbishment of our electricity transmission network. Hence we require that no permanent structures are built over or under cables or within the zone specified in the agreement, materials or soil are not stacked or stored on top of the cable route or its joint bays and that unrestricted and safe access to any of our cable(s) must be maintained at all timesThe information supplied is given in good faith and only as a guide to the location of our underground cables. The accuracy of this information cannot be guaranteed. The physical presence of such cables may also be evident from physical protection measures such as ducts or concrete protection tiles. The person(s) responsible for planning, supervising and carrying out work in proximity to our cable(s) shall be liable to us, as cable(s) owner, as well as to any third party who may be affected in any way by any loss or damage resulting from their failure to locate and avoid any damage to such a cable(s).The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing underground cables is contained within the Health and Safety Executive‟s (www.hse.gov.uk) Guidance HS(G)47 “Avoiding Danger From Underground Services” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.Our cables are normally buried to a depth of 1.1 metres or more below ground and cable profile drawings showing further details along the route of the particular cable can be obtained from National Grid‟s Plant Protection Team. Cables installed in cable tunnels, deeper underground, whilst less likely to be affected by surface or shallow works may be affected by activities such as piling. Ground cover above our cables should not be reduced or increased.If a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the works, we request that no trees and shrubs are planted either directly above or within 3 metres of the existing underground cable, as ultimately the roots may grow to cause damage to the cable.The relocation of existing underground cables is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact and we believe that successful development can take place in their vicinity.Further AdviceNational Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition the following publications are available from the National Grid website or by contacting us at the address overleaf:� National Grid‟s commitments when undertaking works in the UK - our stakeholder, community and amenity policy;� specification for Safe Working in the Vicinity of National Grid High Pressure Gas Pipelines and Associated Installations - Requirements for Third Parties; and� A sense of place - design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines.Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We would be grateful if you could add our details shown below to your consultation database:

333 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02067

G A Naylor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

334 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01824

M Nelson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

335 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00367

David Newall

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I strongly object to site allocation plan 2123, on the grounds of, a new development would severely affect the value of my home. At the moment we have wonderful views of fields and trees. We were more than happy to pay a premium for these when we bought 20 years ago, we cannot afford to sell at a loss. The other issue of course would be the extra traffic the roads are very narrow thus making it dangerous for children, extra pressure on the schools, doctors, public transport etc…

H4Question Ref:

336 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05670

Newriver Retail Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


The Council has acknowledged the difficulty of letting large units when they become vacant and highlighted concern that once these are subdivided, it is harder to create these units again which impacts on retailer interest. NewRiver Retail do not agree with the Council’s proposal include a policy which protects large stores from being sub divided as it is too restrictive and does not provide enough flexibility to respond to market condition and may result in greater levels of vacancy. We therefore suggest that no such policy should be included in the Site Allocations Plan.

RVol1Question Ref:

We have reviewed the proposed Bramley Town Centre boundary and the proposed Primary Shopping Area. The NPPF defines the Primary Shopping Area as “Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages which are adjoining and closely related to the primary shopping frontage)”. By this definition, we recommend the inclusion of a number of retail units to the Primary Shopping Area including Unit 45 (currently Teddy’s Amusements), Unit 46 (currently Thorntons Fish and Chips) and Unit 2 (currently Farm Foods frozen foods). These units are clearly within an area where retailing is concentrated. We therefore consider that these units should be included in the Primary Shopping Area. The Bramley Town Centre boundary is currently very wide and encompasses a number of buildings which are not ‘town centre uses’ as defined by the NPPF. We consider that the town centre boundary should be more tightly drawn to reflect town centre uses and buildings. There we propose that the relatively recently developed warehousing unit off Waterloo Away should be excluded.

R1Question Ref:

Within the Primary Shopping Area (PSA), there should be more flexibility to the type of uses permitted, including non-A1 retail uses which often complement and enhance the existing retail provision. It is not yet clear what the intended policy for the PSA is. Furthermore, there are several units within the proposed PSA that are not identified as either ‘Primary’ of ‘Secondary’.

R2Question Ref:

A site has been submitted at Waterloo Land and Waterloo Way, Bramley. The site has been put forward for mixed used development with housing and retail. The Council has suggested in the relevant Background Document (‘Sites Details Housing Outer West’) this site to be suitable for retail use and has proposed to amend the Bramley Town Centre boundary to include it. The Council has already identified a limited forecast for retail capacity (Paragraph 7.6 of the Site Allocations Plan) and has recommended a cautious approach to new retail provision. Within the existing Bramley Town Centre boundary, there are a number of existing sites which are vacant; are closer to the PSA; and which could be redeveloped e.g. land west of Farm Foods and the vacant depot site to the rear). We therefore object to the amendment of the Bramley Town Centre boundary to include this site for retailing purposes and there is no clear need identified for doing so.

R3Question Ref:

We currently do not have any sites which we wish to bring forward for retail development. However, we reserve the right to submit a site for consideration if an opportunity within the town centre arises.

R4Question Ref:

337 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02082

Norman

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

338 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03387

Derek Norman

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Within the Leeds boundary there is a lot more brown belt land that could be used for residential housing.

H1Question Ref:

Site 2123. Having just moved into this area you have selected the land at the rear of my property which is unsuitable for building as previous searches and tests have confirmed the land is water logged, access road is a major issue and the village utilities would not be to cope with a potential build of the proposed properties. There has been no consideration to the residents and their quality of life. Yes we have the right of appeal, but we feel this is a step to late as the council are not listening. We understand the need for more housing, but there is plenty of more suitable land that could be built on without impacting local residents

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

2123 unsuitable land, utilities and the local impact to current residents would have a detrimental affect on our way of life due to over crowding in a small confined space

H4Question Ref:


H5Question Ref:


H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

2123 should never be developed on

H11Question Ref:

2123 unsuitable

H12Question Ref:

Please consider local residents and the impact any building work and over crowding will cause. Re-modernise areas that have empty council properties. There is plenty of brown land available that would be a better alternative


339 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04171

Charles Offord

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Sites on Gree Belt land which should be preservedOther sites including brownfield in particular should be considered first. Site 308 will be harmful to the character of the village which is in a rural location.Site 308 - A lack of local amenities and poor access to the development means

that it will result in a significant increase in car journeys on minor village roads, can the roads cope.Loss of key farming land.Some of the sites are in the famous "Rhubarb Triangle".The development take no consideration of local amenities and infrastructure inlcuding schools,

GPs etc.Some of the sites are in a rural location and is not a sustainable development.Proposed sites join up settlements like Lofthouse, Carlton and Robin Hood

H1Question Ref:

Site Reference 3085Resident objection to the development of 234 housesI strongly object to any form of housing development on greenbelt land and in particular this proposed site reference 3085 for the site allocation plans for Leeds.The site is on Green Belt land which should be

preserved. The government’s standard note (SN/SC/934) of 14th January 2013 confirms the government’s policy on protection for the green belt set out in chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF states that the construction of new buildings should be

regarded as “inappropriate” for the green belt. Other sites including brownfield in particular should be considered first. Whilst it is accepted that housing targets need to be strived upon, this should not be before all brownfield and regeneration opportunities have been exhausted. This site further erodes the agricultural land which lies between Leeds and Wakefield adding to the erosion of the boundaries of these two cities with

sprawling settlements. As well as the erosion of the space between Leeds and Wakefield it also The proposed site 3085 blocks in the view of the open countryside and further urbanises an area that already has one of the largest motorways interchanges in the UK sited!This site’s

proposal takes no account of the lack of local amenities and poor access to the site that will result in a significant increase in car journeys on minor village roads. The main access proposed is along an old lane which runs into the settlement of Carlton which has already experienced a number

of accidents and this development will further exasperate a trouble spot.The land lies in the centre of the famous “Rhubarb Triangle”. Recognised across the world as a centre for Rhubarb production this proposed development does not consider the loss of a key part of the heritage of the area. Despite receiving recognition for the area and the right to label local produce from the “Rhubarb Triangle” this de3velopment

destroys this valuable local heritage. The development is too large and disproportion to the area and this would cause massive pressure on local facilities and amenities which appear to have been totally ignored in this assessment. Local schools are currently struggling to cope, Carlton

Primary School, Robin Hood and Rodillian Secondary School are at capacity and do not have spare places.Wiping our hedgerows, trees, scrub and valuable agricultural land to build houses would have a negative impact on the area’s biodiversity and wildlife population as well as the open

access and views across to the settlement of Carlton and this site should not be endorsed.For these reasons I am vehemently opposed to any form of housing development on this site.

H2Question Ref:

1365a + 1365bthese site attach to existing development. They have no highways issues, and greater access to the infrastructure and amenities of Rothwell. The landowner is willing to offer the site up as a substitute to 3084 and the sites combined offer 252 houses which

would go a considerable way to supporting the Leeds sout outer target

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1365a + 1365bthese site attach to existing development. They have no highways issues, and greater access to the infrastructure and amenities of Rothwell. The landowner is willing to offer the site up as a substitute to 3084 and the sites combined offer 252 houses which

would go a considerable way to supporting the Leeds sout outer target

H4Question Ref:

3085no consultationThere are some basic flaws in the site reference assessment done as part of the SHLAA. Inaccuracies, ignored TPO in middle of the site, says the site has development on 3 sides which is wrong, nearest railway station wrong, highway assessment wrong. The site

is named the wrong reference and quotes planning permission from another address, my residence!!It blocks the spacial area and creates opportunity for further urban sprawl

H5Question Ref:

site 1365b would be a progression from 1365a and would support the Rothwell town centre without causing major disruption. It does not block in any aspect or cause to joing up with the Carlton settlement

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

1365b has support of local owner, provides good access. built up on two areas. rounds of settlement.

H7Question Ref:

1365b has support of local owner, provides good access. built up on two areas. rounds of settlement

H8Question Ref:

340 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04171

Charles Offord

Representor No:

Name:


site not on the map off the A642 between site reference 1249 and the current housing development.

H10Question Ref:

1365a move to short term1365b move to medium termnew site next to site 1249 on A642 short

H11Question Ref:

I think there are a number of flaws in the detail on site reference 3085 which I will be writing to the planning department on.Local awareness of the proposals is very low and was only alerted to this by a letter through my door


341 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05102

Sean Outhwaite

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 29 July 2013 22:33To: LDF LeedsCc: Carter, Cllr Andrew; Wood, Cllr RodSubject: Hillfoot Farm, Site 2120 in the Leeds Site Allocation Plan-Outer West

I write to voice my concerns over proposals to build on the Hillfoot Farm site in Pudsey, reference 2120. It is my understanding that this site is identified as "green" and as such is deemed in the most suitable category for future housing development. Furthermore, if such a development proceeds, I understand this could result in 70 new houses being built on this site. As a homeowner currently residing on the Hillfoot housing estate, I would like to strongly object to this proposed development. Whilst being aware that new properties are essential, I feel the Hillfoot Farm site is wholly unsuitable. Clearly, a number of my objections are based on my proximity to this site. However, there are many other reasons why I feel this development should not go ahead. One of my principal concerns is the number of housing developments already taking place in the immediate area. I think we are in danger of over stretching current local resources and services and also causing further road congestion in an already busy area.I am very concerned about the issue of how this site would accommodate the existing powerline system. Would development cause major disruption to utilities and are there health issues to be taken into account? I am worried about the effect on local wildlife, in particular the deer, birds and nesting bats which use the area. I fear these may be lost to the area and wonder how developers would deal with displacing a protected species such as the bat. Another concern to be taken into account is the question of access. Whichever way the site is accessed, both in terms of the initial build and later residential use, I fear a detrimental effect for existing residents. As a homeowner who lives currently overlooking the site, my opposition to the development is obviously all the greater. I am worried that a development would result in my property losing value, that my existing privacy will be compromised and that I will experience increased noise, light and air pollution. If the site is to be developed, surely something of greater use to the local community could be considered such as a park or allotment. Incidentally, there is a severe lack of any such resource in our part of Pudsey. I hope my comments and views will be taken in account with regard to the impending decisions to be made. Regards, [x]

H1Question Ref:

342 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01690

M Overend

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

343 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02735

Joan Palmer

Representor No:

Name:


3113/1044/1110/3112/3111

These sites are either amber or green but they should be redrawn to Red. The reasons are that they act as soak-away to rainfall – aided by a number of becks, running through and alongside for drainage. Over the last few years they have had surface water sitting for some time and homes along Wakefield Road have suffered minor flooding in basements and endless development will force run-off into the village and down Garforth Bridge causing road blockages in two main routes around Garforth. Traffic at either end of Wakefield Road will be negatively impacted increasing congestion especially at Town End. Any retail development will exacerbate this further.

There would also be extra demand on oversubscribed education and health services

H1Question Ref:

1366/2132/2032/2091/1004

2032 and 2091 are unsuitable as these are greenspace at the moment and should not be lost. 1004 is infill of 1366/2132 are low lying greenfield. All these sites will put extra stain on a struggling infrastructure, increasing flooding in the centre of the village and down to Garforth Bridge. There would also be extra demand on oversubscribed education and health services. This applys to all the previous comments for the other sites. These sites should be marked to red

H1Question Ref:

3113/1044/1110/3112/3111

These sites are either amber or green but they should be redrawn to Red. The reasons are that they act as soak-away to rainfall – aided by a number of becks, running through and alongside for drainage. Over the last few years they have had surface water sitting for some time and homes along Wakefield Road have suffered minor flooding in basements and endless development will force run-off into the village and down Garforth Bridge causing road blockages in two main routes around Garforth. Traffic at either end of Wakefield Road will be negatively impacted increasing congestion especially at Town End. Any retail development will exacerbate this further.


H4Question Ref:

1366/2132/2032/2091/1004

2032 and 2091 are unsuitable as these are greenspace at the moment and should not be lost. 1004 is infill of 1366/2132 are low lying greenfield. All these sites will put extra stain on a struggling infrastructure, increasing flooding in the centre of the village and down to Garforth Bridge. There would also be extra demand on oversubscribed education and health services. This applys to all the previous comments for the other sites. These sites should be marked to red

H4Question Ref:

3114/1165/2156

These are amber but should be red. These areas are low lying so prone to flooding especially as they are fed with becks from higher ground. The geology of the land I am led to believe is shifting so not suitable. Access to any development on these sites would have to be via Garforth Town End and through a single lane railway bridge which would be total unsuitable for the extra volume of traffic from an estimated 900homes. Again Town End junction would struggle with further congestion.


H4Question Ref:

344 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04658

Denis Parfitt

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Calverley lane, traffic, schooling infrastructure ,inadequate,also the village feel of Farsley would be destroyed.The council need to focus on providing for young working people who cannot afford to buy.

H2Question Ref:

Yes Calverley Lane,

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Calverley Lane.

H4Question Ref:

CalverleyLane

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Provide housing and infrastructure for those people who are working but cannot afford to buy.


345 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03570

William Parsons

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Site specific - see H2

H1Question Ref:

The site of Hillfoot Farm (2120) is marked on the plans as one of the sites “with greatest potential to be allocated for housing” I would like to oppose this option, and instead suggest that the council give consideration to it’s adoption as “Green Space” for the following reasons:1) Local

contribution to the housing stock.The Allocation Plan currently has allocation for 365 houses which are “in progress” within a mile of this site. These are on the following sites:Site number Description Number of houses being developed within 1 mile of Hillfoot Farm153 Cemetery

Road Pudsey 164248 Former Waterloo Primary School 30646 Bradley Lane, Pudsey 13649 Charity Farm 50666 Occupation Lane, Pudsey 813208 9 Marsh, Pudsey 53344 Land off Waterloo Mount, Pudsey 22TOTAL 365 housesThis equates to 21% of the 1,728 “ Existing

permissions and allocations” for the whole of Outer West Leeds within this small area. Our area has already accepted more than its fair share of housing development, and the land at Hillfoot Farm should be put to an alternate use.2) Green space. As documented in the table of

“Surpluses and deficiencies in different types of greenspace in the Outer West Area” (Page 29 of “Plan Volume 2, part 11 Outer West Leeds”), Pudsey is deficient in Five out of the Seven categories of Green-space.The Land at Hillfoot farm, currently categorised as “Agriculture” would

be an ideal location for the Council to make good on this deficit. The site would be sufficient for a large number of allotments (which are currently in very high demand, and the local sites have long waiting lists), and also for “Childrens and young peoples” space, by way of playground facilities,

skate parks and open park land. The existing facilities for Children and young people are poor, and long way for young people to go from homes on the Hillfoot estate (which itself contains no communal green space, and the children play in the roads instead).|Facility | Site number

on Plan 11.5A |Walking distance for furthest | |“UDP greenspace allocations |house on Hillfoot estate| |and open space audit sites || |- outer West” ||Queens Park| 90 |1 MileNotes: Play ground facilities for children. Nothing for

teenagers. Good playing fields|Park adjacent to Bolton Royd Primary school| 116 |¾ mileNotes: Basic play ground facilities for children, nothing for teenagers. |Land at the top of Owlcotes Road| 1306| ½ mileNotes: No facilities. Space reduced substantially by development of

housing site 3344 during 2012.

H2Question Ref:

The documents did not show which land is classified as "Green Belt", nor did they show the "Settlement Hierarchy" which has been used to "filter out" the following sites around Farnley:1273,2076,3458Whilst I support the boundaries of the city of

Leeds Urban area not drifting further and further out (for example into Wharfdale) I would not expect exemptions for under-developed areas (for example Farsley and Calverly)at the expense of areas which are already heavily developed (my example in this case being Pudsey). So, I

would propose these sites to be re-introduced into the Housing allocation process.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

I'm sorry to have to say this, but this has been VERY hard work, even to give input basically about a single site. I had a paper copy of the documents, which I got at the event in Pudsey in late June. I work full time, and have family commitments, so finding the time to read the documents to the required detail, and then try to figure out some of the missing information (where is the "Green Belt", what is the

"Settlement Hierarchy"?) has required a substantial investment of time.Also, when starting the "submit your feedback" process, I had no idea if I would be allowed to re-visit and amend my answers, or select only specific questions which I had formulated answers to. I do appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the process though. thank you.


346 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03570

William Parsons

Representor No:

Name:


No

H1Question Ref:

21201) The first point I wished to put was that Hillfoot farm, rather than becoming yet more in-fill housing should be allocated for Green space uses. (I have given this as feedback to the Housing allocation under reference W28260131992. ) The site of Hillfoot Farm (2120) is marked on the plans as one of the sites “with greatest potential to be allocated for housing” I would like to oppose this option, and instead suggest that the council give consideration to it’s adoption as “Green Space” for the following reasons:1) Local contribution to the housing stock. The Allocation Plan currently has allocation for 365 houses which are “in progress” within a mile of this site. These are on the following sites [see representation]. Total 365 houses.

This equates to 21% of the 1,728 “ Existing permissions and allocations” for the whole of Outer West Leeds within this small area. Our area has already accepted more than its fair share of housing development, and the land at Hillfoot Farm should be put to an alternate use.

2) Inclusion of woodland between Hillfoot Estate and the Ring road as "natural Green space"As documented on Page 29 of “Plan Volume 2, part 11 Outer West Leeds, Pudsey is deficient in Five out of the Seven categories of Green-space. The Land at Hillfoot farm, currently categorised as “Agriculture” would be an ideal location for the Council to make good on this deficit. The site would be sufficient for a large number of allotments (which are currently in very high demand, and the local sites have long waiting lists), and also for “Childrens and young peoples” space, by way of playground facilities, skate parks and open park land. The existing facilities for Children and young people are poor, and long way for young people to go from homes on the Hillfoot estate (which itself contains no communal green space, and the children play in the roads instead).

- Queens Park (site 90). 1 mile walking from furthest house on Hillfoot estate. Playground facilities for children, nothing for teenagers, good playing fields.- Park adjacent to Bolton Royds Primary School (116). 0.75 of a mile. Basic playground facilities for children, nothing for teenagers.- Land at the top of Owlcotes Road (1306). 0.5 of a mile. No facilities, space reduced substantially by development of housing site 3344 during 2012.

3) Comments on “Summary reason for colour coding” for Hillfoot farm. The site contains two of the very few old buildings that remain in this part of Pudsey: An unoccupied farmhouse in generally good repair, and an ancient barn which has been allowed to fall into a poor state of repair. The site did until recently have two substantial trees to the frontage on Galloway lane. These were removed by the current owner during 2012. While the land is currently unused, and is degrading in terms of farm-land (it has historically been grazingland), the fact that the current owners want to develop the site, and are thus not interested in maintaining it for other purposes should not be taken as reason to give preference to this site over other, perhaps tidier sites.

4) Environmental benefits of keeping the site as green space. Within the last few months deer have been seen on Hillfoot Farm. Presumably they have made their way up from the Aire Valley via Calverley, past Priest thorp School and into the woods between the Hillfoot estate and the Ring road. Although the majority of the land is pasture, there are a hundred meters of ancient, well established hedgerow, which is abundant with birdlife within the site which could be maintained while transitioning the site to official “green space” designated uses.

Inclusion of woodland between Hillfoot Estate and the Ring road as "natural Green space"There seems to be an omission from the "open spaces audit" in our area. The space in question is the land across the ring road from the Owlcotes Centre, bounded by; The ring road; The railway; the bridleway passing the Eastern edge of the Hillfoot Estate, and the estate itself. I believe this land was acquired as part of the farmland purchase on which the Owlcotes Centre was developed in the early 1990s. I've been told that as part of their planning permission , this area was planted to woodland (now matured 20 years). I have also been told that the woodland is in some way managed courtesy of the Temple Newsham estate (occasional maintenance does happen). The area directly across the ring road from the woodland (between the Owlcotes Centre and New Pudsey station) IS classified in the Green space categorisation (site 1305 "Natural green space"). Surely the woodland across the ring road should fall under the same categorisation?

I'm not sure it will fit here, so I intend to submit via e-mail the case for Hillfoot farm (currently categorised as "potential for housing") to be allocated as allotments and park land to help counter the green-space deficiencies you have documented in Pudsey.

H2Question Ref:

From reading a little into the "Core Strategy" papers, it seems as if the green-belt and "Settlement Hierarchy" are heavily weighted towards the less developed parts of Leeds staying that way, and the more developed parts being packed to the rafters with as much development as can be fitted in. While I am generally appreciative of the green belt, I do feel that if the city wishes to avoid becoming utterly polarised so that quality of life in the green-belt villages is hugely better than in all other parts of the city, then we're doing something wrong, and some of the sites currently filtered out under "not in settlement hierarchy" should be revisited.


347 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03570

William Parsons

Representor No:

Name:


21201) The first point I wished to put was that Hillfoot farm, rather than becoming yet more in-fill housing should be allocated for Green space uses. (I have given this as feedback to the Housing allocation under reference W28260131992. ) The site of Hillfoot Farm (2120) is marked on the plans as one of the sites “with greatest potential to be allocated for housing” I would like to oppose this option, and instead suggest that the council give consideration to it’s adoption as “Green Space” for the following reasons:1) Local contribution to the housing stock. The Allocation Plan currently has allocation for 365 houses which are “in progress” within a mile of this site. These are on the following sites [see representation]. Total 365 houses.

This equates to 21% of the 1,728 “ Existing permissions and allocations” for the whole of Outer West Leeds within this small area. Our area has already accepted more than its fair share of housing development, and the land at Hillfoot Farm should be put to an alternate use.

2) Inclusion of woodland between Hillfoot Estate and the Ring road as "natural Green space"As documented on Page 29 of “Plan Volume 2, part 11 Outer West Leeds, Pudsey is deficient in Five out of the Seven categories of Green-space. The Land at Hillfoot farm, currently categorised as “Agriculture” would be an ideal location for the Council to make good on this deficit. The site would be sufficient for a large number of allotments (which are currently in very high demand, and the local sites have long waiting lists), and also for “Childrens and young peoples” space, by way of playground facilities, skate parks and open park land. The existing facilities for Children and young people are poor, and long way for young people to go from homes on the Hillfoot estate (which itself contains no communal green space, and the children play in the roads instead).

- Queens Park (site 90). 1 mile walking from furthest house on Hillfoot estate. Playground facilities for children, nothing for teenagers, good playing fields.- Park adjacent to Bolton Royds Primary School (116). 0.75 of a mile. Basic playground facilities for children, nothing for teenagers.- Land at the top of Owlcotes Road (1306). 0.5 of a mile. No facilities, space reduced substantially by development of housing site 3344 during 2012.

3) Comments on “Summary reason for colour coding” for Hillfoot farm. The site contains two of the very few old buildings that remain in this part of Pudsey: An unoccupied farmhouse in generally good repair, and an ancient barn which has been allowed to fall into a poor state of repair. The site did until recently have two substantial trees to the frontage on Galloway lane. These were removed by the current owner during 2012. While the land is currently unused, and is degrading in terms of farm-land (it has historically been grazingland), the fact that the current owners want to develop the site, and are thus not interested in maintaining it for other purposes should not be taken as reason to give preference to this site over other, perhaps tidier sites.

4) Environmental benefits of keeping the site as green space. Within the last few months deer have been seen on Hillfoot Farm. Presumably they have made their way up from the Aire Valley via Calverley, past Priest thorp School and into the woods between the Hillfoot estate and the Ring road. Although the majority of the land is pasture, there are a hundred meters of ancient, well established hedgerow, which is abundant with birdlife within the site which could be maintained while transitioning the site to official “green space” designated uses.

Inclusion of woodland between Hillfoot Estate and the Ring road as "natural Green space"There seems to be an omission from the "open spaces audit" in our area. The space in question is the land across the ring road from the Owlcotes Centre, bounded by; The ring road; The railway; the bridleway passing the Eastern edge of the Hillfoot Estate, and the estate itself. I believe this land was acquired as part of the farmland purchase on which the Owlcotes Centre was developed in the early 1990s. I've been told that as part of their planning permission , this area was planted to woodland (now matured 20 years). I have also been told that the woodland is in some way managed courtesy of the Temple Newsham estate (occasional maintenance does happen). The area directly across the ring road from the woodland (between the Owlcotes Centre and New Pudsey station) IS classified in the Green space categorisation (site 1305 "Natural green space"). Surely the woodland across the ring rode should fall under the same categorisation?

I'm not sure it will fit here, so I intend to submit via e-mail the case for Hillfoot farm (currently categorised as "potential for housing") to be allocated as allotments and park land to help counter the green-space deficiencies you have documented in Pudsey.

G1Question Ref:

348 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03570

William Parsons

Representor No:

Name:


Potential "Green Corridor" walking and cycling route from West Pudsey to the Owlcotes Centre and and New-Pudsey train station and beyond.

For residents of West Pudsey, who live less than a mile from the Marks and Spencer's and 24 Hour ASDA stores at the Owlcotes centre, getting there usually means a trip in the car.The current alternatives are fairly unpalatable.1) Walk, or ride your bike, out to the Thornbury Barracks roundabout, along the Leeds-Bradford road (6 lanes wide at this point), across the ring road (5 lanes wide) at the pedestrian crossing, navigate through the carpark of New-Pudsey railway station to find the path along the back of the Owlcotes Centre car park.2) Walk, or ride your bike, over a substantial hill towards central Pudsey, down to the ring road, and through the underpass. Then walk back over the substantial hill with your shopping.3) Walk along the bridleway from Owlcotes farm (on Owlcotes Road) across to the ring road. Cross the ring road as best you can (there are no facilities other than a gap in the central reservation), cross the busy slip road leading to the Owlcotes Centre car park, into the woods on the far side, and keep walking until you reach the path from New-Pudsey station to the Owlcotes Centre car park.It’s fairly understandable why people jump into their cars! It doesn’t have to be this way though. With a fairly modest investment, it would be possible to create a green corridor running from West Pudsey to the Owlcotes Centre. There are two potential routes, and one piece of infrastructure that would be required.Route option 1)The existing bridleway that passes between Owlcotes Farm and the Hillfoot estate could be re-surfaced to provide an all-weather route that would be suitable for walkers or cyclists. The current bridleway is in a poor state of repair, and is often very muddy, reducing it’s practicality as a convenient route.Route option 2)If, as is hoped, the land at Hillfoot Farm (near the junction of Owlcotes road and Galloway Lane) is adopted by the council as “greenspace”, then it could be the start of a “green corridor between West Pudsey and the Owlcotes Centre. The route would pass through the land of Hillfoot Farm, and then continue through the woods between the Hillfoot estate and the ring road. Both options take us to the ring road, where the major hurdle lies. In order to make this rout a viable option, the crossing point at the ring road must be greatly improved as it is currently very dangerous. The two main options at the ring road would seem to be A) Pedestrian Crossing. Install a button operated pedestrian crossing, allowing users to create a safe crossing opportunity as required. B) Build a bridge. This option, while more costly would mean that the route could flow more freely, and would provide a much safer crossing option for children than being down at ground level with the cars and lorries (often reaching 70 miles an hour along the west-bound stretch of the ring road at this point) Once across the ring-road and slip road, the path through the existing open land could be upgraded, and an entrance to the back of the car-park (near the current recycling facilities) created. This would lead to the “pedestrian aisle” which runs almost the full length of the car park, straight to the door of ASDA Alternatively, the path could be upgraded all the way to meet up with the existing path at the back of the carpark(Stanningley side).

Who would want to be involved? I believe a number of organisations may be interested in this idea: WYMETRO: West Yorkshire Metro have recently put in a funding bid for a cycling "super-highway" linking up Leeds and Bradford with a people friendly cycle route. The route described above could help the "Cycle Super-highway" to avoid the very dangerous section of the Leeds-Bradford road between Dawsons corner and the Thornbury triangle. Even if not part of the main route, this could provide a very good "feeder route", and connection to the station at New Pudsey. Sustrans - integrated cycling and walking routes that help to join up communities. ASDA and Marks & Spencer's - With "green credentials" high in the minds of many companies, supporting this route would offer these companies the chance to show their support for customers leaving the car at home, and getting fitter and healthier whilst doing their shopping.

G7Question Ref:

349 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01847

Shelia Pearson

Representor No:

Name:


I object to this on the grounds of loss of green belt/farming land.

H7Question Ref:

350 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01847

Shelia Pearson

Representor No:

Name:


I object to this for two reasons1. Loss of green belt/farming land2. Increased level of traffic. Gamble Lane particularly is already a nightmare with the volume of traffic for such a narrow winding lane

H1Question Ref:

I object to this on the grounds of loss of green belt/arable land

H1Question Ref:

I object to this for two reasons1. Loss of green belt/farming land2. Increased level of traffic. Gamble Lane particularly is already a nightmare with the volume of traffic for such a narrow winding laneI object to this on the same grounds as question 1. Even if Access is directed somehow through Wood Grove to Wood Lane, that also is already horrendously busy for the size of Road

H4Question Ref:

351 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03345

Marilyn Peat

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

the roads to this proposed site are not suitable for additional traffic in and out of new farnley. we have 1 shop. local children are unable to attend the local school and have to travel to other areas

H1Question Ref:

site 2123 is not sustainable for housing for the reasons stated above

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

site2123 for reasons previously stated

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

352 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02274

Ethal Pickard

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

353 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03594

Sarah Pilling

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Calverley is already at bursting point as regards primary school provision and there is simply not the scope to accommodate new builds and new families.

H1Question Ref:

I am particularly opposed to sites 1193a and 1123a as they would encroach on vital greenbelt land but would also be opposed to sites 1117, 1123b, 1193a and 1193b as further development would have a major impact on the character of the village and its facilities.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Calverley is a small village with important green belt around it and any development would have a negative impact on the village and its facilities.

H7Question Ref:

No

H11Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

No

H14Question Ref:

No

H15Question Ref:

354 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00394

S Pitt

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – We really like our view having moved here 2 years ago, it’s peaceful and when there are horses in the field it’s just even better, it would just spoil everything by filling it with a load of houses. We strongly object to anything being built there as it would make a lot difference i.e. to the traffic it will cause, noise etc.

H4Question Ref:

355 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04000

Mark Platts

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Im astounded at such a ridiculous question, surely in such an environmentally aware age our green belt sites should be preserved!

H1Question Ref:

1171bFurther to my comments on the paper application, the proposed housing developments would completely destroy the countryside surrounding our homes not to mention be a gross invasion of our privacy. I have stated by opposition as series of bullet points -

1.PRIVACY - On Ashfield we treasure our privacy and enjoy our gardens immensely, we do not want these huge 3 story houses towering over our gardens allowing people to gawp at us and into our homes and thus destroying our much valued privacy.2.TRAFFIC - The traffic flow

would also be increased significantly on an already extremely busy road (a58 Whitehall road) leading to an increase in accidents and general traffic disruption3.POLLUTION -The land itself is a former landfill site so who knows what kind of contamination would be unleashed once

building work commenced.4.DANGEROUS GROUND - There are also a series of mineshafts running under the land from the former Farnley Fireclay brickworks which was situated opposite Ashfield. I would certainly not wish to purchase a property built on a former

mineshaft!5.STANDARD OF LIVING – In the last 20 years we (the residents of Ashfield) have seen huge developments opposite (Lettershop Group) and adjacent (new housing). These developments have been depressing enough but we still had open fields to the back and one side of our houses which provide a sense of openness and countryside, these new proposed developments will take these final two pieces of greenbelt

away, leaving our houses completely surrounded by ugly storage units and even uglier housing.6.ELECTRICITY PYLON – What are the proposals regarding the electricity pylon? I assume this will be moved or will the developers build house around it?7.DRAINAGE AND

FLOODING – During wet weather a huge amount of water runs down from the hills on which the proposed housing will be built, a series of flood banks have been built into the land behind our houses to stop our properties becoming flooded. We do not wish to become the victims of flooding

for the sake of a developers greed.8.CHARACTER – Our properties were built over 120 years ago and have a certain amount of historical charm, being surrounded by a “housing estate” of modern identikit homes will destroy this character9.GREEN BELT – In an age of ecological

awareness is it really necessary to destroy such a huge area of green belt when an existing area of newly cleared brown belt is available only ½ a mile away? (the site of the former Roda industrial works on adjacent to Ringways car dealership)

H2Question Ref:

1171a and 2159, surely if 1171b is green belt then both of these adjacent areas should also be green

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1171bFurther to my comments on the application, the proposed housing developments would completely destroy the countryside surrounding our homes not to mention be a gross invasion of our privacy. I have stated by opposition as series of bullet points - 1.PRIVACY - On Ashfield

we treasure our privacy and enjoy our gardens immensely, we do not want these huge 3 story houses towering over our gardens allowing people to gawp at us and into our homes and thus destroying our much valued privacy.2.TRAFFIC - The traffic flow would also be increased

significantly on an already extremely busy road (a58 Whitehall road) leading to an increase in accidents and general traffic disruption3.POLLUTION -The land itself is a former landfill site so who knows what kind of contamination would be unleashed once building

work commenced.4.DANGEROUS GROUND - There are also a series of mineshafts running under the land from the former Farnley Fireclay brickworks which was situated opposite Ashfield. I would certainly not wish to purchase a property built on a former mineshaft!5.STANDARD

OF LIVING – In the last 20 years we (the residents of Ashfield) have seen huge developments opposite (Lettershop Group) and adjacent (new housing). These developments have been depressing enough but we still had open fields to the back and one side of our houses which provide a sense of openness and countryside, these new proposed developments will take these final two pieces of greenbelt away, leaving our houses

completely surrounded by ugly storage units and even uglier housing.6.ELECTRICITY PYLON – What are the proposals regarding the electricity pylon? I assume this will be moved or will the developers build house around it?7.DRAINAGE AND FLOODING – During wet

weather a huge amount of water runs down from the hills on which the proposed housing will be built, a series of flood banks have been built into the land behind our houses to stop our properties becoming flooded. We do not wish to become the victims of flooding for the sake of a

developers greed.8.CHARACTER – Our properties were built over 120 years ago and have a certain amount of historical charm, being surrounded by a “housing estate” of modern identikit homes will destroy this character9.GREEN BELT – In an age of ecological awareness is

it really necessary to destroy such a huge area of green belt when an existing area of newly cleared brown belt is available only ½ a mile away? (the site of the former Roda industrial works on adjacent to Ringways car dealership)

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

The area of brown belt adjacent to Ringways car dealership on whitehall road, was recently the Rhone engineering works and is now completely flattened and clear. This is a brown belt area already surrounded by housing

H10Question Ref:

No sites in green belt areas surrounding our homes should be developed, we are sick and tried of having to contantly fight Leeds City council and developers who want to destroy our area

H11Question Ref:

356 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03695

Richard Pollard

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

No comment.

H1Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Site 1117 in Calverley is not a suitable location for housing for the following reasons: 1. Traffic. Additional housing along Carr Road would further increase traffic congestion through the village, especially at peak times. This is particularly evident with traffic toward Greengates which is limited by the junction between A657 and A658. Traffic backs up from this junction periodically all the way to St Wilfrids church. Vehicles from Site 1117

accessing Carr Road would have difficulty turning into the road without creating access difficulties and increasing the risk for accidents. 2. Access. The eastern side of the site is separated by the Calverley Cutting which is a bridleway and existing housing (72, 72a, 72b). Access on to Carr Road would be a narrow area which is cause traffic bottle necks and increase the risk of accidents to pedestrians who access the Calverly

cutting to enter the Calverley Wood. 3. Overlooking and house values. Our current house overlooks grazing land and any development would affect our outlook and potentially impact on future house values. 4. Noise and disturbance during construction. This would impact on the quality

of village life and well as us and our neighbours. 5. Greenspace. This area has historically been used as grazing land and further development would lead to loss of greenspace in the village. 6. Schooling. Further housings on 1117 would increase the population of the village without any

further provision of school places for primary school age children. Both Parkside School and the C of E Primary School are already popular and would have difficulty in absorbing further pupil intakes.

H7Question Ref:

N/a

H8Question Ref:

1123a, 4049 and 1193a. 1. Traffic. Additional housing along Rodley Lane and Woodhall Road would further increase traffic congestion through the village, especially at peak times. This is particularly evident with traffic toward Greengates which is limited by the junction between A657 and

A658. Traffic backs up from this junction periodically all the way to St Wilfrids church.2.Noise and disturbance during construction. This would impact on the quality of village life. 3. Greenspace. This area has historically been used as grazing land and further development would lead to

loss of greenspace in the village. 4. Schooling. Further housings on 1117 would increase the population of the village without any further provision of school places for primary school age children. Both Parkside School and the C of E Primary School are already popular and would have difficulty in absorbing further pupil intakes.

H9Question Ref:

357 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01833

S Poole

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

358 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01834

J Poole

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

359 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02271

Neville Powell - Smith

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

360 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04112

Graham Price-jones

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

as a long term resident of the wortley area I have been sad to see the decline of the former oldfield lane football ground.I have many great memories of playing there as a boy,since its its closure it has at times been an illegal traveller site and has now become a dumping ground for litter and rubbish, indeed last time I looked over the oldfield lane wall the ground was strewn with broken bottles,the whole site is a sad eyesore

and the former greenkeepers house a derelict ruinI totally support the plans for new housing on this site, young people are finding it very difficult to set up home given the huge rise in our population.new housing is essential and this plan can only help to enhance the area.

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

oldfield lane football ground.as soon as poss for reasons already given

H11Question Ref:

no

H12Question Ref:

no view

H14Question Ref:

I hope that my views are on the correct site for the planning application comments


361 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02976

Nadia Prince

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 29 June 2013 09:27To: LDF LeedsCc: Carter, Cllr AndrewSubject: Leeds Local Development Plan

Hi

I just wanted to let you know my objections regarding the housing site allocations 1110 / 1114 / 2121

I agree with the objections of [x] and [x].

There have been no proposals for infrastructure such as schools, doctors surgeries or road plans. All of which are critical for the local community, the future of the city and conservation of the green belt area.

I'm on holiday now and will be unable to attend the meeting on the 25th June.

Regards

[x]

H4Question Ref:

[blank]

H4Question Ref:

362 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02976

Nadia Prince

Representor No:

Name:


111011142121I just wanted to let you know my objections regarding the housing site allocations 1110 / 1114 / 2121. I agree with the objections of Andrew Carter and Rod Wood. There have been no proposals for infrastructure such as schools, doctors surgeries or road plans. All of which are critical for the local community, the future of the city and conservation of the green belt area.

H4Question Ref:

363 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01753

M Pullan

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

364 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06148

Quora Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


Our client acquires land and promotes its development to deliver regeneration for local communities to be proud of. By establishing and satisfying the needs of business and the local populous, our cl ient creates opportunities for companies and individuals in those communities to ensure the enhancement of the local environment, engendering civic pride and economic activity. Quora specialise in retail· and mixed use development solutions in town centre; local centre arid out of ·centre, locations, working closely with local statutory bodies and the major food retail operators together with leading operators from other commercial and retail based operations'.The Leeds Site Allocations Plan will identify or 'allocate' areas of land within the Leeds district for specific types of development, such as housing, employment, retail and green space up to 2028; The Plan following a 'Call for Sites' reviews the potential of each site to accommodate retail development.:Firstly, we note that the Council have referred to the Council's 2011 retail study which identified a need for new retail floorspace (net) within the convenience sector up to 2026: ·19,626sqm at 2016 increasing- to 30,747sqm at 2021 and 41,515sqm at 2026 .Land at Tong RoadOur client is actively promoting Land at Tong Road whjch comprises a residential dwelling, with associated scrap yard, scrubland and associated building for retail use. The site is located within a mixture of commercial uses, including a local centre 350m to the east of the site. The site has been identified within the Allocations Plan, with the greatest potential to be allocated for housing development, under site reference 1341.The Council note that the site is accessible to a mode of transport, with good frontage onto Tong Road and Albany Street. The site has been identified with capacity for 19 dwellings, within a timeframe of 0-Syears. However, the Councils appraisal has identified potential contamination issues on site, with a need for improvements to access and traffic calming measures along Albany Street. In light of the above, a viable scheme will need to be progressed in order to address constraints identified with the site. The Core Strategy identifies a target for the Outer West area during the plan period of 4,700 dwellings. The Council's have identified an existing supply of 2,040 dwellings from recent permissions. This equates to a net need of 2,660units. The council have identified a number of 'Green' and 'Amber' sites with capacity to accommodate 3,515 dwellings(including Land at Tong Road), resulting in a net surplus of 855 dwellings. Given the oversupply of housing within the Outer West Ward, and constraints associated with the redevelopment of the site; we consider the allocation of Land at Tong Road for retail development more appropriate and in line with the NPPF's objectives of securing and promoting economic growth. Indeed, it is considered that development in this location would serve a localised catchment and would aid regeneration within a predominately commercial area. On this note, the site is located in the West Leeds Gateway, an area where the Council are seeking to promote physical regeneration and job creation. The West Leeds GatewaySupplementary Planning Document (SPD) seeks to stimulate regeneration and provide a coherent approach for positive action to create a vibrant and successful community. Although the site is identified for housing, the SPD acknowledges that the Council are keen to see the site developed, given its poor impact on the environment of the area. As a result, the Council note that they seek to take a realistic approach in terms of promoting a viable scheme for the site. Overall, the site comprises brownfield land that was previously used for commercial purposes, including a scrapyard. As a result, the site is well located to promote economic regeneration, investment and local employment opportunities in an area which suffers from deprivation, and poor access to a car of van (the West Leeds Gateway SPD identifies more than half (54%) of the local residents as having no access to a car or van). Finally, potential contamination issues combined with economic factors, indicate that a commercial schemewould be better suited for the site. Indeed, given the limited range of main food retailers within a 5 minute drive time of the site, the proposal is well located to meet an identified need for a localised shopping facility.Public ExaminationFinally, our client feels that it is important that the issues raised in this letter are discussed fully at the EIP. On this note, please can you highlight our client's intentions to particulate at the oral part of the examination.

H1Question Ref:

365 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01081

David Rawnsley

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

The Area marked as 1531 Leeds & Bradford Road an area of 14.121 Ha (owned by the council) should be marked as housing. This would generate income for the council and reduce demand on other areas

H1Question Ref:

I disagree with areas identified as 1117 in Calverley as this is greenspace separating Greengates and Calverley. The same separation applies for 1193 A&B between Calverley and Rodley

H2Question Ref:

1531 Leeds & Bradford Road - Owned by the Council The land is not used other than for wild horses to roam

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Brownfield sites in Leeds should be used first and redevelopment of existing housing sites to improve housing stock and increase housing densities should be used first before using greenbelt land which only benefits private House Developers

H4Question Ref:

1117, 1193 and 1123 all in Calverley

H5Question Ref:

No

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1117 and 1193 both provide separation between Calverley and other settlements

H7Question Ref:

1117 and 1193 both provide separation between Calverley and other settlements

H8Question Ref:

N/A

H9Question Ref:

1531 Leeds & Bradford Road presently marked as open space Land owned by the council

H10Question Ref:

1531

H11Question Ref:

No

H12Question Ref:

No

H13Question Ref:

No

H14Question Ref:

No

H15Question Ref:

366 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01081

David Rawnsley

Representor No:

Name:


No


367 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01081

David Rawnsley

Representor No:

Name:


In section 5.28 Allotments Calverley and Farsley Ward (Page 14 of your 11 OW GS BACKGROUND PAPER 22.04.13 document) there is no mention of the Allotments site at Lydgate Place Calverley. It is a small allotment site but needs to be included so it is not forgotten.

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

Site reference 1426 which was previously allotments should be brought back into use as Allotments. The area should be bought by the council if practicable

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:


G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

368 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00376

Julie Reed

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - What about schooling as there is no room in the school's around for people's children already here.

H4Question Ref:

2123 - Why build in a area that will create more traffic that already has too much. In the area that as stables / walkways etc

H4Question Ref:

2123 - What about the natural stream on the land that also has boggy area so will cause subsidence.

H4Question Ref:

369 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00376

Julie Reed

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

370 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01717

C Reed

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

371 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05655

David Reed

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1114, 2121I would like to register my objection to the proposed developments to land : Site 1114 Kirklees Knoll &Site 2121 Calverley Lane.The 2 plots of land are the only green fields that we have, they enhanced the fabric of our village andwelcome you when entering Farsley.If planning was passed for these 2 sites it would be a major blow and injustice to Farsley residents whohave enjoyed these green open spaces for many years.The infrastructure & amenities available now, traffic,roads, schools, doctors etc. are already at full stretchso to even consider introducing over 500 new homes (and who knows how many people?) would makeour village services crash.I was informed at the planning meeting that "nobody is entitled to a view" maybe not but we are entitledto a standard of living which a village can cope with.

H4Question Ref:

372 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


• 1299A — BODINGTON HALL: this should continue to be designated "GREEN" and I would suggest that access should be from Otley Road so as to prevent traffic pressure on Adel Lane and Long Causeway and also encourage use of Otley Road bus services

H1Question Ref:

• 1033 — GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS: this should continue to be designated "GREEN" and I would suggest that only residences are built on this site (ie no hotel or car showroom etc) access should be from Otley Road so as to prevent traffic pressure on Adel Lane and Long Causeway and also encourage use of Otley Road bus services

H1Question Ref:

373 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


SITE ALLOCATION IN ADEL - SITE REFS:• 1178A and 1178B - DUNSTARN LANE• 1033 - GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS• 1079, 1243 and 1246 - LONG CAUSEWAY• 1299A and 1299B - BODINGTON HALL• 2052 - TILE LANE• 2130 - CHURCH LANEI write, as part of the public consultation in respect of the Site Allocations Plan, to inform you of my views of the Council's designation of the above sites. Whilst I primarily write to object to the designation of site 1178A at Dunstarn Lane as a green site (ie the site should NOT in ANY way be regarded as suitable for development), I wish to inform you of my views regarding all of these sites and refer below to the relevant provisions of the Leeds Development Framework's "Core Strategy" ("CS") and the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF").1. GREEN BELTNPPF para 89 "...the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are... limited infilling of previously developed sites... which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within itthan the existing development" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the NPPF by Leeds CityCouncil ("LCC") as it would constitute inappropriate development. The existing housing at Dunstarn Lane does not impact the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of the Green Belt. Developing 1178A would destroy the openness of the Green Belt at that site and would have anegative impact on the following purposes of the Green Belt as set out at NPPF para 80 "Green Belt serves.., to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas... to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment... to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging therecycling of derelict and other urban land." As set out in LCC's own site survey, development here would mean" high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl" and it would cease to assist in safeguarding against encroachment as it would put at risk the neighbouring site 1178B, a site which "performs an important role safeguarding the countryside from encroachment". Furthermore, developing 1178A would in no way assist in urban regeneration - not building on the site would encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Also, development of 1178A cannot be unquestionably regarded as "limited infilling" given that the adjoining sites are predominantly landscaped as opposed to developed.NPPF paras 87-89 "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt... inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances... 'very specialcircumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations"As shown above, allowing development of 1178A would be inappropriate and therefore the NPPF would be directly contravened by LCC unless 'very special circumstances' exist. Hoever the harm to the Green Belt, the biodiversity of the area and residents' amenity is in no way clearly outweighed by other considerations. Only large homes would be in keeping with the existing development on the adjoining area and, given that Leeds already has a large supply of such homes (as is irrefutably acknowledged by LCC in CS Policy H4), there clearly are no very special circumstances to justify the construction of new buildings on this Green Belt site. Even if building of smaller capacity homes was somehow decided as being in keeping with the adjoining area, this would still not be a reason to build on a Green Belt site whilst there are other sites with planning permission that have not commenced building and whilst Leeds continues to have such a high number of homes standing empty and boarded up (approximately 15,500 homes according to recent reports).CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "the delivery of the strategy will entail the use of brownfield and greenfield land and in exceptional circumstances (which cannot be met elsewhere), the selective use of green belt land where this offers the most sustainable option"and the definition of "sustainable development" in the CS as having "...minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gains..." Allowing development of 1178A would clearly be a direct contravention by LCC of this provision as there are no exceptional circumstances which cannot be met elsewhere and development on this site is not the most sustainable option given its environmental and social amenity (and the only economic gain will be for the landowner(s) and developer(s), not the wider society).CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "the Green Belt boundary should remain in place over a long period and should only be changed in exceptional circumstances" and NPPF para 83 "...Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances"Allowing development of 1178A would be a de facto alteration of the Green Belt boundary by LCC which would directly contravene both the CS and NPPF given that there are no exceptional circumstances that justify such alteration.NPPF Core Planning Principle 5 "...protecting the Green Belts... recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside", NPPF para 79 "...the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence...", NPPF para 81 "...local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt... to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity", NPPF para 109 "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by... Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes... minimising impacts on biodiversity" and CS Section 2 acknowledgement that "...Green Belt... is very important in its own right for aspects such asbiodiversity and urban cooling. The quality of the environment.., is important to improve physical and mental health as it provides a sense of wellbeing... the district's distinctive landscape character needs to be respected, conserved and enriched" Clearly, allowing the development of 1178A — which would lead to the destruction of a beautiful landscape whose openness and biodiversity is much valued by local residents - would be a direct contravention by LCC of these provisions. It is also relevant to bear in mind the case of Britton vSOS, the courts concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into English law under the Human Rights Act 1998).Furthermore, I would invite LCC to give due weight and consideration to: A) Green Belt against other green spaces - for example, despite having a score of 15 and 13 respectively out of 15 from the Highways review, together with greater scope for affordable housing (an LCC priority) and no biodiversity impacts, sites 2058 (Allerton Grange High) and 1299B (Bodington Hall) have been classed as "RED" due to their historical designation from the existing UDP of N6 — Protected Playing PitchB) site 1178A against other Green Belt sites — for example, despite having comparable or lesser potential Green Belt negative impacts, together with higher Highways review scores, than site 1178A (ie site -1178A-objectively appears to be less appropriate for building allocation), other sites have been classed as Amber (1172 Yorkshire Bank Sports Ground, 2035B Alwoodley Lane, 3315 Elmete Lane) or Red (1310 Outwood Lane, 3327 Layton Road, 3330 West End Lane, 3381 Brownberrie Farm)) despite their being objectively more appropriate for building allocation I, and several of my fellow Adel residents, are deeply troubled by the fact that there is no clear defensible reason why LCC regards Green Belt site 1178A as suitable for development. 2. SPATIAL STRATEGY AND POLICYCS's Spatial Policy 1(ii) "...identification of land for development with priority given in the following order: (A) previously developed land and buildings within the settlement, (B) other suitable locations within the relevant settlement, (C) key locations identified as sustainable extensions to the relevant settlement" and the definition of "sustainable development" in the CS as having "...minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gains..." CS's Spatial Policy 6 "(ii) preference for brownfield and regeneration sites", (iii) the least impact on Green Belt purposes, (iv) opportunities to enhance the distinctiveness of existing neighbourhoods and quality of life of local communities... (vi) the least negative and most positive impacts on green infrastructure, green corridors, greenspace and nature conservation"

H1Question Ref:

374 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


CS Policy H1: "sites which best address the following criteria (i) location in regeneration areas, (ii) locations which have the best public transport accessibility, (iii) locations with the best accessibility to local services, (iv) locations with the least impact on Green Belt objectives, (v) sites with least negative and most positive impacts on green infrastructure, green corridors, green space and nature conservation"NPPF Core Planning Principle 6 "...encourage the reuse of existing resources...", NPPF Core Planning Principle 7 "contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocation of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value...", NPPF Core Planning Principle 8 "encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed", NPPF para 38 "...key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties", NPPF para 51 "local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings" and NPPF para 111 "planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and principles by LCC as:• it is not a brownfield or regeneration site• it will not encourage the reuse of existing land or buildings• key facilities such as primary schools and local shops are not located within walking distance• as set out in LCC's own site survey, transport and services are poor with the site getting 2 out of 5 for Accessibility ("poor public transport access"), 1 out of 5 for Access and 3 out of 5 for the congestion impact on the local network — tellingly, LCC's Highways team has refused to give its support to development on the site• destruction of the landscape is not conserving and enhancing the natural environment and green space it will destroy the distinctiveness of the neighbourhood by virtue of the destruction of a beautiful landscape whose openness and biodiversity is much valued by local residents destruction of the landscape will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of local residents• is in no way a sustainable development that has "minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gain" — it will involve destruction of Green Belt-and-increased congestion -and pollution-from-the-vehicles of-new residents-and-the-only economic benefits will be for the landowner(s) and developer(s) NPPF para 76 and 77 "Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for protection special green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances... The designation should only be used:(i) where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves (ii) where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty... tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land" I would like to take this opportunity to formally notify LCC that I, and several other residents of Dunstarn Lane and Dunstarn Drive, wish to have sites 1178A and 1178B designated as Local-Green Space and wish for this to be considered for when the Leeds Development Framework is either implemented or reviewed.3. TRANSPORTCS Policy "sites which best address the following criteria.., locations which have the best public transport accessibility"CS Policy Statement T2 re Transport "New developments should be located in accessible locations that are adequately served by existing or programmed highways... which will not create or materially add to problems of efficiency on the highway network" NPPF para 38 "...key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties" Allowing development on 1178A would, without question, constitute a direct contravention of the provisions by LCC. As set out in LCC's own site survey, transport and services are poor with the site getting 2 out of 5 for Accessibility ("poor public transport access"), 1 out of 5 for Access and 3 out of 5 for the congestion impact on the local network — tellingly, LCC's Highways team has refused to give its support to development on the site!NPPF para 30 "encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion" Allowing development on 1178A would constitute a direct contravention of the provision by LCC. Only large homes would be in keeping with the existing developments on the adjoining areas and thus it is likely there will be in excess of an average of one car per household. The combination of an increased number of cars and poor public transport access will lead to a significant negative trend in respect of congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.4. ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITYCS's Section 1 objective of "maintaining and protecting and enhancing environmental quality for the people of Leeds" and NPPF para 30 "encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion" CS's Section 2 acknowledgement that "...Green Belt... is very important in its own right for aspects such as biodiversity and urban cooling. The quality of the environment.., is important to improve physical and mental health as it provides a sense of wellbeing... the district's distinctive landscape character needs to be respected, conserved and enriched "CS's Spatial Vision's Objective 21: "protect and enhance green infrastructure, strategic green corridors, green space, and areas of important landscape character..." and CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "...Green Infrastructure.., is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities. A key function of Green Infrastructure is to help maintain and enhance the character and distinctiveness of local communities and the wider setting of places" NPPF para 123 "planning policies and decisions should aim to... identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their amenity value for this reason" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and provisions by LCC as:• destruction of a Green Belt site does not in any way constitute the respect, conservation or enrichment of landscape character or green infrastructure• destruction of such green infrastructure does not in any way maintain, protect or enhance the environmental quality, benefit physical and mental health or have a positive effect on quality of life of the community• only large homes would be in keeping with the adjoining area and thus it is likely there will be in excess of an average of one car per household. The combination of an increased number of cars and poor public transport access will lead to a significant negative trend in respect of congestion and greenhouse gas emissions CS Policy P12 Landscape "The character, quality and biodiversity of Leeds' townscapes and landscapes... will be conserved and enhanced to protect their distinctiveness...", CS's natural habitat and biodiversity aim to "protect and enhance the natural environment of the district", NPPF para 109 "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by... protecting and enhancing valued landscapes... minimising impacts on biodiversity", CS Policy G8 Biodiversity Improvements "Development will be required to demonstrate... that there will be an overall net gain for biodiversity and NPPF para 118 "local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity... if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided.., then planning permission should be refused" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and provisions by LCC as:• whilst there is no evidence provided by LCC of a biodiversity assessment having been carried out, it is well known by residents that the site attracts a variety of birds and animals throughout the year, as well as bats• the biodiversity of the landscape will be destroyed, not conserved and enhanced and thus significant harm will be suffered• on the basis that the biodiversity of the area will be impacted, it is unclear how it can be argued, and evidenced , that development of the site would result in an overall net gain for diversity In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, site 1178A should be redesignated as a "RED" site not suitable for development.

375 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


• 1299B — BODINGTON HALL: reclassify as "AMBER" or "GREEN" as preservation of Protected Playing Pitch (N6) and greenspace should neither be prioritised over legitimate preservation of Green Belt land in line with LCC's legal obligations nor be of paramount concern for this site which adjoins Weetwood Police Station given that there is plenty of the same at the retained site to the east of it (facing Ring Road), on the opposite of Otley Road (next to Crematorium), Bedquilts, Lawnswood School and the sites off each of Weetwood Lane and Weetwood Avenue. Access should be from Otley Road so as to prevent traffic pressure on Adel Lane and Long Causeway and also encourage use of Otley Road bus services. More importantly, sites such as this should be considered as more suitable for house building than Green Belt protected sites.

H7Question Ref:

376 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


SITE ALLOCATION IN ADEL - SITE REFS:• 1178A and 1178B - DUNSTARN LANE• 1033 - GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS• 1079, 1243 and 1246 - LONG CAUSEWAY• 1299A and 1299B - BODINGTON HALL• 2052 - TILE LANE• 2130 - CHURCH LANEI write, as part of the public consultation in respect of the Site Allocations Plan, to inform you of my views of the Council's designation of the above sites. Whilst I primarily write to object to the designation of site 1178A at Dunstarn Lane as a green site (ie the site should NOT in ANY way be regarded as suitable for development), I wish to inform you of my views regarding all of these sites and refer below to the relevant provisions of the Leeds Development Framework's "Core Strategy" ("CS") and the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF").1. GREEN BELTNPPF para 89 "...the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are... limited infilling of previously developed sites... which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within itthan the existing development" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the NPPF by Leeds CityCouncil ("LCC") as it would constitute inappropriate development. The existing housing at Dunstarn Lane does not impact the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of the Green Belt. Developing 1178A would destroy the openness of the Green Belt at that site and would have anegative impact on the following purposes of the Green Belt as set out at NPPF para 80 "Green Belt serves.., to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas... to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment... to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging therecycling of derelict and other urban land." As set out in LCC's own site survey, development here would mean" high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl" and it would cease to assist in safeguarding against encroachment as it would put at risk the neighbouring site 1178B, a site which "performs an important role safeguarding the countryside from encroachment". Furthermore, developing 1178A would in no way assist in urban regeneration - not building on the site would encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Also, development of 1178A cannot be unquestionably regarded as "limited infilling" given that the adjoining sites are predominantly landscaped as opposed to developed.NPPF paras 87-89 "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt... inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances... 'very specialcircumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations"As shown above, allowing development of 1178A would be inappropriate and therefore the NPPF would be directly contravened by LCC unless 'very special circumstances' exist. Hoever the harm to the Green Belt, the biodiversity of the area and residents' amenity is in no way clearly outweighed by other considerations. Only large homes would be in keeping with the existing development on the adjoining area and, given that Leeds already has a large supply of such homes (as is irrefutably acknowledged by LCC in CS Policy H4), there clearly are no very special circumstances to justify the construction of new buildings on this Green Belt site. Even if building of smaller capacity homes was somehow decided as being in keeping with the adjoining area, this would still not be a reason to build on a Green Belt site whilst there are other sites with planning permission that have not commenced building and whilst Leeds continues to have such a high number of homes standing empty and boarded up (approximately 15,500 homes according to recent reports).CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "the delivery of the strategy will entail the use of brownfield and greenfield land and in exceptional circumstances (which cannot be met elsewhere), the selective use of green belt land where this offers the most sustainable option"and the definition of "sustainable development" in the CS as having "...minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gains..." Allowing development of 1178A would clearly be a direct contravention by LCC of this provision as there are no exceptional circumstances which cannot be met elsewhere and development on this site is not the most sustainable option given its environmental and social amenity (and the only economic gain will be for the landowner(s) and developer(s), not the wider society).CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "the Green Belt boundary should remain in place over a long period and should only be changed in exceptional circumstances" and NPPF para 83 "...Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances"Allowing development of 1178A would be a de facto alteration of the Green Belt boundary by LCC which would directly contravene both the CS and NPPF given that there are no exceptional circumstances that justify such alteration.NPPF Core Planning Principle 5 "...protecting the Green Belts... recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside", NPPF para 79 "...the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence...", NPPF para 81 "...local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt... to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity", NPPF para 109 "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by... Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes... minimising impacts on biodiversity" and CS Section 2 acknowledgement that "...Green Belt... is very important in its own right for aspects such asbiodiversity and urban cooling. The quality of the environment.., is important to improve physical and mental health as it provides a sense of wellbeing... the district's distinctive landscape character needs to be respected, conserved and enriched" Clearly, allowing the development of 1178A — which would lead to the destruction of a beautiful landscape whose openness and biodiversity is much valued by local residents - would be a direct contravention by LCC of these provisions. It is also relevant to bear in mind the case of Britton vSOS, the courts concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into English law under the Human Rights Act 1998).Furthermore, I would invite LCC to give due weight and consideration to: A) Green Belt against other green spaces - for example, despite having a score of 15 and 13 respectively out of 15 from the Highways review, together with greater scope for affordable housing (an LCC priority) and no biodiversity impacts, sites 2058 (Allerton Grange High) and 1299B (Bodington Hall) have been classed as "RED" due to their historical designation from the existing UDP of N6 — Protected Playing PitchB) site 1178A against other Green Belt sites — for example, despite having comparable or lesser potential Green Belt negative impacts, together with higher Highways review scores, than site 1178A (ie site -1178A-objectively appears to be less appropriate for building allocation), other sites have been classed as Amber (1172 Yorkshire Bank Sports Ground, 2035B Alwoodley Lane, 3315 Elmete Lane) or Red (1310 Outwood Lane, 3327 Layton Road, 3330 West End Lane, 3381 Brownberrie Farm)) despite their being objectively more appropriate for building allocation I, and several of my fellow Adel residents, are deeply troubled by the fact that there is no clear defensible reason why LCC regards Green Belt site 1178A as suitable for development. 2. SPATIAL STRATEGY AND POLICYCS's Spatial Policy 1(ii) "...identification of land for development with priority given in the following order: (A) previously developed land and buildings within the settlement, (B) other suitable locations within the relevant settlement, (C) key locations identified as sustainable extensions to the relevant settlement" and the definition of "sustainable development" in the CS as having "...minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gains..." CS's Spatial Policy 6 "(ii) preference for brownfield and regeneration sites", (iii) the least impact on Green Belt purposes, (iv) opportunities to enhance the distinctiveness of existing neighbourhoods and quality of life of local communities... (vi) the least negative and most positive impacts on green infrastructure, green corridors, greenspace and nature conservation"

H7Question Ref:

377 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


CS Policy H1: "sites which best address the following criteria (i) location in regeneration areas, (ii) locations which have the best public transport accessibility, (iii) locations with the best accessibility to local services, (iv) locations with the least impact on Green Belt objectives, (v) sites with least negative and most positive impacts on green infrastructure, green corridors, green space and nature conservation"NPPF Core Planning Principle 6 "...encourage the reuse of existing resources...", NPPF Core Planning Principle 7 "contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocation of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value...", NPPF Core Planning Principle 8 "encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed", NPPF para 38 "...key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties", NPPF para 51 "local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings" and NPPF para 111 "planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and principles by LCC as:• it is not a brownfield or regeneration site• it will not encourage the reuse of existing land or buildings• key facilities such as primary schools and local shops are not located within walking distance• as set out in LCC's own site survey, transport and services are poor with the site getting 2 out of 5 for Accessibility ("poor public transport access"), 1 out of 5 for Access and 3 out of 5 for the congestion impact on the local network — tellingly, LCC's Highways team has refused to give its support to development on the site• destruction of the landscape is not conserving and enhancing the natural environment and green space it will destroy the distinctiveness of the neighbourhood by virtue of the destruction of a beautiful landscape whose openness and biodiversity is much valued by local residents destruction of the landscape will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of local residents• is in no way a sustainable development that has "minimal detrimental impact on the environment whilst maximising environmental, economic and social gain" — it will involve destruction of Green Belt-and-increased congestion -and pollution-from-the-vehicles of-new residents-and-the-only economic benefits will be for the landowner(s) and developer(s) NPPF para 76 and 77 "Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for protection special green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances... The designation should only be used:(i) where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves (ii) where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty... tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land" I would like to take this opportunity to formally notify LCC that I, and several other residents of Dunstarn Lane and Dunstarn Drive, wish to have sites 1178A and 1178B designated as Local-Green Space and wish for this to be considered for when the Leeds Development Framework is either implemented or reviewed.3. TRANSPORTCS Policy "sites which best address the following criteria.., locations which have the best public transport accessibility"CS Policy Statement T2 re Transport "New developments should be located in accessible locations that are adequately served by existing or programmed highways... which will not create or materially add to problems of efficiency on the highway network" NPPF para 38 "...key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties" Allowing development on 1178A would, without question, constitute a direct contravention of the provisions by LCC. As set out in LCC's own site survey, transport and services are poor with the site getting 2 out of 5 for Accessibility ("poor public transport access"), 1 out of 5 for Access and 3 out of 5 for the congestion impact on the local network — tellingly, LCC's Highways team has refused to give its support to development on the site!NPPF para 30 "encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion" Allowing development on 1178A would constitute a direct contravention of the provision by LCC. Only large homes would be in keeping with the existing developments on the adjoining areas and thus it is likely there will be in excess of an average of one car per household. The combination of an increased number of cars and poor public transport access will lead to a significant negative trend in respect of congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.4. ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITYCS's Section 1 objective of "maintaining and protecting and enhancing environmental quality for the people of Leeds" and NPPF para 30 "encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion" CS's Section 2 acknowledgement that "...Green Belt... is very important in its own right for aspects such as biodiversity and urban cooling. The quality of the environment.., is important to improve physical and mental health as it provides a sense of wellbeing... the district's distinctive landscape character needs to be respected, conserved and enriched "CS's Spatial Vision's Objective 21: "protect and enhance green infrastructure, strategic green corridors, green space, and areas of important landscape character..." and CS's Spatial Development Strategy declaration that "...Green Infrastructure.., is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities. A key function of Green Infrastructure is to help maintain and enhance the character and distinctiveness of local communities and the wider setting of places" NPPF para 123 "planning policies and decisions should aim to... identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their amenity value for this reason" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and provisions by LCC as:• destruction of a Green Belt site does not in any way constitute the respect, conservation or enrichment of landscape character or green infrastructure• destruction of such green infrastructure does not in any way maintain, protect or enhance the environmental quality, benefit physical and mental health or have a positive effect on quality of life of the community• only large homes would be in keeping with the adjoining area and thus it is likely there will be in excess of an average of one car per household. The combination of an increased number of cars and poor public transport access will lead to a significant negative trend in respect of congestion and greenhouse gas emissions CS Policy P12 Landscape "The character, quality and biodiversity of Leeds' townscapes and landscapes... will be conserved and enhanced to protect their distinctiveness...", CS's natural habitat and biodiversity aim to "protect and enhance the natural environment of the district", NPPF para 109 "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by... protecting and enhancing valued landscapes... minimising impacts on biodiversity", CS Policy G8 Biodiversity Improvements "Development will be required to demonstrate... that there will be an overall net gain for biodiversity and NPPF para 118 "local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity... if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided.., then planning permission should be refused" Allowing the development of 1178A would be a direct contravention of the these policies and provisions by LCC as:• whilst there is no evidence provided by LCC of a biodiversity assessment having been carried out, it is well known by residents that the site attracts a variety of birds and animals throughout the year, as well as bats• the biodiversity of the landscape will be destroyed, not conserved and enhanced and thus significant harm will be suffered• on the basis that the biodiversity of the area will be impacted, it is unclear how it can be argued, and evidenced , that development of the site would result in an overall net gain for diversity In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, site 1178A should be redesignated as a "RED" site not suitable for development.

Similarly, due to the reasons set out above in respect of site 1178A applying pretty much equally, the following sites should continue to be designated as "RED" sites not suitable for development:

378 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01828

Mary Reid

Representor No:

Name:


• 1178B — DUNSTARN LANE• 1079, 1243 and 1246— LONG CAUSEWAY• 2052 — TILE LANE

379 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865

Renaissance Land (D20) Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1053A

The Pollards Lane site (Ref: 1053A) has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.

Sites identified as amber are deemed to either have issues which need to be resolved or where they are not considered to be in such a favoured location as those highlighted in green.

A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the land to be ‘vacant and derelict’, which reflects the fact this site formed part of the curtilage of a former mill complex which has now been partly redeveloped.

The UDP Proposals Map identified the site as lying within the Green Belt. The Green Belt assessment suggests the site would result in isolated development. This is clearly not the case given the adjoining site to the north has permission for residential development and has been partly developed out. It is confirmed the site has natural features which provide a strong boundary to contain the development and that the site would provide access to the countryside. The Green Belt assessment conclusion advises the site is well contained by the river and canal reducing potential for sprawl and that there are links to residential development to the north. In this regard, there do not appear to be any Green Belt issues which have resulted in the site’s amber colour coding.

The highways assessment suggests there is poor access along Pollard Lane and that public transport and road improvements are required. It is also suggested there is poor accessibility all round. Highways conclude they do not support the allocation of this site but that it is possible suitable for partial development as part of industrial site that has been part developed for housing. It is relevant that a planning application has already been approved for 120 dwellings on site 602. Whilst that site has only been partially built out, the current application which incorporates part of site 1053A would result in the delivery of 120 dwellings in total (taking into account those which have already been built) albeit over a larger area. In this context, it would appear that the highways assessment has resulted in the amber colour coding. We do not support the highways conclusions in relation to site 1053A.

In relation to accessibility, this cannot be considered to be a constraint to development when the adjoining site to the north is a light green site in recognition of the fact it benefits from planning permission. Given the Council supported the development of adjoining site 602, the site’s location is not deemed to be a development constraint, as its development would form an extension to site 602. As previously set out, the site to the north (ref: 602) has planning permission for 120 dwellings and has partly been built out, but remains unfinished due to viability issues. An application has been submitted to the Council which seeks a different mix of dwellings types, which would result in a viable scheme. This application predominantly relates to site 602, but also includes the northern part of site 1053A. The Council’s detailed assessment of the site makes no reference to the application that is pending consideration on part of sites 620 and 1053A.

As sites 620 and 1053A are both in the control of Renaissance Land (D20) Ltd, the 1035A site will be accessed through site 620 through the approved and implemented access from Pollard Lane and through Horseford View. In this regard, there are no access issues as site 1053A can be readily achieved as part of a natural extension to site 602, given the sites are in the same ownership.

The planning application that is pending which seeks permission for 59 dwellings comprising 39 townhouses and 20 apartments will in part form an extension to the current extent of the permitted development on site 620 as it includes the northern part of site 1053A. In this regard, the identification of the whole of site 1053A would enable the remainder of the curtilage of the mill complex to be developed and can be safely accessed through the site to the north. The site layout plan for the planning application that is under consideration shows the main road which runs in a north – south direction through the site could be extended further southwards, taking a route through the north western corner of the site which is currently under consideration by the council (planning application ref: P/12/03580/FU). The highways assessment for this application demonstrates the site can be safely accessed and would not have a detrimental impact on the local highway network. In this regard, there are no highways issues to resolve.

The Council’s overall conclusion identifies that access would be dependent on the neighbouring site but as set out this does not present a development constraint as both sites are under the control of Renaissance Land (D20) Ltd. On this basis, as there are no issues to resolve in relation to this site, it is one which has the greatest potential for development, particularly when planning permission has already been sought part of site 1035A. On this basis, site 1035A should be colour coded green.

The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sites they have classified as being ‘green’. Based on the Council’s calculation, sites to deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests this figure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council’s evidence, the capacity from green sites is only 1,655 dwellings and therefore 1,005 dwellings will need to be delivered from ‘amber’ sites in any event. There is detailed evidence the Pollard Lane site does not have any potential issues to resolve and therefore this site will increase the number of ‘green’ sites in the Outer West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement in this area.

See representation submitted for full details.

H1Question Ref:

Site 1053A

Some of the sites that have been identified as ‘amber’ represent sites with potential for future housing development as they are sites with issues which the Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether issues identified can be resolved.

However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of the land off Pollard Lane where the Council suggest there are access and accessibility issues but it has been demonstrated through these representations that these issues are not development constraints and can be addressed. On this basis the Council have sufficient evidence to know any identified issues can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. It is therefore considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue identified and whether there is evidence to support this.


H4Question Ref:

380 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


Site 1053A

The Pollard Lane site (ref: 1053A) has been identified as an amber site when the site should be coded green, given it has the greatest potential for allocation.

As previously stated, whilst the Council consider there are highways related issues to resolve. This issues principally relate to the site’s accessibility and access into the site. The site’s accessibility cannot be considered to be a development constraint given the Council considered the site immediately to the north to be suitable for residential development having granted planning permission for residential development. There are no access issues as the site can be accessed through site 602 which has been partly built out and both sites are under the control of Renaissance Lane (D20) Ltd. The ‘issues’ identified have therefore been addressed.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1053A

The land off Pollard Lane (ref: 1053A) should be developed in the short term. This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.


H11Question Ref:

381 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


The Pollards Lane site (Ref: 1053A) has been colour coded amber, but it ismaintained this site should be colour coded green.

A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the land tobe 'vacant and derelict', which reflects the fact this site formed part of thecurtilage of a former mill complex which has now been partly redeveloped

The UDP Proposals Map identified the site as lying within the Green Belt. TheGreen Belt assessment suggests the site would result in isolateddevelopment. This is clearly not the case given the adjoining site to the northhas permission for residential development and has been partly developedout. It is confirmed the site has natural features which provide a strongboundary to contain the development and that the site would provide accessto the countryside. The Green Belt assessment conclusion advises the site iswell contained by the river and canal reducing potential for sprawl and thatthere are links to residential development to the north. In this regard, there donot appear to be any Green Belt issues which have resulted in the site'samber colour coding.

The highways assessment suggests there is poor access along Pollard Laneand that public transport and road improvements are required. It is alsosuggested there is poor accessibility all round. Highways conclude they donot support the allocation of this site but that it is possible suitable for partialdevelopment as part of industrial site that has been part developed forhousing. It is relevant that a planning application has already been approvedfor 120 dwellings on site 602. Whilst that site has only been partially built out,the current application which incorporates part of site 1053A would result inthe delivery of 120 dwellings in total (taking into account those which havealready been built) albeit over a larger area. In this context, it would appearthat the highways assessment has resulted in the amber colour coding. Wedo not support the highways conclusions in relation to site 1053A.

In relation to accessibility, this cannot be considered to be a constraint todevelopment when the adjoining site to the north is a light green site inrecognition of the fact it benefits from planning permission. Given the Councilsupported the development of adjoining site 602, the site's location is notdeemed to be a development constraint, as its development would form anextension to site 602.

previously set out, the site to the north (ref: 602) has planning permissionfor 120 dwellings and has partly been built out, but remains unfinished due toviability issues. An application has been submitted to the Council which seeksa different mix of dwellings types, which would result in a viable scheme. Thisapplication predominantly relates to site 602, but also includes the northernpart of site 1053A. The Council's detailed assessment of the site makes noreference to the application that is pending consideration on part of sites 620and 1053A.

As sites 620 and 1053A are both in the control of Renaissance Land (D20)Ltd, the 1035A site will be accessed through site 620 through the approvedand implemented access from Pollard Lane and through Horseford View. Inthis regard, there are no access issues as site 1053A can be readily achievedas part of a natural extension to site 602, given the sites are in the sameownership.

The planning application that is pending which seeks permission for 59dwellings comprising 39 townhouses and 20 apartments will in part form anextension to the current extent of the permitted development on site 620 as itincludes the northern part of site 1053A. In this regard, the identification of thewhole of site 1053A would enable the remainder of the curtilage of the millcomplex to be developed and can be safely accessed through the site to thenorth. The site layout plan for the planning application that is underconsideration shows the main road which runs in a north — south directionthrough the site could be extended further southwards, taking a route throughthe north western corner of the site which is currently under consideration bythe council (planning application ref: P1121035801FU). The highwaysassessment for this application demonstrates the site can be safely accessedand would not have a detrimental impact on the local highway network. In thisregard, there are no highways issues to resolve.

The Council's overall conclusion identifies that access would be dependenton the neighbouring site but as set out this does not present a developmentconstraint as both sites are under the control of Renaissance Land (D20) Ltd.On this basis, as there are no issues to resolve in relation to this site, it is onewhich has the greatest potential for development, particularly when planning

H3Question Ref:

382 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


permission has already been sought part of site 1035A. On this basis, site1035A should be colour coded green.

The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sitesthey have classified as being 'green'. Based on the Council's calculation, sitesto deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests thisfigure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council's evidence, thecapacity from green sites is only 1,655 dwellings and therefore 1,005dwellings will need to be delivered from 'amber' sites in any event. There isdetailed evidence the Pollard Lane site does not have any potential issues toresolve and therefore this site will increase the number of 'green' sites in theOuter West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement inthis area.

Some of the sites that have been identified as 'amber' represent sites withpotential for future housing development as they are sites with issues whichthe Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether issuesidentified can be resolved.

However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of theland off Pollard Lane where the Council suggest there are access andaccessibility issues but it has been demonstrated through theserepresentations that these issues are not development constraints and can beaddressed. On this basis the Council have sufficient evidence to know anyidentified issues can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. Itis therefore considered that sites should not be identified as amber solelybecause the Council has identified potential development constraints, dueconsideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issueidentified and whether there is evidence to support this.

H4Question Ref:

The Pollard Lane site (ref: 1053A) has been identified as an amber site whenthe site should be coded green, given it has the greatest potential forallocation.

As previously stated, whilst the Council consider there are highways relatedissues to resolve. This issues principally relate to the site's accessibility andaccess into the site. The site's accessibility cannot be considered to be adevelopment constraint given the Council considered the site immediately tothe north to be suitable for residential development having granted planningpermission for residential development. There are no access issues as thesite can be accessed through site 602 which has been partly built out andboth sites are under the control of Renaissance Lane (D20) Ltd. The 'issues'identified have therefore been addressed.

H5Question Ref:

The land off Pollard Lane (ref: 1053A) should be developed in the short term.This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers asuitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realisticprospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:

383 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


The Pollard Lane site is not subject to any development constraints in termsof ground conditions, flood risk and drainage, ecology, transportation andmeans of access issues as is demonstrated by the technical reports whichhave been submitted to the Council as part of the planning application for partof sites 620 and 1053A. In this context, the site is considered suitable forhousing, particularly given its would form an extension to site 620.

Not only is the site suitable, but the site is also deliverable and developable.Footnote 11 of the NPPF defines deliverable as "to be considered deliverable,sites should be available now, offer suitable location for development now,and be achievable with the realistic prospect that housing will be delivered onthe site within five years and in particular that development of the site isviable

With regard to developable, Footnote 12 of the NPPF defines this as "to beconsidered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housingdevelopment and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site isavailable and could be viably developed at the point envisaged".

In terms of an assessment of the Pollard Lane site against these criteria thefollowing conclusions can be drawn.

In terms of the site being suitable, there are no physical problems orlimitations such as access, infrastructure, ground conditions, flood risk,hazard risks, pollution or contamination and as such, the site is considered tobe suitable for housing.

With regard to availability, the site is fully under the control of RenaissanceLand (D20) Ltd and is therefore available and can provide access to the twoadjoining development sites which are not in the same ownership.

In terms of delivery, the detailed technical reports submitted as part of thedetailed planning application for residential development, demonstrate thatthe site is deliverable and indeed developable and there are no viabilityissues pertaining to bringing the site forward. The scheme which is thesubject of the current planning application has been specifically designed toensure a viable scheme can be delivered and will enable site 620 to becompleted. As the planning application scheme incorporates part of site1053A, the identification of the whole of site 1053A as a green site, willenable the remainder of this site to be delivered.

The Pollard Lane site has been demonstrated to be suitable, available,achievable and developable for residential development and as such, theallocation of this site for housing should be supported.

Renaissance Land (D20) Ltd welcomes the site being identified as a site thatis suitable for housing development. However, it is maintained and supportedby evidence that the site should be colour coded green rather than amber.

The Council's assessment suggests there are highways related issues toresolve. These representations demonstrate the issues identified by theCouncil do not constitute constraint to development and the whole of site1053A is therefore suitable for housing.

In this regard there are no issues to resolve and as such the site should becolour coded green as it is a site which has the greatest potential to beallocated and can deliver dwellings in the short term to assist the Council inachieving a five year housing land supply, as required by the NPPF.


384 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


The Council does not intend to find sites to accommodate 4,700 dwellings asthey are relying on UDP allocations that have not yet been developed andextant permissions to meet part of the total requirement for the area. However,we question the deliverability of some of the sites and therefore the number ofdwellings the Council is proposing to deduct from the requirement figure in thisarea.

Secondly, 12 of the sites (268 dwellings) are existing UDP allocations that haveyet to be developed. Given the UDP was originally adopted in 2001, some 12years ago, there has to be a detailed review of these sites to determinewhether there is a realistic likelihood they will come forward for development.There is no evidence the Council has undertaken any such review. Indeed,there are errors within this section, with Site 645 (Bagley Lane, Farsley) beingshown as having capacity for 50 dwellings, when there is Reserved Mattersapproval for 45 dwellings. The site at Delph End in Pudsey (Ref: 646) is knownto have ownership and access constraints and therefore it is not consideredthis site will deliver the 27 units identified by the Council. This demonstrates theneed for a thorough review of the supply the Council is identifying given thedeliverability of these sites is essential as this existing supply is being used todetermine the number of new sites that will be required. If some of these sitesdo not deliver the number of dwellings expected, if any at all, but they areincluded in the Council's supply, this will result in insufficient new sites beingidentified to meet the requirement in this area.

Firstly, the Council state at paragraph 11.3.2 of the Outer West paper thatplanning permissions with units still remaining to be built as at 31st March 2012have been deducted. It is questioned why, when the consultation document isdated June 2013, is the Council using planning permission data that is over ayear old.

Secondly, 12 of the sites (268 dwellings) are existing UDP allocations that haveyet to be developed. Given the UDP was originally adopted in 2001, some 12years ago, there has to be a detailed review of these sites to determinewhether there is a realistic likelihood they will come forward for development.There is no evidence the Council has undertaken any such review. Indeed,there are errors within this section, with Site 645 (Bagley Lane, Farsley) beingshown as having capacity for 50 dwellings, when there is Reserved Mattersapproval for 45 dwellings. The site at Delph End in Pudsey (Ref: 646) is knownto have ownership and access constraints and therefore it is not consideredthis site will deliver the 27 units identified by the Council. This demonstrates theneed for a thorough review of the supply the Council is identifying given thedeliverability of these sites is essential as this existing supply is being used todetermine the number of new sites that will be required. If some of these sitesdo not deliver the number of dwellings expected, if any at all, but they areincluded in the Council's supply, this will result in insufficient new sites beingidentified to meet the requirement in this area.

Thirdly, the Council advise the supply figure will constantly change as planningpermissions are granted, but they do not similarly acknowledge that somepermissions may expire without being implemented due to issues with viabilityor other site development constraints. Again, there does not appear to havebeen any assessment undertaken of these sites, which form a critical part ofthe Council's supply, and which determine the number of new sites needed. Asite by site review is essential if the Site Allocations DPD is to be found soundas the current approach presents a high risk that insufficient sites will be identified to meet the housing needs of the District, resulting in the plan being ineffective.

The Council identify 48 sites which they state have planning permissions withunits still remaining to be built as at 31/03/2012. Given the base date is over ayear old it is likely that some of these permissions will have subsequentlyexpired. In addition, as with the undeveloped allocations the Council areincluding within their supply, there is also evidence that some of the sites withplanning permission are undeliverable.

To cite some examples, the outline scheme for 84 flats at Canal Wharf (site ref:625) was approved on 17 May 2010 and therefore expired on 17 May 2013.This permission was not implemented. The Council has included a site atWestfield Mill which had planning permission for 75 two bed flats. Thepermission expired on 3 March 2011 and whilst an application was submittedto extend the time limit for implementation, this was later withdrawn andtherefore the site no longer benefits from planning permission for the 75 unitsidentified. A site at Swinnow Row (ref: 26) is identified to have capacity for 67dwellings, yet the most recent permission for the site is for 25 dwellings.

It is also relevant in the context of these representations that site 602 (Pollard


385 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05865


Representor No:

Name:


Lane LS13) relates to the planning permission for 120 dwellings on the PollardLane site and are identified as part of the Council's existing supply with 77units still to be delivered. However, as previously set out, the remaining part ofthe scheme is unviable and the revised application that has been submittedseeks to deliver a different mix of dwellings that would ensure the remainder ofthe scheme is viable. This scheme proposes to deliver 59 dwellings, but asplanning permission has not yet been granted it cannot be included as acommitment. In this regard, it would appear appropriate and robust in thecontext of the Council's commitment table to amend the number of unitsoutstanding to 59 dwellings to reflect the current application.

is clear that if the Council proposes to reduce the number of sites they needby relying on sites with planning permission or current undeveloped UDPallocations, they need to be certain these sites are deliverable and that they willdeliver the number of units identified. The Council does not yet appear to haveundertaken a detailed review of the deliverability of these sites. This isessential if the plan is to be effective, otherwise there is a significant risk theCouncil will identify too few sites to meet the identified need.

Whilst it is maintained the Council needs to undertake a review of the sites withplanning permission and undeveloped UDP allocations, it is also necessary forthe Council to build in an element of flexibility into their future housing supply.The approach at the moment appears to be based on premise that all of thesites with planning permission and undeveloped allocations will deliver thequantum of dwellings the Council has identified and that new sites will beidentified to meet the remainder of the requirement. Yet given the plan periodwill span over at least 15 years it is possible that some sites will not deliver thenumber of houses expected and some may not come forward at all, as hasbeen the case with the UDP allocations. On this basis, the Council need to identify sites to deliver in excess of requirement to ensure they have a flexiblesupply. The lack of flexibility is in part why we do not support a fixedpercentage for each characteristic area.

We support the site being identified as a site which is suitable for housingdevelopment. However, it is maintained the site should be colour coded greenas it is maintained this is a site which has the greatest potential for housinggiven the planning permission that exists for the development of the site tothe north (ref: 602) and the application that is pending which includes part ofsite 1053A. There are not any issues which need to be resolved and the siteis deemed to be in a favourable location.


386 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06048

Karen Renshaw

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 3081A, 3085 & 3445A - Green to RedI wish to make some formal objections to the proposals set out in the documents regarding thesite allocation plans.· Church Farm , WF3 3SA – 1261 Proposal to build 144 houses· Hope Farm - 3081 Part A & B Proposal to build 279 properties· The Grange -3085 Proposal to build 234 homes· Leadwell Lane - 3445A Proposed 60 propertiesThe above sites are within the Rothwell side of Ardsley & Robin Hood. All the schools withinthis area are already full to their capacity and some are already being extended. Theinfrastructure has already been over accommodating and the amenities within this region ofthe Ward are insufficient to facilitate current residents. Due to recent development work theroads have become busier and safety elements have had to be implemented. It is a sadsituation when local residents cannot attend their local schools and yet the transport cannotaccommodate the alternatives given. The green space is a key feature, that which is left and itsan area valued by all within this community.The increase in traffic, noise , pollution as well as the damage to our environment, removinghistorical elements and eliminating the rhubarb triangle would be detrimental to health andwell- being of local residents.This would impact on our young children who already struggle toget appointments at our local GP’sI strongly oppose the above proposals and hope that these aspects, along with those of localresidents who managed to be informed of this process, will be considered before any decisionsare made.

H1Question Ref:

Land off Bradford Road, East Ardsley – 1032 Designated as a protected area of search.This site, if developed would create absolute chaos on the highways and put residentslives at risk. There are already too many roads leading onto Bradford Road and thehighways capacity is inadequate and would be unsafe if increased any further.• 3373A &3373C Haigh Wood, West Ardsley – total of 274 properties. This isunacceptable and the area could not facilitate and/or accommodate this number ofproperties.. Local children have no places within their schools already and its also a 2hour journey to access the Dr’s surgery for these local residents. The bus and transportservice is inadequate and would need to be addressed as well as roads not created totake the amount of traffic which would be using the highways, endangering localresidents and young people on school journeys. This area would lose its character andidentity by developments merging different localities into one blur – villages and areagone forever.1143 B & D – Land Off Old Thorpe Lane , Tingley. This would create a nightmare at ajunction which has just been altered to accommodate a site in Middleton. If furtherproperties were to be built on here where would the Dr’s be to accommodate theresidents. Is there a link to Leeds? The schools are full. The site used by annual eventsand seasonal events would be eliminated from an area which requires open space forour young people to use and have access to.2128 – New Lane, East Ardsley. This development for 48 properties would create a ratrun,along with dangerous highways and once again, no school places. Some of the landis currently used to keep horses and therefore the animal welfare would suffer as aconsequence of this development you are proposing.. The access point would crosswith industrial access/delivery and the village identity would become a blur and theopen environment which once was would been seen to be disappearing.. Toocondensed and no school places available within this side of the city . This would takeaway the country walks and the opportunities for residents to walk to areas locally. Thisroute/site is used by blind and disabled residents within the village which would lose itslocal character .

Many ot the reasons for opposing all these sites identified are based on the lack ofinfrastructure, schools & education, transport, safety , health & well-being, Gp’s surgeries, poorlinks with public transport, noise, pollution and busy highways created by the increased volumeof traffic. Please take all these serious matters into account and I would appreciate a briefingbefore any further decisions are made.

H1Question Ref:

387 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06048

Karen Renshaw

Representor No:

Name:


1067B – Site accessed from Woodhouse Lane and Pilden Lane, East Ardsley . BothPilden Lane & Woodhouse lane are unsuitable for any further development.Woodhouse Lane already creates traffic issues and with the farming vehicles ,alongwith delivery vehicles accessing this road it would create chaos. No Bus service travelsalong this route and Pilden Lane is a Private Road which would be hazardous if it wascreated into a busier junction to accommodate the vehicles of a further 53 properties.2127 – Tingley Station, This land is unsuitable and is required to enhance the greencorridor which has funding for the development of the local environment, involvingyoung people and local schools. Again, transport, Dr’s ,safety, schools, along with thegeneral infrastructure would have to looked at in depth before any decisions could bemade. Area within this village is required for its character and historical elements.2155 – South of Ardsley Common. This is valued green belt land and needs to beretained in that way. Ardsley has had many new developments within the last 5 years.Development on this site would take character from the village and its boundaryterritorial community element.Many ot the reasons for opposing all these sites identified are based on the lack ofinfrastructure, schools & education, transport, safety , health & well-being, Gp’s surgeries, poorlinks with public transport, noise, pollution and busy highways created by the increased volumeof traffic. Please take all these serious matters into account and I would appreciate a briefingbefore any further decisions are made.

H4Question Ref:

Site 1261 - Amber to RedI wish to make some formal objections to the proposals set out in the documents regarding thesite allocation plans.· Church Farm , WF3 3SA – 1261 Proposal to build 144 houses· Hope Farm - 3081 Part A & B Proposal to build 279 properties· The Grange -3085 Proposal to build 234 homes· Leadwell Lane - 3445A Proposed 60 propertiesThe above sites are within the Rothwell side of Ardsley & Robin Hood. All the schools withinthis area are already full to their capacity and some are already being extended. Theinfrastructure has already been over accommodating and the amenities within this region ofthe Ward are insufficient to facilitate current residents. Due to recent development work theroads have become busier and safety elements have had to be implemented. It is a sadsituation when local residents cannot attend their local schools and yet the transport cannotaccommodate the alternatives given. The green space is a key feature, that which is left and itsan area valued by all within this community.The increase in traffic, noise , pollution as well as the damage to our environment, removinghistorical elements and eliminating the rhubarb triangle would be detrimental to health andwell- being of local residents.This would impact on our young children who already struggle toget appointments at our local GP’sI strongly oppose the above proposals and hope that these aspects, along with those of localresidents who managed to be informed of this process, will be considered before any decisionsare made.

H4Question Ref:

Site 3081 B - Red Agree coding as RedI wish to make some formal objections to the proposals set out in the documents regarding thesite allocation plans.· Church Farm , WF3 3SA – 1261 Proposal to build 144 houses· Hope Farm - 3081 Part A & B Proposal to build 279 properties· The Grange -3085 Proposal to build 234 homes· Leadwell Lane - 3445A Proposed 60 propertiesThe above sites are within the Rothwell side of Ardsley & Robin Hood. All the schools withinthis area are already full to their capacity and some are already being extended. Theinfrastructure has already been over accommodating and the amenities within this region ofthe Ward are insufficient to facilitate current residents. Due to recent development work theroads have become busier and safety elements have had to be implemented. It is a sadsituation when local residents cannot attend their local schools and yet the transport cannotaccommodate the alternatives given. The green space is a key feature, that which is left and itsan area valued by all within this community.The increase in traffic, noise , pollution as well as the damage to our environment, removinghistorical elements and eliminating the rhubarb triangle would be detrimental to health andwell- being of local residents.This would impact on our young children who already struggle toget appointments at our local GP’sI strongly oppose the above proposals and hope that these aspects, along with those of localresidents who managed to be informed of this process, will be considered before any decisionsare made.

H7Question Ref:

388 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:


Our client is the owner of site refs 1073A & 1073B which are identified in the Issues and Options Draft Site Allocations Plan as an amber site which is a ‘site which has potential but issues or not favoured as a green site’ and a red site which are ‘sites which are not considered suitable for allocation for housing’. Our client considers that the sites should be considered together and should be colour coded green as a site that is developable for housing.

Appended to these representations is a Transport Appraisal Note that has been provided by Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil and Transportation Planning Engineers.

There are bus stops in close proximity to the site a train station less than a mile away. The shops in Pudsey are situated further east from the site and are around a mile away. The nearest junior school is called Pudsey Bolton Royd Primary School. Other schools close to the site are Pudsey Grangefield School which is a mile away. There is the PDS Dental Laboratory that is 0.4 miles away. Furthermore there are a further 6 dental practices within a 1 mile radius of the site. The site is also on the same road as the Hillfoot Clinic which is only c.300 metres away.

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site is 4.5Ha and is located to the north of Owlcotes Road. The land is currently farmed by the owner. The site currently sits within a pocket of land formed by built development including the urban area of Pudsey and the Outer Ring Road. Access can be taken directly from Owlcotes Road in the east of the site, and there is a further existing access off Owlcotes Road to the west. Between the two access points are a row of 8 semi-detached houses with gardens backing on to the site. The West side of the plot of land is bounded by a further housing area. Directly adjacent to the site is a covered reservoir which has three telecommunications masts on. Beyond that are further residential properties. To the north of the site is a wooded area with the ring road located beyond that. The site slopes towards the rear, although that is matter for engineering and viability in terms of deliverability. Whilst the net available land may reduce, it does not prevent the delivery of that part of the site. Sites 1073A and 1073B should be considered together as a single entity.

AVAILABILITYAvailable: A site is considered available for housing, when, on the best information available, there is confidence that there are no legal or ownership problems. The site is available for development now. It is in single family ownership and can deliver new homes to the town of Pudsey within the next 5 years and certainly within the plan period. There are no apparent constraints that would preclude development of the site. Access to the site is available from Owlcotes Road and in our client’s control. A Transport Appraisal Note has been compiled by Highways Consultancy Bryan G Hall and this is appended to this submission. This confirms that an access can be achieved for up to 160 units.

SUITABILITYSuitable: A site is suitable for housing development if it offers a suitable location for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable mixed communities.Planning StatusThe proposed development can make an efficient and attractive use of the land. The site represents an excellent opportunity for future housing being located within a sustainable location which is part of the urban area and surrounded by existing built up areas. The site can be accessed directly from Owlcotes Road. The appended Transport Appraisal confirms that a suitable access for up to 160 units can be achieved safely on the frontage of Owlcotes Road in the east to the site. The site would be well connected being within walking distance of bus services on Owlcotes Road and Waterloo Road, as well as public transport via the local train station. The local services, including a variety of junior and senior schools, community facilities and the retail facilities allow this site to be well linked. This area can be enhanced through appropriate development of the subject site to provide another extension on to Pudsey. Pudsey town centre is easily reachable by a range of means of transport or even a walk due to the close proximity of the site. The site is also strategically placed with excellent connections to Leeds and Bradford, especially through the easy access to A647 on Stanningley By-Pass. The site is therefore accessible by a variety of modes of transport. The site is therefore suitable for development. Development of the site would not impact significantly upon the surrounding landscape due to its location within the existing urban area.

ACHIEVABILITYA site is considered achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. It is considered that development on this site is achievable. There are no undue constraints that would preclude its development either within 5 years or certainly within the Plan Period.

We provide a simple illustration indicating the potential site extent (based on our client’s ownership and the draft allocation), potential points of access and a landscaped buffer. Clearly more detail designed considerations will be provided in due course, as appropriate.

KEY BENEFITSEconomic Benefit - Employment opportunities through construction phase, Increased investment and expenditure in local shops and services, New Homes Bonus will provide a financial contribution to Leeds City Council.Social Benefits - The site provides an opportunity to deliver residential development in a highly sustainable location, The development will provide dwellings increasing supply of housing in the local area meeting significant local needs.Environmental Benefit - Proposal can provide a planted boundary to the north-east.

Highway AccessThe Owlcotes Farm site is ideally located for access to Leeds and Bradford via the A647 Stanningley By-Pass and Bradford Road. It is connected to the Stanningley By-Pass via Cemetery Road and Richardshaw Lane and to Bradford Road via Galloway Lane. The A647 Stanningley By-Pass is part of the Leeds Outer Ring Road which provides links to strategic routes to the north and south, and the A647 Bradford Road connects to the Bradford Outer Ring Road which similarly provides links to strategic routes to the north and south. Owlcotes Road on the frontage of the site is a single two-way carriageway about 8.4m wide and with good footways on both sides. It is traffic calmed with speed cushions and is subject to a 30 mph speed limit.

The whole site can be served by a simple priority junction on Owlcotes Road. The site frontage is approximately 45m in length and the footway on this frontage is about 2.3m wide. This means that, irrespective of where the access is located on the site frontage, appropriate visibility splays can be provided. The ideal location for the access junction would coincide with the existing field gate midway along the site frontage, given the vertical alignment of Owlcotes Road to the west and the presence of the existing access to the Reservoir (Site 3440 which is colour coded ‘Green’ ) and the Ingham’s Avenue junction to the east. A simple priority junction will have more than adequate capacity to serve a cul-de-sac development of the whole site which could accommodate between 110 and 160 residential units, assuming densities of between 25 and 35 units/ha. A

H3Question Ref:

389 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:


development of this size is likely to generate of the order of 100 vehicle movements in the morning and evening peak hours. It is considered that this level of traffic can be accommodated on the local highway network without safety or capacity concerns. The northern part of the site (Site 1073B) does slope quite steeply down to the wooded area on its northern boundary. Whilst this would reduce the achievable densities and make the engineering solution more costly, it is not considered that this would preclude development of this part of the site once access is provided through Site 1073A.

Accessibility by Public TransportThe Owlcotes Farm site is currently well served by bus services 62, 90 and 711 which run along Owlcotes Road and service 4A which runs along Owlcotes Road and Ingham’s Avenue. A summary of the routes and frequencies of these services is shown in the table below. [SEE REPRESENTATION] The site is in a sustainable location and is particularly well connected to Pudsey and Leeds by frequent and convenient bus services. New Pudsey rail station is also less than 2kms from the site, located on Owlcotes Lane to the north of the Stanningley By-pass. The station is on the Caldervale line which provides regular services to Leeds, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Hebden Bridge, Huddersfield, Blackpool and Manchester. The station has 270 space free car park for rail users and a number of cycle stands.

Accessibility to Local Facilities for Pedestrians and CyclistsThe Owlcotes Farm site is within an existing built-up area and there is an extensive network of footways associated with the highway network which enable safe pedestrian access to facilities in the local area. Much of the local highway network is also relatively lightly trafficked and provides safe cycling routes. Owlcotes Road/Cemetery Road is an advisory cycle route. In the immediate vicinity of the site there is a convenience food store at the Owlcotes Garden junction and a fish and chip shop at the Marsh junction. There is a small parade of shops and a doctors surgery on Galloway Lane close to its junction with Owlcotes Road. Pudsey town centre and all its facilities are also within reasonable walking and cycling distance of the site and can be accessed via Ingham’s Avenue, Marsh and Victoria Road to Waterloo Road and via Cemetery Road to Lidgett Hill. All these existing local facilities are readily accessible to the site, the development of which would provide a sustainable extension to the existing built-up area.

LCC Highways and Metro CommentsThe comments made by LCC Highways and Metro in relation to Sites 1073A and B have been reviewed on the Council’s website. Site 1073A scores 14 out of 15 on their appraisal, whilst Site 1073B scores 12 out of 15. Both sites score 5 out of 5 for accessibility (good accessibility all round) and 4 out of 5 for the local network (local capacity, congestion in Pudsey). Site 1073A scores 5 out of 5 for access (adequate frontage with the adopted highway), whilst Site 1073B scores 3 out of 5 because it relies on Site 1073A for access. For both sites there is a comment in relation to mitigation measures that access improvements may be required. It is clear from the Council’s own assessment that, in relation to transport considerations, both sites are suitable to be allocated for housing.

JustificationThe site is situated in Pudsey, to the west of Leeds, close to its border with Bradford District. The site is located in the north-west of the Pudsey urban area, to the north-west of the town centre. The land is at Owlcotes Farm off Owlcotes Road and covers an area of 4.5Ha. The location is highly sustainable and is close to shops and amenities. To the north is the Leeds Outer ring road and beyond this the Owlcotes Centre, a large shopping facility. The site is 4.5Ha and is located to the north of Owlcotes Road. The land is currently farmed by the owner. The site currently sits within a pocket of land formed by built development including the urban area of Pudsey and the Outer Ring Road. Access can be taken directly from Owlcotes Road in the east of the site, and there is a further existing access off Owlcotes Road to the west. Between the two access points are a row of 8 semi-detached houses with gardens backing on to the site. The West side of the plot of land is bounded by a further housing area. Directly adjacent to the site is a covered reservoir which has three telecommunications masts on. Beyond that are further residential properties. To the north of the site is a wooded area with the ring road located beyond that.

The site slopes towards the rear, although that is matter for engineering and viability in terms of deliverability. Whilst the net available land may reduce, it does not prevent the delivery of that part of the site. Sites 1073A and 1073B should be considered together as a single entity. The site is available for development now. It is in single family ownership and can deliver new homes to the town of Pudsey within the next 5 years and certainly within the plan period. There are no apparent constraints that would preclude development of the site. Access to the site is available from Owlcotes Road and in our client’s control.The proposed development can make an efficient and attractive use of the land. The site represents an excellent opportunity for future housing being located within a sustainable location which is part of the urban area and surrounded by existing built up areas. The site can be accessed directly from Owlcotes Road. The appended Transport Appraisal confirms that a suitable access for up to 160 units can be achieved safely on the frontage of Owlcotes Road in the east of the site.

The site would be well connected being within walking distance of bus services on Owlcotes Road and Waterloo Road, as well as public transport via the local train station. The local services, including a variety of junior and senior schools, community facilities and the retail facilities allow this site to be well linked. This area can be enhanced through appropriate development of the subject site to provide another extension on to Pudsey. Pudsey town centre is easily reachable by a range of means of transport or even a walk due to the close proximity of the site. The site is also strategically placed with excellent connections to Leeds and Bradford, especially through the easy access to A647 on Stanningley By-Pass. The site is therefore accessible by a variety of modes of transport. The site is therefore suitable for development. Details of public transport frequency can be found in the appended Transport Appraisal.

Development of the site would not impact significantly upon the surrounding landscape due to its location within the existing urban area. A site is considered achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. It is considered that development on this site is achievable. There are no undue constraints that would preclude its development either within 5 years or certainly within the Plan Period.

390 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:













H5Question Ref:

391 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:










392 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:













H8Question Ref:

393 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05977

Kevin Rhodes

Representor No:

Name:










394 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06316

Sandra Rider

Representor No:

Name:


With reference to the proposed chnge of use of land in my area. Ref no: 2120 the rearof Hillfoot Drive.I have owned my property on Hillfoot Drive since 1981, and bought the house becauseof the open aspect at the rear, and the fact it was a peaceful beautiful outlook. Theland has always been Greenbelt, which is essential for keeping the area, having a ruralnatural wild life area within a built up area. The area concerned is home for manywildlife, in natural abundance.The building of these houses on the areas listed, will take away the natural habitatfor wildlife, increase the noise and traffic levels causing peak time traffic hold-ups alongGalloway Lane and Owlcotes Road, which already is a problem at these times. The roadis becoming more and more difficult for pedestrians especially school children to cross,House prices can also be affected, because of the diminished rear views from thehouses on the Drive. Houses on these fields will cause extreme privacy invasion, and thequietness and open aspect was the prime reason I originally purchased the house. Ifhouse were to be built the noise and disturbance will be immense. Extra power supplieshave cancer related issues, which have yet to be disproven.It is essential to keep these now few open aspects. to avoid overcrowding of a verydesirable area.The land could be used for a recreational area, such a a park, allotments or some otherleisure tim area which would benefit the community in the future.I feel strongly about the change of use of this land, and feel it needs to be protected,and ask you to consider and revise the current site category, so as to avoid futurebuilding on this land.

H1Question Ref:

395 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00290

Nellie Robinson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Long Row was converted into a butterfly reserve (a so called protected area). The reason I bought the bungalow was for the views with having the fields there lovely open space.

H4Question Ref:

2123 - I would like to object to the proposal of the land on Moorside Lane for building houses. The road is much too narrow for vehicles which would be a danger to the people living there. The drainage would not take any more buildings.

H4Question Ref:

396 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00290

Nellie Robinson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

397 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01267

Linda Robinson

Representor No:

Name:


Low Moorside Lane 2123

I object to a housing estate being built in New Farnley on the above site as it will cause major long term disruption to our village regarding extra demand on schools, doctors etc not to mention the added traffic which low moorside now has trouble handling down a narrow lane, without extra 100+ cars using it daily. There are plently of 'eye sores' in Leeds (which the above site is not) that need demolishing and in need of better use eg. Housing - Other derelict land that needs building on to revitalise rundown areas

H4Question Ref:

398 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02736

Alan Robinson

Representor No:

Name:


LowmoorSide Lane

The current amenities do not support a further 100+ houses. Shops, bus service and the local schools are over subscribed.

H4Question Ref:

Lowmoor Side Lane 2123

I object to the site listed above be considered for building houses. The local area roads are at best ‘country’ lands the building of 100+ houses will cause extra congestion. The only route out of the site will be onto Lowmoor Side Lane which is not suitable for large volumes of traffic. There is a bottle neck at all exists to the area – traffic lights at the woodcock Islands at the junction of Lawns Lane causing road narrowing and speed bumps on Chapel Lane

H4Question Ref:

399 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06438

Paul And Belinda Robinson

Representor No:

Name:


Proposed site allocation ref: 1201.The proposed site is directly adjacent to our house and land on Sunnybank Lane. As we discussed with you, the proposed building of 196 houses would have a devastating impact on our property in terms of outlook and the current peacefulness we enjoy - which will in turn have an impact on the value of our house and land.

H1Question Ref:

400 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03389

Ruth Robson

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

*The sites are open green spaces & agriculural land and are considered most suitable because infrastructure costs and road access costs will be lower than on local sites considered suitable but with issues, i.e., higher development costs.

H1Question Ref:

Sites 3455B and 1171B*They are open greenfield sites visually prominent as one leaves the built up areas on the eastern side of the Ring Rd. They are useful agricultural land and such land will be more valuable as a food source in the future.

H2Question Ref:

Yes. Site amber 2123, area 456 and site 3455A.These sites would round off the existing housing area with using up valuable and limited green field sites. In addition, the area of land bounded by Walsh Lane, Low Moor Side Lane, Whitehall Rd. and the wooded area to west which is a

weed strewn, over-grazed and neglected for as long as I can remember should be given green coloured site status. Ownership of the site is unknown to me. The woodland to the west of the site is in my ownership and this woodland supported by Woodland Trust would act as a buffer to the hamlet of Upper Moor Side.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Amber sites as above (2123 and 3455A).They should be preferred sites and not potential sites as for reasons given in section H3.

H4Question Ref:

Sites 3455B and 1171B as noted previously above

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

All red sites because they are either cemeteries or built areas.

H7Question Ref:

As mentioned above in item H3.Land bounded by Walsh Lane, Low Moor Side Lane,Whitehall Rd and woodland to west side.

H10Question Ref:

Short term amber site 2123 and site indicated in item H3

H11Question Ref:

No. There already exists such sites off Gelderd Rd that have been expanded over time. Also a site off Whitehall Rd near Drighlington has been used by circus/entertainment travellers for generations.

H12Question Ref:

Perhaps addditional site off Gelder Rd

H13Question Ref:

Yes. Land belonging to St James' church, Whitehall Rd. New Farnley providing agreement with church and removal of some trees. (outer west plan). Site mentioned in item H3 above

H15Question Ref:

The questionaire is too repetitive.


401 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00415

Hilary Rodgers

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I object to any building in or around this area especially on the land down Low Moor Side. The village does not have the roads, services or facilities to serve a large influx of residents. Planning permission has been refused before on these grounds. The land is undermined and has springs which, we understand were some of the reasons it did not go ahead as the cost of making the land safe was prohibitive. Why would that change.This is a lovely semi-rural place to live at the moment and any attempt to turn it into an urban sprawl would be criminal. Why are brown sites not being given more consideration instead of trying to ruin what was green belt.

H4Question Ref:

402 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00416

Fred Rodgers

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – We cannot cope with anymore houses in this village. There is only one shop, a small surgery and the extra traffic it would create would be a nightmare. Low Moor Side is already used as a rat run by commuters and this would get much worse with a couple of hundred more residents in the area.

H4Question Ref:

403 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04959

J Romani

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

We submitted site 3446 to be included in the SHLAA last year. Whilst the site is plotted on the proposals map, there is no written assessment of the site. However, the site has been put in the 'red' category.Our client submits that this is a sustaiable site, being close to the A65

with a variety of buses into the centre of Leeds. The site has previsouly been used as a stone storage depot, although now cleared. The site is available for development now and offers an opportuntiy for new homes to be built. As such our client requests that this site is allocate dfor residential development in the next version of the plan.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

404 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00380

Liz & Diane Room

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – I strongly object to the proposal of building on the land on Low Moor Side, New Farnley is a village that prides itself on being just that – a village. There are enough properties in the area and the green land which surrounds New Farnley is precious. On that land is mine shafts, underground springs, the fact that houses may be built overlooking our bungalows is unbelievable there will be no privacy and the extra noise will be horrendous.

H4Question Ref:

405 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00380

Liz & Diane Room

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

406 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00380

Liz & Diane Room

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

407 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01725

J Rowlandy

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

408 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01671

A Russell

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

409 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04853

Matthew Russell

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

We dont believe the land the perspective areas to build on is sustainable

H1Question Ref:

3455B and 3455A.As above, in particular 3455a as the the land specified directly overlooks our property and on the basis the area is a public walk way

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

3455a as in previous statement we dont feel the potential allocated area is sustainable land in terms of planning.

H4Question Ref:

3455B 3455BAs previous stated

H5Question Ref:

No

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

n/a

H8Question Ref:

n/a

H9Question Ref:

n/a

H10Question Ref:

no

H11Question Ref:

no- definitely not

H12Question Ref:

n/a

H13Question Ref:

n/a

H14Question Ref:

n/a

H15Question Ref:

not at this time. although we would like to be kept up to date with the development for plans on 3455a and 3455b


410 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02262

Douglas Sayer

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Low Moor Side New Farnley Amber to Red. I strongly object to any building in the field.

H4Question Ref:

411 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00370

G Scaife

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – The land behind our property is home to bats (which are protected) also to the left lower down is a designated butterfly sanctuary. The infrastructure around here is totally inadequate for extra housing. The area is also after heavy rain susceptible to flooding which floods several properties on Castle Ings Gardens. Some years ago it was tested for building and it discovered a submerged lake. The roads and shops do not support any more housing. Also it is illegal in the UK to destroy a bats habitat.

H4Question Ref:

412 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03848

Christine Scaife

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

Re site 2123.The area that has been identified as an area for housing is inappropriate for building on, it regularly floods, and has - we have been led to believe an underground lake - it is also a butterfly sanctuary and has a colony of bats which live in the trees on the site. The infrastructure of New Farnley will not support any more houses, the area and roads surrounding this site are totally unsuitable for any more traffic, being single lane roads, there is insufficient access to the site which would necessitate precious resources having to be made to update the road network. This site was previously looked at by a well known housebuilder and after having power grouting done on the site decided it was not cost efficient to build houses on it.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site 2123 as previous stated

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Please take into account the views of residents who have lived in the New Farnley area for quite a number of years, and most of the residents who will be directly affected live on Castle Ings Gardens, and the majority of these are elderly, who will be adversly stressed by building work taking place directly behind their homes.


413 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05983

Scemthorpe Limited C/o Barton Willmore

Representor No:

Name:


REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS POCUMENT- LAND OFF TYERSAL COURT. TYERSALSITE REFERENCE: 3064We are instructed by Scemthorpe Limited, the sole owners of the above site, to submit representations in respect of the Site Allocations plan Issues and Options document. The site has already been actively promoted through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)under the reference no. 3464 and is now indentified in the latest document as an 'amber' site for the following reasons:'Green Belt site, relates relatively well to the existing settlement. Development of the site would also provide an opportunity for expansion of the school if capacity was required. Highways issues re access. No highway frontage and poor accessibility.'Background and context - see full submission re Core Strategy comments and plan submittedHousing overviewSite 3464 falls in the Outer West Area which has an overall housing target of 4, 700 units or 7% of the district wide total. However, para 11.3.2 goes onto stress that this is gross target and existing allocations plus extant permissions are to be deducted. The residual target for the area therefore stands at 2660 un its which are to be found from the most preferable sites identified through the SHLAA.RepresentationsWe are invited to express comments on the 15 questions identified on pages 21-22 of the document. Not all the questions are considered relevant so our representations are focused around questions 3 and 11.H3. Do you think a site that is not colour coded green should have been?Each of the sites put forward during the numerous 'call for sites' exercises have been put through a very basic level of assessment detailed on a proforma. Once completed the proforma provides an overall score which allows the sites to be categorised in order of preference. Green (the mostpreferable), amber (possibly suitable but subject to issues) and red (the least preferable owing to physical of policy constraints). Site 3464 is identified in an amber colour. While the justification given to this colouration is limited, it does state that there are 'Highways issues re access. Nohighway frontage and poor accessibility'. At the time of the previous representations (when the site was put forward for consideration in theSHLAA) due to the historic ownership arrangements with a family member who previously over saw the day to day management of the land sadly passing away, there was a level of uncertainty surrounding how the site could feasibly and legally be accessed. This in itself could prevent the sitebeing deliverable and we therefore accept the reason for the council initially colour coding the site amber.Since the last round of consultation there has been substantial progress made to clarify this point. Most notably, the owners have sought legal advice from Ware & Kay LLP Solicitors based in York. After extensive investigations looking into the deeds of the land itself and the surroundingproperties, they have established the following points:'Title to the development site is actually held by the company, Scemthorpe Limited (CRN01868506) under title number WYK629098. Full legal rights of access and drainage over and through the land between Tyersal Drive/Court and the site were assigned to the Company earlier this year.In development terms there are no impediments to the company's ability to develop the site.' While the previous concerns expressed by the council were valid, the owners can now demonstrate that the site can be accessed and egressed via a safe and properly designed point of access. Should the council need further supporting evidence including the full title deeds to the land or a more technical report prepared by a suitably qualified highways consultant, to demonstrate this point, the applicants would be happy to provide this upon request.IMPACT ON GREEN BELTThe submission draft of the Core Strategy acknowledges that land sufficient to provide, as a minimum, 66,000 new homes over the plan period . In order to fulfil this commitment, it accepts that in addition to focusing development to the most sustainable areas of the district, appropriatesites will have to be allocated that may currently be designated as Green Belt. While the need for sites currently designated as Green Belt to be brought forward is accepted, preference should be given to those sites that no longer fulfil any of the five purposes for its original inclusion. Anapproach consistent with paragraph 85 of the Framework. In order to establish to what degree each of the sites put forward contribute to fulfill ing a Green Belt purpose, the council have carried out a very basic Green Belt assessment. All four purposes for including land within the Green Belt are listed in the assessment section of the proforma. It is important to note that the fifth reason has been omitted. The Core Strategy policies will aim to encourage regeneration within the urban area. While it is priority to bring forward urban regeneration sites in preference to Greenfield sites, this is only where such sites can provide enough deliverable sites to meet the identified requirements. By the stance taken in the Core Strategy, this is clearly not the case in Leeds. So for the purposes of assessing a site's suitability in terms of its conflict with the purposes of being in the Green Belt, only the remaining four will be applied. Given the sites current designation as a Green Belt, one such proforma has been carried out. The overall conclusion given by the council is that the site 'links to settlement along northern boundary: But. .. there is a 'High potential for further sprawl to south'. Taking each purpose in turn we would comment as follows:Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas- the council have expressed concerns that there is a 'high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl: In our opinion these concerns are unfounded. While we accept that the site is not bound to the south by any physical structures, whichis the case to the north and east, the council have overlooked the other physical features that will act as a natural defensible boundary and prevent further sprawl in the future. Enclosed is a copy of the title registry plan relating to the Site. This plan clearly shows the extents of a disused railway track and its associated embankment. Although this track has since been removed; its physical remains are still clearly visible looping round the site and acting as a natural boundary to the south and west. Although no master plans are included with these representations, as part of an initial appraisal looking into the sites deliverability we have explored possible layout options. In order to further strengthen this boundary it would be suggested to leave a substantial area free from physical development. This area could then be used to introduce a densely planted landscaping belt to delimitate the residential development to the north and open countryside side in the south.Prevent neighbouring towns from merging - while the Site is located between Bradford to the west and Leeds to the east, it is located on the southern edge of Tyersal. Given the sites location, as correctly noted by the council, the site would not result in coalescence with neighbouringsettlements.Assist in safeguarding countryside from encroachment- the current boundary between the site and the residential development to the north is unclear with many of the residential properties inadvertently removing their rear boundaries extending the rear gardens into the Site. As notedabove, the size of the site presents a perfect opportunity for a dense landscaping buffer to be introduced along the southern boundary which when taken collectively with embankment of the disused rail track, would accept as a stronger defensible boundary. The council have identified the site as providing access to the countryside. Again we question this conclusion. The site is currently in private ownership and is free from any public footpaths or rights of way which allow access to the countryside beyond the site boundaries. In our opinion the Site does not provide access to the countryside but if the council felt this was necessary, master planning would be used to improve the connectivity of the site and surrounding areas via existing footpaths.Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns- the site is not located within or adjacent to a conversation are, listed building or other historical feature. This criteria is not considered applicable in this instance.

Overall conclusionsIn summary to question H3, it is clear that the sites designation in the amber category (sites which are considered appropriate but subject to potential constraints) is based on concerns relating to the proposed access arrangements and unfounded assumptions about the sites role in filling a Green Belt purpose. Legal and unrestricted access to the Site is now available via the land between Tyersal Drive and Tyersal Court. The

H4Question Ref:

414 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05983


Representor No:

Name:


existing road infrastructure appears to have been developed in such a way as to allow future development to take place on the Site. A number of corrections have been made to the assumptions made by the council in terms of a lack of a defensible boundary, its current ability to provide access to the open countryside and the potential for the Site to contribute to further urban sprawl. There are no adverse impacts that would prevent this Site from being allocated and there are no policies within the NPPF that would prevent it from being allocated.

H11. The Site Allocations Plan will need to also identify phasing of housing allocations (see Volume 1 page 19). The phases are:Delivery/development in the short term, 0-5 years;Delivery/development in the medium term, 5-10 years; andDelivery/development in the long term, 10 + years.The site is currently in private ownership and the owners are actively promoting its immediate development potential. Discussions with a number of developers and agents have already take place prior to these representations with a few expressing significant interest. Negotiations in this respect are ongoing. The site is considered to be free from any constraints which would impact on the sites deliverability so in terms of phasing. We see no reasons why the site could not be developed in the short/medium term.

H11Question Ref:

415 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05983


Representor No:

Name:


3464It is clear that the sites designation in the amber category (sites which are considered appropriate but subject to potential constraints) is based on concerns relating to the proposed access arrangements and unfounded assumptions about the sites role in filling a Green Belt purpose. Legal and unrestricted access to the Site is now available via the land between Tyersal Drive and Tyersal Court. The existing road infrastructure appears to have been developed in such a way as to allow future development to take place on the Site. A number of corrections have been made to the assumptions made by the council in terms of a lack of a defensible boundary, its current ability to provide access to the open countryside and the potential for the Site to contribute to further urban sprawl. There are no adverse impacts that would prevent this Site from being allocated and there are no policies within the NPPF that would prevent it from being allocated.

Site 3464 is identified in an amber colour. While the justification given to this colouration is limited, it does state that there are 'Highways issues re access. No highway frontage and poor accessibility'. At the time of the previous representations (when the site was put forward for consideration in the SHLAA) due to the historic ownership arrangements with a family member who previously over saw the day to day management of the land sadly passing away, there was a level of uncertainty surrounding how the site could feasibly and legally be accessed. This in itself could prevent the site being deliverable and we therefore accept the reason for the council initially colour coding the site amber. Since the last round of consultation there has been substantial progress made to clarify this point. Most notably, the owners have sought legal advice from Ware & Kay LLP Solicitors based in York. After extensive investigations looking into the deeds of the land itself and the surrounding properties, they have established the following points:- 'Title to the development site is actually held by the company, Scemthorpe Limited(CRN01868506) under title number WYK629098.- Full legal rights of access and drainage over and through the land between TyersalDrive/Court and the site were assigned to the Company earlier this year. - In development terms there are no impediments to the company's ability to develop the site.'

While the previous concerns expressed by the council were valid, the owners can now demonstrate that the site can be accessed and egressed via a safe and properly designed point of access. Should the council need further supporting evidence including the full title deeds to the land or a more technical report prepared by a suitably qualified highways consultant, to demonstrate this point, the applicants would be happy to provide this upon request.

IMPACT ON GREEN BELTIn order to establish to what degree each of the sites put forward contribute to fulfilling a GreenBelt purpose, the council have carried out a very basic Green Belt assessment. All four purposes forincluding land within the Green Belt are listed in the assessment section of the proforma. It is important to note that the fifth reason has been omitted. The Core Strategy policies will aim to encourage regeneration within the urban area. While it is priority to bring forward urban regeneration sites in preference to Greenfield sites, this is only where such sites can provide enough deliverable sites to meet the identified requirements. By the stance taken in the Core Strategy, this is clearly not the case in Leeds. So for the purposes of assessing a site's suitability in terms of its conflict with the purposes of being in the Green Belt, only the remaining four will be applied.

Given the sites current designation as a Green Belt, one such proforma has been carried out. The overall conclusion given by the council is that the site 'links to settlement along northern boundary: But... there is a 'High potential for further sprawl to south'. Taking each purpose in turn we would comment as follows:

Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas- the council have expressed concerns that there is a 'high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl: In our opinion these concerns are unfounded. While we accept that the site is not bound to the south by any physical structures, which is the case to the north and east, the council have overlooked the other physical features that will act as a natural defensible boundary and prevent further sprawl in the future. Enclosed is a copy of the title registry plan relating to the Site. This plan clearly shows the extents of a disused railway track and its associated embankment. Although this track has since been removed; its physical remains are still clearly visible looping round the site and acting as a natural boundary to the south and west. Although no master plans are included with these representations, as part of an initial appraisal looking into the sites deliverability we have explored possible layout options. In order to further strengthen this boundary it would be suggested to leave a substantial area free from physical development. This area could then be used to introduce a densely planted landscaping belt to delimitate the residential development to the north and open countryside side in the south.

Prevent neighbouring towns from merging - while the Site is located between Bradford to the west and Leeds to the east, it is located on the southern edge of Tyersal. Given the sites location, as correctly noted by the council, the site would not result in coalescence with neighbouring settlements.

Assist in safeguarding countryside from encroachment- the current boundary between the site and the residential development to the north is unclear with many of the residential properties inadvertently removing their rear boundaries extending the rear gardens into the Site. As noted above, the size of the site presents a perfect opportunity for a dense landscaping buffer to be introduced along the southern boundary which when taken collectively with embankment of the disused rail track, would accept as a stronger defensible boundary. The council have identified the site as providing access to the countryside. Again we question this conclusion. The site is currently in private ownership and is free from any public footpaths or rights of way which allow access to the countryside beyond the site boundaries. In our opinion the Site does not provide access to the countryside but if the council felt this was necessary, master planning would be used to improve the connectivity of the site and surrounding areas via existing footpaths.

Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns- the site is not located within or adjacent to a conversation are, listed building or other historical feature. This criteria is not considered applicable in this instance.

H3Question Ref:

416 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05983


Representor No:

Name:


3464The site is currently in private ownership and the owners are actively promoting its immediate development potential. Discussions with a number of developers and agents have already take place prior to these representations with a few expressing significant interest. Negotiations in this respect are ongoing. The site is considered to be free from any constraints which would impact on the sites deliverability so in terms of phasing. We see no reasons why the site could not be developed in the short - medium term.

H11Question Ref:

417 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05983


Representor No:

Name:


Site 3464 is identified in an amber colour. While the justification given to this colouration is limited, it does state that there are 'Highways issues re access. No highway frontage and poor accessibility'.

At the time of the previous representations (when the site was put forward for consideration in the SHLAA) due to the historic ownership arrangements with a family member who previously over saw (the day to day management of the land sadly passing away, there was a level of uncertainty surrounding how the site could feasibly and legally be accessed. This in itself could prevent the site being deliverable and we therefore accept the reason for the council initially colour coding the site amber.

While the previous concerns expressed by the council were valid, the owners can now demonstrate (that the site can be accessed and egressed via a safe and properly designed point of access. Should the council need further supporting evidence including the full title deeds to the land or a more technical report prepared by a suitably qualified highways consultant, to demonstrate this point, the applicants would be happy to provide this upon request.

IMPACT ON GREEN BELT

Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas — the council have expressed concerns that there is a 'high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl'. In our opinion these concerns are unfounded. While we accept that the site is not bound to the south by any physical structures, whichis the case to the north and east, the council have overlooked the other physical features that will act as a natural defensible boundary and prevent further sprawl in the future.

Enclosed is a copy of the title registry plan relating to the Site. This plan clearly shows the extents of a disused railway track and its associated embankment. Although this track has since been removed; its physical remains are still clearly visible looping round the site and acting as a naturalboundary to the south and west.

Although no master plans are included with these representations, as part of an initial appraisal looking into the sites deliverability we have explored possible layout options. In order to further strengthen this boundary it would be suggested to leave a substantial area free from physicaldevelopment. This area could then be used to introduce a densely planted landscaping belt to delimitate the residential development to the north and open countryside side in the south.

Prevent neighbouring towns from merging — while the Site is located between Bradford to the west and Leeds to the east, it is located on the southern edge of Tyersal. Given the sites location, as correctly noted by the council, the site would not result in coalescence with neighbouringsettlements.

Assist in safeguarding countryside from encroachment — the current boundary between the site and the residential development to the north is unclear with many of the residential properties inadvertently removing their rear boundaries extending the rear gardens into the Site. As notedabove, the size of the site presents a perfect opportunity for a dense landscaping buffer to be introduced along the southern boundary which when taken collectively with embankment of the disused rail track, would accept as a stronger defensible boundary.

The council have identified the site as providing access to the countryside. Again we question this conclusion. The site is currently in private ownership and is free from any public footpaths or rights of way which allow access to the countryside beyond the site boundaries. In our opinion the Site does not provide access to the countryside but if the council felt this was necessary, master planning would be used to improve the connectivity of the site and surrounding areas via existing footpaths.

The council have identified the site as providing access to the countryside. Again we question this conclusion. The site is currently in private ownership and is free from any public footpaths or rights of way which allow access to the countryside beyond the site boundaries. In our opinion the Site does not provide access to the countryside but if the council felt this was necessary, masterplanning would be used to improve the connectivity of the site and surrounding areas via existing footpaths.

Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns — the site is not located within or adjacent to a conversation are, listed building or other historical feature. This criteria is not considered applicable in this instance.

H4Question Ref:

The site is currently in private ownership and the owners are actively promoting its immediate development potential. Discussions with a number of developers and agents have already take place prior to these representations with a few expressing significant interest. Negotiations in this respect are ongoing.

The site is considered to be free from any constraints which would impact on the sites deliverability so in terms of phasing. We see no reasons why the site could not be developed in the short / medium term.

H11Question Ref:

418 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01831

T Schmidt

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

419 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04072

Linda Schofield

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

It is all very well sending a map of just Calverley & Pudsey plans. But we will be greatly impacted bt ANY development along or requiring access to the Leeds Outer ring road from Horsforth to Stanningley - site 1201 and the Apperley Bridge area - site 1337

H1Question Ref:

All! Until you sort the traffic congestion for Calverley. Effectively gridlocked every day at the only 3 exits/entrances to the village ie. Thorn bury/Owlcotes, Calverley/Rodley roundabout, Greengates/Harrogate Road traffic lights. We need a bypass before more housing - what is happening along the Aire Valley to promote this? Especially if you want 500 houses on the Sandoz site?

H2Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

All see. Above

H5Question Ref:

No, see previous comments re traffic

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

Same as before, over population without appropriate infrastructure

H7Question Ref:

Roads first then where most needed to support local people, local business, Leeds economy.

H11Question Ref:

If they have a case, yes

H12Question Ref:

No idea, dodgy subject to speculate on someone else's neighbours!

H13Question Ref:

Yes definitely given population profile - sites need to be near/have good -SMOOTH! Access to. Shops, transport, entertainment, hospitals.

H14Question Ref:

420 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02982

Andy Schooler

Representor No:

Name:


[x]Sent: 03 July 2013 20:55To: LDF LeedsCc: Carter, Cllr Andrew; Wood, Cllr Rod; Marjoram, Cllr JoeSubject: Local Development PlanDear Sir/Madam,We write in response to the Local Development Plan which shows three potential areas forhousing near our home. They are listed as 1193a, 1193b and 4049 on the plan.Our view is we are certainly glad to see 1193b – the largest area of the three – listed as ‘notconsidered suitable’. We would hope it remains this way.While realising the need for more housing amid a growing population, we would also beconcerned about development on the other two sites.The plan states these have ‘issues’ or are ‘not as favoured’ as others. This is also our view. Ourprimary concern is the additional traffic problems on Rodley Lane (A657) that extra housingwould undoubtedly create.Anyone who knows this road will know it gets extremely busy during rush hour with trafficoften backing up from the Ring Road (A6120) all the way back to the village of Calverley. Wecan only see extra roads of housing adding to this problem, while access from the existingroads (particularly when turning right) is also a common issue, one which would be replicatedon any new street.The wider area is already facing further traffic problems with numerous houses expected to bebuilt across the valley on areas 34 and 1339 on the plan. We are expecting the Ring Road to getbusier when these are built which seems likely to have a knock-on effect to other roads such asRodley Lane.These are our concerns which we would like considered as the plan progresses.Yours faithfully,[x]

H4Question Ref:

[x]Sent: 03 July 2013 20:55To: LDF LeedsCc: Carter, Cllr Andrew; Wood, Cllr Rod; Marjoram, Cllr JoeSubject: Local Development PlanDear Sir/Madam,We write in response to the Local Development Plan which shows three potential areas forhousing near our home. They are listed as 1193a, 1193b and 4049 on the plan.Our view is we are certainly glad to see 1193b – the largest area of the three – listed as ‘notconsidered suitable’. We would hope it remains this way.While realising the need for more housing amid a growing population, we would also beconcerned about development on the other two sites.The plan states these have ‘issues’ or are ‘not as favoured’ as others. This is also our view. Ourprimary concern is the additional traffic problems on Rodley Lane (A657) that extra housingwould undoubtedly create.Anyone who knows this road will know it gets extremely busy during rush hour with trafficoften backing up from the Ring Road (A6120) all the way back to the village of Calverley. Wecan only see extra roads of housing adding to this problem, while access from the existingroads (particularly when turning right) is also a common issue, one which would be replicatedon any new street.The wider area is already facing further traffic problems with numerous houses expected to bebuilt across the valley on areas 34 and 1339 on the plan. We are expecting the Ring Road to getbusier when these are built which seems likely to have a knock-on effect to other roads such asRodley Lane.These are our concerns which we would like considered as the plan progresses.Yours faithfully,[x]

H7Question Ref:

421 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01837

Sharon Scott

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

422 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02740

Claire Scott

Representor No:

Name:


1110 Rodley. Amber to RedThis land is lush green grazing land. I live at the side of this land and the wildlife which is on the land is plenty. Such as birds of prey, red kite, sparrow hawk etc. deer, bats, fox, owl, and pheasant plus from your brochure the other sites available are far better to build on.I believe the 3 sites more of less attached would have a great impact on the ring road. I think it would make turning left onto Calvery lane a death trap. It is difficult when driving up the ring road and there are a few cars waiting to turn left. I also think Rodley roundabout will be impassable, due to the clarins site holding nearly 600 homes. Also the intentions of building another 591 homes on site 1110/1114 and 2121. The road systems will be overloaded with traffic. I think it was completely wrong closing Rodley School, where will the children go to school.If most households have 2 cars with the clarins site there could be 1,200 cars. Plus the sites 1110/1114/2121, that would be 1182. All in all you are looking at an increase of 2,382 cars in a mile or 2 radius. It doesn’t seem fare that it’s all happening in the same small area. There are no facilities in Rodley, not even news agents. The impact on Farsley Town Street will be huge. There will be no parking for people using the centre. I believe the area should be surveyed. People with young children might not want to spend all that money buying houses when there’s no guarantee which school you will end up in. It’s the main reason why families will buy a house in a certain place or area because of a good school in it. Give families questionnaires, would you live in Rodley and go to a Bramley or Bradford School (Eccleshill School) we also don’t want Rodley and Farsley joining. They are 2 towns and should remain that way

H4Question Ref:

2121 Calverley Lane Farsley. Amber to Red.This land is lush green grazing land. I live at the side of this land and the wildlife which is on the land is plenty. Such as birds of prey, red kite, sparrow hawk etc. deer, bats, fox, owl, and pheasant plus from your brochure the other sites available are far better to build on.I believe the 3 sites more of less attached would have a great impact on the ring road. I think it would make turning left onto Calvery lane a death trap. It is difficult when driving up the ring road and there are a few cars waiting to turn left. I also think Rodley roundabout will be impassable, due to the clarins site holding nearly 600 homes. Also the intentions of building another 591 homes on site 1110/1114 and 2121. The road systems will be overloaded with traffic. I think it was completely wrong closing Rodley School, where will the children go to school.If most households have 2 cars with the clarins site there could be 1,200 cars. Plus the sites 1110/1114/2121, that would be 1182. All in all you are looking at an increase of 2,382 cars in a mile or 2 radius. It doesn’t seem fare that it’s all happening in the same small area. There are no facilities in Rodley, not even news agents. The impact on Farsley Town Street will be huge. There will be no parking for people using the centre. I believe the area should be surveyed. People with young children might not want to spend all that money buying houses when there’s no guarantee which school you will end up in. It’s the main reason why families will buy a house in a certain place or area because of a good school in it. Give families questionnaires, would you live in Rodley and go to a Bramley or Bradford School (Eccleshill School) we also don’t want Rodley and Farsley joining. They are 2 towns and should remain that way

H4Question Ref:

1114 kirklees knoll. Amber to Red.This land is lush green grazing land. I live at the side of this land and the wildlife which is on the land is plenty. Such as birds of prey, red kite, sparrow hawk etc. deer, bats, fox, owl, and pheasant plus from your brochure the other sites available are far better to build on.I believe the 3 sites more of less attached would have a great impact on the ring road. I think it would make turning left onto Calvery lane a death trap. It is difficult when driving up the ring road and there are a few cars waiting to turn left. I also think Rodley roundabout will be impassable, due to the clarins site holding nearly 600 homes. Also the intentions of building another 591 homes on site 1110/1114 and 2121. The road systems will be overloaded with traffic. I think it was completely wrong closing Rodley School, where will the children go to school.If most households have 2 cars with the clarins site there could be 1,200 cars. Plus the sites 1110/1114/2121, that would be 1182. All in all you are looking at an increase of 2,382 cars in a mile or 2 radius. It doesn’t seem fare that it’s all happening in the same small area. There are no facilities in Rodley, not even news agents. The impact on Farsley Town Street will be huge. There will be no parking for people using the centre. I believe the area should be surveyed. People with young children might not want to spend all that money buying houses when there’s no guarantee which school you will end up in. It’s the main reason why families will buy a house in a certain place or area because of a good school in it. Give families questionnaires, would you live in Rodley and go to a Bramley or Bradford School (Eccleshill School) we also don’t want Rodley and Farsley joining. They are 2 towns and should remain that way

H4Question Ref:

423 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05646

David M Scott

Representor No:

Name:


2120This site is land locked to three sides and entry to it or exit from it would have to be via strip of land on Galloway Lane on which presently stands a house yards and an old barn which has in the past been protected and development of it previously refused. Galloway Lane is a busy road and due to several recent and ongoing nearby developments is getting busier. The entry/exit would be within 100m of a bad bend on the Pudsey side and almost opposite a parade of shops. It must therefore be a road safety concern.

A short distance into the area is a large pylo9n carrying national grid power lines across a good proportion of the site. There is also a railway tunnel (Leeds/Bradford/Pennine lines). This runs under virtually three quarters of the Fairway side of the plot. The other end of the plot is marked by the woodland nature area created by Leeds Council. Th8is has enriched the area and not only shields the noise from the Stanningley bypass but has enriched the bird and wildlife population even resulting in several roe deer using the woods and indeed this plot of land.

The third side is bounded by the houses and gardens on Hillfoot Drive and a doctors surgery and car park (Hillfoot Surgery). This land has always been agricultural and is also one of the last pieces of green belt in this area. The current owner was fully aware f this when he acquired the land.

My concern with the other sites is the loss of open space in the locality and that they would all enter/exit onto Owlcotes Road on and near to the brow of the hill. Again due to developments this road has become busier and the highways dept have deemed it necessary to install speed bumps and sped camera warnings along its entire length (including Cemetery Road).

To conclude I would suggest that this area of Pudsey has had more than its fair share of developments and quite large ones too. Consequently the population increases but nothing is done to increase capacity, especially in schools and medical facilities, both of which are struggling to accommodate the influx. Neither are the road capacities improved for the considerable increase in local traffic.

The planners seem determined to cover Pudsey in concrete and houses to the detriment of the local population. Enough is enough and there should be no more developments especially site 2120 until all current ones are completed and the consequences assesses and addressed.

3440My concern with the other sites is the loss of open space in the locality and that they would all enter/exit onto Owlcotes Road on and near to the brow of the hill. Again due to developments this road has become busier and the highways dept have deemed it necessary to install speed bumps and sped camera warnings along its entire length (including Cemetery Road).



H1Question Ref:

1073A

My concern with the other sites is the loss of open space in the locality and that they would all enter/exit onto Owlcotes Road on and near to the brow of the hill. Again due to developments this road has become busier and the highways dept have deemed it necessary to install speed bumps and sped camera warnings along its entire length (including Cemetery Road).



H4Question Ref:

1073B My concern with the other sites is the loss of open space in the locality and that they would all enter/exit onto Owlcotes Road on and near to the brow of the hill. Again due to developments this road has become busier and the highways dept have deemed it necessary to install speed bumps and sped camera warnings along its entire length (including Cemetery Road).



H7Question Ref:

424 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05649

Mr & Mrs Scott

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121As a resident with three young children residing on priesthorpe rd farsley I am extremley concernedabout the possibility of developments on kirklees knoll and calverly laneWe regularly witness commuters bombing up and down our road in an attempt to reach the ringroad to leeds. Many people choose priesthorpe rd over calverly lane to access the ring road as thisis seen as an easier get out. The fact is though that both junctions are a major accident waiting tohappen.The infa structure in farsley is woefully inadequate to cope with future developments. Only lastweek a car on our road had its wing mirrors smashed as someone tried to bomb up to the ringroad.I personally would like a 20 mph restriction put on priesthorpe rd with a notice saying unsuitablefor hgv's.Living opposite beech lees also every other car swings around to turn around there obviouslyrealising there is no right turn onto the ring road. This ought to be addressed.I fear that should these developments go ahead I will have no choice but to leave our lovely houseas with the extra traffic on our little road I could not live with myself should one of my childrencome to harm.I would urge lcc to make the correct decision here to protect current residents from the stress ofadditional traffic.

H4Question Ref:

425 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05933

Alfred Seed

Representor No:

Name:


11142121My wife and I strongly disagree with the allocation of the following areas for housing development: Site 1114 - Land at Kirklees Knoll, Farsley; comprising of 18 hectares with a maximum capacity of 472 dwellings.Site 2121 - Land on Calverley Lane, Farsley; comprising of 2.755 hectares with a maximum capacity of 72 dwellings.The reasons for this objection are as follows:1. These two sites are only separated by Calverley Lane and must be considered together as a green buffer separating Farsley from Calverley.2. The addition of another 544 houses to this area will add a considerable extra load to theservices in this area.3. Extra Traffic on already busy roads: Farsley Ring Road, Calverley Lane and Farsley Main Street.4. Local Schools are already full to capacity.5. Extra Medical facilities must be provided for.6. This is in addition to proposed development at Rodley (site 1110) and the actual large scale development now started on the nearby Ring Road and on Bagley Lane Farsley.7. The land at present is not waste, it is farmed or grazed.

In our opinion the land must be reverted to Green Belt status or at least zone protected for a further 15 to 20 years.

H4Question Ref:

426 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00408

Jennifer Senior

Representor No:

Name:


No adequate facilities for all these houses.

H4Question Ref:

427 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02102

Martine Shackleton

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

428 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01749

L Sheard

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

429 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01749

L Sheard

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

430 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01794

Lorraine Sheard

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

431 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05653

Sam Shepherd

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114As local residents (at [x]) which backs onto the site, we feel thatthis site should be returned to green belt, or at least remain as it is currentlydesignated.The site remains good quality agricultural land, and the presence of open greenspace in this increasingly crowded part of the city remains an asset for bothcurrent and future residents.Any planning decisions which may lead to the site being developed would bedetrimental to the area. The presence of further housing in this part of Leedswould place unnecessaryand unmanageable pressures on an already stretched infrastructure, not tomention the environmental impact of increased traffic having a negative impact onthe quality of life forboth current residents and those who might choose to move there.I hope that you take these comments into consideration.

H4Question Ref:

432 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01787

P Shipman

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

433 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03336

Michael Short

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

I can only comment on sites in my immediate proximity, though from my local knowledge of these, I am sure that many of the other proposed sites will be equally poor for future development because of poor access, lack of slack in existing infrastructure(schools, GP surgeries etc), many local roads already over crowded- future development will only exacerbate this. Why do we need so many more houses in Leeds-especially built on existing green field sites? Perhaps instead of wasting money on these future fantasies it could be spent on fixing and upgrading what already exists(perhaps you haven't noticed the state of the roads or how tatty some schools are in Leeds?

H1Question Ref:

3373A: suggested access via narrow, badly designed estate roads which are about adequate to service the existing housing. The site,in parts, is probably not economical to develop(topography,drainage, old mines etc). Will entail removal of many trees which form part of a pleasant,wooded local amenity. If developed,the character of this space(a quiet valley)will be ruined. Applying to 3373A and also 3373C,1336 and 1337: Local roads already saturated, no places in schools or GPs, massive development will ruin the'village' feel of the area.

H2Question Ref:

Unable to comment as insufficient local knowledge.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

373B-Part of peaceful wooded valley-widely used local amenity.

H7Question Ref:

Parts of 3373A which are immediately adjacent to the wood in 3373B. Parts of this are in what local people consider to be the wood.

H9Question Ref:

I am sure that they can locate, purchase and develop sites for their use in the same way as other Leeds residents.

H12Question Ref:

This proposal covers a large area and it is difficult to comment on the suitability of sites (of whatever colour code)without local knowledge. Why does Leeds require so much new green field housing when there exists already many brown field sites-many of which are eyesores-that should be

developed as a priority.(less profit presumably!)Should land that already has planning permission not be developed first? I understand there are many potential houses that remain unbuilt.


434 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04161

Anthony Silson

Representor No:

Name:


No

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

n

G4Question Ref:

It all depends on the nature of the possible changes.One might agree to some but not others. So a cautious yes.

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

Definitely no. This could be an instance where some improvement would be appropriate but the space should be retained

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

Retain green spaces. These are very important for mental and physical health

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:

As mentioned in previous answer, all green spaces should be retained for well-being

G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:

No green space should be lost. See previous answers for reasons.

G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:

435 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04161

Anthony Silson

Representor No:

Name:



G12Question Ref:


G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

I completed the housing questionaire before this one. I had not then realised that some of the sites allocated for housing were green spaces.So if there is any confusion, I would want green spaces to be retained


436 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05930

Gordon And Linda Simpson And Blay

Representor No:

Name:


34402120We have received a letter from Cllr Carter with regard to the above and strongly object to any further development in this area, particularly at the above sites. In our opinion there is enough new builds in the area especially on Waterloo Road, Pudsey, which cater for large families (4,5 bed detached homes).

Our home backs on to site 1073a. If building is allowed to continue in this area there will be no green space between Leeds and Bradford. Looking around the area, there are plenty of houses for sale or to let without building anymore. On our particular small estate there are at least 10.

H1Question Ref:

1073aWe have received a letter from Cllr Carter with regard to the above and strongly object to any further development in this area, particularly at the above sites. In our opinion there is enough new builds in the area especially on Waterloo Road, Pudsey, which cater for large families (4,5 bed detached homes).


H4Question Ref:

1073bWe have received a letter from Cllr Carter with regard to the above and strongly object to any further development in this area, particularly at the above sites. In our opinion there is enough new builds in the area especially on Waterloo Road, Pudsey, which cater for large families (4,5 bed detached homes).


H7Question Ref:

437 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00411

Caroline Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – The field adjacent to Low Moor side is a tourist spot to view horses and their foals. This needs to be protected from additional volumes of traffic and noise pollution. Also there is insufficient school places to accommodate increased population in the area. Please do not spoil this area.

H4Question Ref:

2123 – the proposed land is a site for environmental protection. A range of wildlife settles in this area including foxes, rare birds, rabbits amongst others. It is a preferred location for foxes to rear their cubs and a protected butterfly sanctuary. New Farnley is an area of natural beauty.

H4Question Ref:

2123 – The land running alongside the proposed site for sale would need to be widened to accommodate increased traffic – this has both pollution and environmental implications (and cost!) What additional costs have been assessed in relation to the proposed sale?

H4Question Ref:

438 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01667

B Simpson

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

439 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


I welcome inclusion of the Sunny Bank Mills site within the shopping area. Theowners are trying very hard to find new uses for the building and have spentwhat must be substantial amounts of money renovating the building to a highstandard and improving external areas. This is an important building in aConservation Area and bringing it back into full use creates employmentopportunities and delivers substantial regeneration benefits. The wholecommunity benefits. Having said this, I would expect the building not to beentirely devoted to shopping as there are parking difficulties and Farsley TownStreet is very congested. I believe it would best function as a mixed use site.

R1Question Ref:

The primary shopping frontage currently includes shops at the northern end ofthe S2 centre opposite the Bagley Lane/Town Street junction. I note it isproposed to exclude this group of shops from the primary shopping frontage.These are the nearest shops to houses at the northern end of Farsley Village(and also to the possible housing development at Kirklees Knowl, which I havealready written about). I appreciate these shops are cut off from the mainshopping core but I would not like to see them lost to other uses in the future.I see no reason why they should not remain as primary shopping frontage - isthere anything wrong with having two separate primary shopping frontages withina Shopping Area?

R2Question Ref:

440 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


I also support the principle of a mixed use development with a housing component at Sunny Bank Mills, (site CFSM051).

H1Question Ref:

441 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


111411102121Please do not allocate Kirklees Knowl and the two adjoining PAS sites for housing. The sites are currently designated as Protected Area of Search (PAS) land on the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review. The sites were formerly within Green Belt but re-designated as PAS land despite strong opposition from the local community during preparation of the Unitary Development Plan in the 1990s. I objected to the outline planning application for residential development at site 1114 Kirklees Knowl, (application reference 12/04046/OT), on the following grounds: •Sustainability •Education provision •Lack of high quality public transport provision •Impact on the surrounding highway network •Ecological impact •The application is premature •Loss of an attractive greenfield site

A copy of my objection is attached as Appendix1 as the issues raised are also pertinent to the current exercise and also apply to sites 1110 and 2121. An outline planning application for residential development on site 2121 is expected to be submitted shortly. I assume the landowners will seek to demonstrate that housing development would be in line with the interim policy in respect of PAS sites as agreed by the Council’s Executive Board on 13 March 2013.

The sites have been identified as ‘amber’ on the proposed plan. Planning officers therefore believe the sites may have potential for housing development although they may be issues that need to be resolved first. I consider that the sites are unsuitable for housing development and should be re-allocated as Green Belt.; hence they must be given the red not the amber light.

The Housing Market Characteristic Area (HMCA)If developed the three sites could provide over 20% of the 2660 new houses, which are required in the Outer West HMCA over the next 15 years. Although initial assessments indicate that there may be enough sites to accommodate 3515 houses and hence there is local choice on which sites are best, I suspect the planning officers may be reluctant to concede that these sites are not appropriate for housing development.

The sites are located close to the former Clariant/Riverside Mills sites where there is outline planning permission for 550 houses. These developments are in the North Leeds HMCA. All vehicular access to and from these sites is via the section of Ring Road, between Rodley and Horsforth roundabouts. The developments will substantially increase traffic volumes both on the Ring Road and surrounding highway network. I am not convinced that the highway network can adequately cope with a second development of a similar size within such close proximity. In my view, large housing developments of 50 houses plus should not be near other large residential developments unless public transport provision is exceptionally good and the surrounding highway network has significant spare capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development without disruption to the safe and free flow of traffic This is not the case here.

Proximity to Highways and Transport InfrastructureIn October 2012, I prepared a comprehensive assessment of the surrounding highway network and public transport services. An amended copy is attached as Appendix 2. I also prepared a schedule of bus services in Rodley and Farsley and have since updated it as bus services are now worse – in particular bus service 8 has been severely cut back. This is attached as Appendix 3 [see representation].

Realistically it is only possible to gain vehicular access to the site from Calverley Lane and from Bagley Lane – both of these accesses are not without problems. It is not possible to turn right out of Calverley Lane into the Ring Road and likewise from the Ring Road into Calverley Lane. The only possible Bagley Lane access is via the road serving the new residential development by Bellway Homes; this is of substandard width and in my view is unsuitable for use as an access serving a very large development. Access from the north via Petrie Street and Oaklands Road is not appropriate for a development of this scale. These are residential streets with lots of on street parking.

In terms of public transport, the sites do not meet the accessibility standards set out in the adopted ‘Public Transport Improvements and Developer Contributions’ SPD. The nearest bus stops to site 1114 on Bagley Lane only offer a very restricted service. Bus services through Rodley are not high frequency, run only hourly during evenings and on Sundays and as two separate bus operators are involved do not provide an integrated service. Bus services through Farsley are poor. Service 16, the only ‘high frequency bus service,’ takes a very circuitous route into Leeds City Centre and is overtaken by the less frequent service 508. New Pudsey Railway Station is approximately 2.5kms away; realistically future residents using the station will drive there adding to congestion at Dawson’s Corner Roundabout and along Bradford Road, Old Road and Farsley Town Street on the return journey.

Proximity to ServicesI have addressed proximity and access to services in my objection letter to the current application (Appendix1) under the heading of sustainability.

Shopping facilities in Rodley are very limited. Farsley shops cater largely for day to day needs; there is only one small supermarket. The nearest substantial shopping facility is at the Owlcotes Centre, approximately 2.5kms away. The bus service from Rodley and Farsley only operates for 4.5 hours a day, Monday to Saturday with most customers accessing the shopping centre by car. I am only aware of one doctor’s practice in Farsley. There are no Council run leisure centres in either Farsley or Rodley. Education provision is a particular problem as virtually all the primary schools within reasonable proximity of the sites together with some of the secondary schools are already oversubscribed. This problem is expected to get worse with increasing birth rates even before the impact of major new housing development is taken into account. The Council’s Executive Board on 17 July 2013 agreed to go consultation on proposals to increase the number of primary school places at existing Farsley Schools to accommodate this growth.

Impact on Important Landscape Features and Nature ConservationMature trees and hedgerows are an attractive and distinctive feature of the sites; in particular site 1114 where the trees are protected by Tree Preservation Order. It is likely that some of these will have to be removed to facilitate housing development. Whilst new planting can be conditioned on any planning permission, this cannot compensate for the loss of mature trees and hedgerows, which have been left undisturbed for years. It is inevitable that wildlife on the site will be adversely affected. I regularly see bats, hedgehogs, toads and frogs in the vicinity of my house; this leads me to believe they originate from site 1114.

H4Question Ref:

442 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


Opportunity for Place-makingI do not doubt that with appropriate high quality design, any housing development on these sites could look attractive and provide comfortable secure homes. I also do not doubt that the houses would be of sustainable design and construction. However housing development on these sites would result in the creation of new car dependent communities, which limit the opportunities for successful place-making. The sites are remote from community facilities, services, schools and good public transport. In addition the traffic generated would put increased strain on the surrounding highway network to the detriment of both existing and new residents. Basically they will be ‘sterile dormitories’ for Leeds and Bradford. Farsley and Rodley retain their village atmosphere and character. There is a strong sense of community cohesion, which is underpinned by village celebrations and festivals. Development of these sites will merge the two distinct communities and effectively transform them into suburbs of Leeds.

Opportunity for Community BenefitsAny housing development would need to make provision for affordable housing in accordance with Leeds City Council policy – the current policy requirement is 15% of houses. This is the only community benefit, which would arise from development of the sites. Development would not result in any benefits for existing communities in Farsley and Rodley in the way of improved open space, better public transport, better cycle and pedestrian routes and other infrastructure improvements. Instead it will deliver a lot more traffic congestion.

The Case for Returning the Sites to Green BeltThe Planning Inspector in the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review in 2006, whilst retaining the PAS allocation, acknowledged that the Kirklees Knowl site had potential to fulfil Green Belt objectives. He stated:‘If and when the Council carry out a comprehensive review of all PAS sites, as I advise, then the site has important Green Belt attributes that should be carefully considered. Together with land south west of Calverley Lane ……… it forms part of an extensive tract of open land that extends outwards from the urban edge of Farsley across the Outer Ring Road and which is clearly seen as such from adjoining roads and from more distant viewpoints to the north. What I say about the clear urban edge on the opposite side of Calverley Lane applies here too and I consider that Kirklees Knowl could perform the same Green Belt functions as the land there, namely checking sprawl, preventing coalescence and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’.

I note that in the Site Details Housing Document, a Green Belt assessment is only completed where the site is within Green Belt. As a result one appears not to have been done. There appears to be inconsistencies in the approach between different sites in the document. For example the smaller site 1193B at Rodley Lane/Calverley Lane, (which is in Green Belt), is a red site because it separates Calverley and Rodley thereby preventing coalescence of settlements and has trees protected by TPO. Kirklees Knowl performs a similar function in separating Farsley and Rodley and also has protected trees.

Detailed Site ReportsThese reports appear somewhat lacking in detail. For example the report on site 1114 states the site is flat which it is not and makes no mention of the Tree Preservation Order or of the hedgerows. It fails to say that the nearest bus stop has a very restricted service and the bus stop ID does not concur with that given by Metro. The site is given a total score of 10, which in my opinion is far too high. I would score it at 5 based on the following:Accessibility - Rank 1 •Poor public transport - does not meet SPD requirements both in terms of bus service frequency and distance from the site. •Accessibility to schools poor – primary schools over-subscribed; no safe walking route along the Ring Road to Priesthorpe School. •Accessibility to health services poor. •Only part of the site is within maximum walking limits of Farsley S2 centre. •Owlcotes Shopping Centre and New Pudsey Railway Station are well outside maximum walking limits.

Access Comments- Rank 3 •Adequate frontage with adopted highways but options for suitable access points limited. •Possible pedestrian and cycle connections to Petrie Street and Oaklands Road.

Local Network Comment- Rank 1 •Capacity issues on the Ring Road particularly at Rodley and Dawson’s Corner Roundabouts; this will get worse once the residential

development at the former Clariant /Riverside Mills site is completed. •Peak hour tailbacks a problem on Bagley Lane and Rodley Lane •Traffic congestion a problem on Old Road/Farsley Town Street •Substandard pavement widths

ConclusionsWhilst I appreciate the need for new houses and affordable houses in particular, I feel these sites are unsuitable for large scale housing development. There has already been substantial new housing development in the vicinity. For example on the former industrial sites adjacent to the Coal Hill Lane/Bagley Lane junction and a 550 houses will be built at the former Clariant/Riverside Mills site. I believe that the best way to provide more houses in Farsley and Rodley is through development of smaller sites. For example there are two planning applications pending consideration at Cherry Tree Drive for 13 houses, (application 12/05274/FU) and at Springfield Iron Works for 14 houses, (application 12/02933/OT), both of which I support in principle. I also support the principle of a mixed use development with a housing component at Sunny Bank Mills, (site CFSM051).

Priority for new housing developments should be brownfield sites; which support regeneration of urban areas. Greenfield developments simply reduce the green areas, which play an important role in promoting health, happiness and well-being. A priority in allocating sites for large housing developments should be proximity to a railway station – sites should preferably be within reasonable walking distance of a station. If this is not possible then they should at least be on a high frequency bus route, which travels on a direct journey to a major transport interchange (bus service 16 does not meet this criteria as it takes an indirect route).

As an example the Bradford Road/Stanningley Road corridor appears to provide a good option for housing development. There are two railway stations within this corridor and the high frequency 72 bus provides a direct bus link between Leeds and Bradford. There are large supermarkets at Owlcotes and Swinnow with an Aldi supermarket under construction at Bramley Town End. It is also within relatively easy walking distance of S2 and local shopping centres. Substantial sections of the corridor are very rundown and new development would help support economic growth and deliver regeneration benefits. However it appears this area has either not been looked at or has been discounted for residential development.

443 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


Priority for new housing developments should be brownfield sites; which support regeneration of urban areas. Greenfield developments simply reduce the green areas, which play an important role in promoting health, happiness and well-being. A priority in allocating sites for large housing developments should be proximity to a railway station – sites should preferably be within reasonable walking distance of a station. If this is not possible then they should at least be on a high frequency bus route, which travels on a direct journey to a major transport interchange (bus service 16 does not meet this criteria as it takes an indirect route).

As an example the Bradford Road/Stanningley Road corridor appears to provide a good option for housing development. There are two railway stations within this corridor and the high frequency 72 bus provides a direct bus link between Leeds and Bradford. There are large supermarkets at Owlcotes and Swinnow with an Aldi supermarket under construction at Bramley Town End. It is also within relatively easy walking distance of S2 and local shopping centres. Substantial sections of the corridor are very rundown and new development would help support economic growth and deliver regeneration benefits. However it appears this area has either not been looked at or has been discounted for residential development.

H10Question Ref:

444 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05710

Philippa Simpson

Representor No:

Name:


I also support the principle of a mixed use development with a housing component at Sunny Bank Mills, (site CFSM051).


445 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01646

Laura Slaw

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

446 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05904

Michael Small

Representor No:

Name:


We object to the proposed development of sites 1123a and1123b on the grounds that:-1 They will enroach on the green belt2 They will increase conjestion on already inadequate road system.3 They will increase the problem with the present infrastructure ie schools, doctors,shops.

H4Question Ref:

We object to the proposed development of sites 1123a and1123b on the grounds that:-1 They will enroach on the green belt2 They will increase conjestion on already inadequate road system.3 They will increase the problem with the present infrastructure ie schools, doctors,shops.

H7Question Ref:

447 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00251

Elizabeth Smith

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Issuesfloodingroads - too narrowlocal amenitiesbeing overlookedlocal wildlife

H4Question Ref:

448 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00251

Elizabeth Smith

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

449 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00787

D Smith

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - I strongly object to any building on the site 2123 off Low MoorSide Lane, New Farnley due to the following reasons

1....there is no way new farnley village can accommodate theamount of houses that would be built on this fieldlow moor side lane is only 2 cars wide and has only 1 pavement..cars have to wait to pass each other to avoid catching each otherand have to mount to pavement to let large vans passthe bottom of low moor side lane is a blind corner and anaccident waiting to happen nowanother 100 to 200 cars would definitely cause accidents therestraight awaydown by the COOP is very busy now another 100 cars and morewould cause mayhem in the heart of the village2.. the left exit from low moor side onto lawns lane and theroute down maple drive down onto the ring road is a rat runnow and would be horrendous... school hours we cant getthrough now so god help us if we had more trafficthe village wouldn't copeIt is very dangerous now on that route and all the extra trafficwould cause mayhem3...The exit from lawns lane onto whitehall would not be able toaccommodate the extra traffic....we have to queue now to getout and the roundabout at ringways is terrible even now so howcan it accommodate another 100 cars going to workThe exit at the top of low moor side lane by the woodcock isvery hazardous and we cant get out at busy times.that exit would stop being used and cars would use walsh laneto get out onto whitehall roadthere is no pavement on walsh lane so all the cars would bewaiting to cause an accidentThe site 2123 is a well known butterfly habitatmore importantly we also have a large bat colony which breedin the field what about thoseSEE ENCLOSED BAT INFORMATION [This has been scanned]The field is prone to mining subsidenceThis can be seen if you go to siteWE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY BUILDING ON SITE 2123WE HAVE TO LIVE HERE IT WOULD BE MAHEM IN THEVILLAGE TRAFFIC EVERYWHERE ACCIDENTS WAITINGTO HAPPENFROM WALSH LANE DOWN TO WHERE THE ENTRANCE TO THEFIELD WILL BE THERE ARE 10 .HOUSES IF YOU LET THEFIELD GO TO HOUSING.....129....THE INSTANT TRAFFIC WILLMULTIPLY 13 FOLD …. DISGRACEFUL

H4Question Ref:

450 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05890

Kathleen Smith

Representor No:

Name:


I have been given this email address to put in my objection to the above land being built on. there is no way new farnley could accommodate 120 houses in this field .....the traffic in the village would be horrendous................low moor side lane is the main feed into the village and is only 2 cars wide and has just 1 pavement.......we have to mount the pavement at the moment to allow other cars past ....the exit at the woodcock pub is very busy now and we struggle to get out........more cars would create mahem.

the exit from lawns lane is awful at the moment so god help us if we had another couple of hundred cars using it..............the maple estate is a rat run now and a bad accident waiting to happen we queue to go along from maple estate past the cricket club and have to wait for vehicles ton pass the butterfly garden where the road into to field would be is on a bad bend and we don't have vision of cars coming up from the coop ....so imagine the accidents....................... also there is a big bat colony in the field.................what about these......I understand they are legally protected..........................or doesn’t it matter

could you tell me why no one in the village of new farnley was ever told the field had been taken out of green belt...................also ....we have just heard by chance that it may be put in for housing and we only have until 29 july to object..................why has all this been done through the back door no one in the village knew about this when we went round the houses we are in the process of gathering objections./........................... low moor side lane is ony 2 cars wide with only 1 pavement........we often have to mount the pavement to let vans through...............any housing on this site would cause mayhem in the village......accidents waiting to happen........................... traffic along lawns lane and down

H4Question Ref:

Please let me know where we bring all the objection forms we got from Leonardo buildings ...............we only found out about all this by accident.............no one in the village knew about it..................... we think this has all been done by the back door..........there was no letters sent out.......nothing............... When we found out by accident about this .....no one....in the village knew about it why is it never put up in the village to let people know. we have had a meeting in the village and will be ........bringing down objections....where shall we bring them to..............this village is not big enough to build 120 houses on the main feed into the village we have to mount the pavement now to let other vehicles through there is plenty of land down the bottom of Whitehall road harper farm etc and a main road low moor side road ....walsh lane.....lawns lane and the maple estate would be horrendous


451 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06149

Alistair Smith

Representor No:

Name:


REF: Hillfoot Farm, Site 2120 in the "Leeds Site Allocations Plan - Outer West"Question H2: Which sites do you disagree with and why?Existing Housing20% of the whole of "In Progress" builds of whole of Outer West Leeds is taking place within 1 mile of ourselves•Powerline Health IssuesCancer danger created by aerosol elements which are attracted to powerlines not disproven yetNatureWildlife will disappear if site is developedPrivacy and Light IssuesBuilding on the site would result in less light and an invasion of privacyPressure on local servicesAre local services able to cope with the added' population?Green Space (Not to be confused with Category Green in the plan)Importance of splitting up residential areas with green land

H1Question Ref:

REF: Hillfoot Farm, Site 2120 in the "Leeds Site Allocations Plan - Outer West"In answer to "Questions on sites put forward to consider for housing" raised in the Site allocations planconsultation documents.REF: "Site allocations plan- Outer West"Question H1: Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as "green" represent the mostsuitable sites to consider allocating for future housing development?Answer: NOQuestion H2: Which sites do you disagree with and why?Existing Housing20% of the whole of "In Progress" builds of whole of Outer West Leeds is taking place within 1 mile of ourselves•Powerline Health IssuesCancer danger created by aerosol elements which are attracted to powerlines not disproven yetNatureWildlife will disappear if site is developedPrivacy and Light IssuesBuilding on the site would result in less light and an invasion of privacyPressure on local servicesAre local services able to cope with the added' population?Green Space (Not to be confused with Category Green in the plan)Importance of splitting up residential areas with green land

H1Question Ref:

452 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06154

Macaley Smith

Representor No:

Name:


REF: Hillfoot Farm, Site 2120 in the "Leeds Site Allocations Plan - Outer West"In answer to "Questions on sites put forward to consider for housing" raised in the Site allocations planconsultation documents.REF: "Site allocations plan- Outer West"http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/12%20volume%202%200uter%20West.pdfQuestion H1: Do you agree that the sites that have been identified as "green" represent the mostsuitable sites to consider allocating for future housing development?Answer: NOQuestion H2: Which sites do you disagree with and why?Existing Housing20% of the whole of "In Progress" builds of whole of Outer West Leeds is taking place within 1 mile of ourselves•Powerline Health IssuesCancer danger created by aerosol elements which are attracted to powerlines not disproven yetNatureWildlife will disappear if site is developedPrivacy and Light IssuesBuilding on the site would result in less light and an invasion of privacyPressure on local servicesAre local services able to cope with the added' population?Green Space (Not to be confused with Category Green in the plan)Importance of splitting up residential areas with green land

H1Question Ref:

453 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06235

Ian Smith

Representor No:

Name:


There are three Grade!! Listed Buildings to the east and south of this area (The Grange, its Coach House and Service Range and the Cricketer's Arms).There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that '!special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.Consequently, if allocated, redevelopment proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site lies within the Headingley Conservation Area and includes the former Leeds High School for Girls which is a Grade II Listed Building. In view of the duty on the Council to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of its Conservation Areas, there will need to be some assessment of what contribution this plot of land and the buildings on it make to the character of the Conservation Area. The NPPF makes it clear that the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the significance of a Conservation Area should be regarded as resulting insubstantial harm to that area.Consequently, if the buildings on the site make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, they shouldbe retained. If the open area at the southern end of this site makes an important contribution to the character of the ConservationArea, then that too should be retained. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that "special regard" should be had to the desirabilityof preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contributeto the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site lies within the Headingley Conservation Area. The NPPF makes it clear that the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution tothe significance of a Conservation Area should be regarded as resulting in substantial harm to that area. Consequently, if the buildings onthe site make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, they should be retained.

H1Question Ref:

Former Office of the West Yorkshire Archives Service (to the east of this site) is a Grade II Listed Building. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that "special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

The northern part of this site lies opposite the Beckett Street Cemetery a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. If allocated, any developmentproposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H4Question Ref:

The Lanier Business Centre to the south-west of this site is a Grade ll Listed Building.There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that ':special regard"should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.Consequently, if allocated, redevelopment proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H4Question Ref:

The former York Road Library and Baths at the northern end of this site are Grade ll Listed. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that '!special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historicinterest which they possess.Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H4Question Ref:

Oddy's locks (at the southwestern corner of this site) and Castleton Mill (to the south) are Grade II Listed Buildings. There is a requirement in the1990 Act that "special retard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets are not harmed.

H7Question Ref:

454 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06235

Ian Smith

Representor No:

Name:


This adjoins the boundary of the Armley Conservation Area. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensure that those elements whichcontribute to the character of the adjacent parts of the Conservation Area are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

Gain Lane Farmhouse and the attached Barn and Stables are Grade II Listed. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that `!special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.Consequently, if allocated, redevelopment proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site adjoins the boundary of the Armley Conservation Area and the churchyard of St Bartholomew's Church (a Grade II* Listed Building).In view of the duty on the Council to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of its Conservation Areas including their setting, and therequirement in the 1990 Act that "special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, if allocated, redevelopment proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site adjoins the boundary of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Conservation Area in Bradford District. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the character of that part of the adjacent Conservation Area are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site includes the Upper Wortley Primary School a Grade 11 Listed Building. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that `!special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this asset are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site lies within the Farsley Conservation Area. The NPPF makes it clear that the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to thesignificance of a Conservation Area should be regarded as resulting in substantial harm to that area. Consequently, if the buildings on the site make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, they should be retained. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensurethat those elements which contribute to the character of this part of the Conservation Area are not harmed.

H1Question Ref:

This site adjoins the boundary of the Farsley Conservation Area. In view of the duty on the Council to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of its Conservation Areas including their setting, there will need to be some assessment of what contribution this area makes tothe landscape setting of the Conservation Area. If this area does make an important contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, then the plan would need to explain why its loss and subsequent development is considered to be acceptable. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the character of that part of the adjacent Conservation Area are not harmed.

H4Question Ref:

There are a number of Grade II Listed Buildings at Whitecote House on the eastern side of the Lane, Newlay Leeds and Liverpool Canal. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that "special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features ofspecial architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, before allocating this area, there would need to be some assesment of what contribution this currentlyundeveloped area makes to the signficance of these buildings and what effect its loss and subsequent development might have upon the significance of these assets. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets (including their setting) are not likely to be harmed.

H4Question Ref:

40 and 42 Tower Lane on the western side of this site are Grade II Listed Buildings. There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that ':special regard"should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, if allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets are not harmed.

H4Question Ref:

455 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06235

Ian Smith

Representor No:

Name:


This site lies within the Farsley Conservation Area.The NPPF makes it clear that the loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to thesignificance of a Conservation Area should be regarded as resulting in substantial harm to that area. Consequently, if the buildings on the site make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, they should be retained. If allocated, development proposals would need to ensurethat those elements which contribute to the character of this part of the Conservation Area are not harmed.

E1Question Ref:

This site lies on the opposite side of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal to Armley House (Gott's Park). This is a Grade 11 Registered Park and Garden.Any redevelopment proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this landscape(including any important views into or out of it across this area) are not harmed.

E1Question Ref:

Retail site R3 There are a number of buildings to the north of this site at Stone Bridge Mill which are Grade II Listed (the Old Mill, engine house and boiler house, the metre house and two cottages to the south-west of the mill, the row of workshops to the north of the mill, and the cottages tothe north-west of the mill). There is a requirement in the 1990 Act that "special regard" should be had to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Consequently, before allocatingthis area, there would need to be some assesnnent of what contribution this currentlyundeveloped area makes to the signficance of these assets and what effect its loss and subsequent development might have upon their significance. If allocated, any development proposals for this area would need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets are not harmed.


456 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06253

Peter And Ann Smith

Representor No:

Name:


And finally with regard to site numbers 1123A on Woodhall Road in Calverley and site number 1114land known as Kirklees Knoll in Farsley - this land which belongs to the Thornhill Estate is currentlydesignated as protected area of search land and has for many generations been used as pastureland by a local farmer, are we not to consider the gentlemen's livelihood. It is our opinion that thisland should be returned immediately to the Green Belt for the benefit of the tenant farmer and toprotect the village of Calverley from becoming part of the City of Leeds Urban Development policy.Yours Faithfully,[x]

H4Question Ref:

Dear Sir/Madam,Having studied the local development plan for housing allocations in the Calverley and Farsley areaof Leeds , I find it incredulous that you would even consider housing developments of such sizebefore addressing our well documented infra structure problems. Traffic in these areas is already amajor problem to say the least. The village of Calverley particularly almost resembles a car parkduring rush hour periods, the same could be said of Rodley and the Farsley bypass A647. Theproposed sites will only bring further intolerable congestion to these areas.Education is another area that should be addressed before any further planning applications areconsidered. The villages of Calverley, Rodley and Farsley have hardly increased there schoolcapacities since my wife and I were at school during the 1950's and 1960's.Drainage is another which issue which should be addressed before any further planning isconsidered. We already have major problems with surface water flooding in the areas alreadymentioned.


457 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02072

D Snales

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

458 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05894

Angela Softley

Representor No:

Name:


CFSM051: Sunnybank Mills, Farsley, mixed use.I feel this site is suitable for mixed use including housing. The village of Farsley will benefit from the development of this area which will upgrade and improve the look of Farsley Town Street.

H1Question Ref:

1114: Kirklees Knoll, Farsley, 472 houses.This site is designated as a Protected Area of Search (PAS) which forms part of an important tract of open land which could contribute to green belt purposes. In the last development plan I understand that it was agreed that the subject of development would not be put forward prior to 2016. If that is the case why is this topic being addressed in 2013, three years early? In any event I feel this site is unsuitable for housing and should remain PAS land for the future for the following reasons:

1.There will be no direct access to the Ring Road so most traffic will pass through Farsley the roads of which are unsuitable for extra traffic. Farsley Town Street in particular is so narrow that it is impossible for two buses to pass each other without one pulling in to allow the other one priority.

2.The access to the site will be on B.6156 Calverley Lane which is itself a narrow road. I understand the Highways Agency is to construct a path from the Ring Road towards Kirklees Drive which will have the effect of making it even narrower.

3.The site access will be approximately opposite the children’s recreational field (greenspace No.47). The increase in traffic will be a hazard for children.

4.The sewage pipes which run down Calverley Lane towards Town Street in Farsley are inadequate to take extra flow. During heavy rain surface water runs down Calverley Lane, accumulates in the drains and backs up sometimes forcing the grates up from the road. At the chicane outside the back of 5/7 Priesthorpe Court the water pools and floods the road sometimes pouring into the land belonging to Green Farm at the junction of Calverley Lane and The Green. This problem will become worse with extra housing.

5.The amenities in Farsley will not support this amount of extra housing. There is no provision for increasing doctors, dentists or schools. The housing will be targeted at families and the school intake is already at maximum.

In all there will be a total of 591 houses on the above three sites. However, I feel that none of these sites should be developed but that the land should either be returned Green Belt preserving the individual communities or kept as PAS land and not considered for redevelopment until the next round of long term development plans in approximately 18-20 years time.

2121 Calverley Lane, Farsley, 72 housesThis site is designated as a Protected Area of Search (PAS) which forms part of an important tract of open land which could contribute to green belt purposes. In the last development plan I understand that it was agreed that the subject of development would not be put forward prior to 2016. If that is the case why is this topic being addressed in 2013, three years early? In any event I feel this site is unsuitable for housing and should remain PAS land for the future for the following reasons:

1.There will be no direct access to the Ring Road so most traffic will pass through Farsley the roads of which are unsuitable for extra traffic. Farsley Town Street in particular is so narrow that it is impossible for two buses to pass each other without one pulling in to allow the other one priority.

2.The access to the site will be on B.6156 Calverley Lane which is itself a narrow road. I understand the Highways Agency is to construct a path from the Ring Road towards Kirklees Drive which will have the effect of making it even narrower.

3.The site access will be adjacent to the children’s recreational field (greenspace No.47) but will still pose an increased hazard for children.

4.The sewage pipes which run down Calverley Lane towards Town Street in Farsley are inadequate to take extra flow. During heavy rain surface water runs down Calverley Lane, accumulates in the drains and backs up sometimes forcing the grates up from the road. At the chicane outside the back of 5/7 Priesthorpe Court the water pools and floods the road sometimes pouring into the land belonging to Green Farm at the junction of Calverley Lane and The Green. This problem will become worse with extra housing.

5.The amenities in Farsley will not support this amount of extra housing. There is no provision for increasing doctors, dentists or schools. The housing will be targeted at families and the school intake is already at maximum.


Site 1110, Land at Rodley, 47 housesThis land has no access to the Ring Road and will rely on site 1114 for access which will compound all the arguments above with extra traffic on Calverley Lane and not enough amenities in Farsley and Rodley to support this amount of housing.


H4Question Ref:

459 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01688

D Spenceley

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

460 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05096

Thom Spencer

Representor No:

Name:


1193a and 4049 (assumed as 1193c stated) - Amber to Red (Assumed)

I and my partner object to plans.The local roads are far to busy due peak times as is! With queues up to 50mins to travel 2miles!Rodley lane is too small for such traffic!I feel the environmental damage to the area is too great!

H4Question Ref:

1193b - Red Agree with colour coding (assumed)

I and my partner object to plans.The local roads are far to busy due peak times as is! With queues up to 50mins to travel 2miles!Rodley lane is too small for such traffic!I feel the environmental damage to the area is too great!

H7Question Ref:

461 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05050

Margaret Stafford

Representor No:

Name:


We have lived in new Farnley for 47 years. During this time many new developments have been built in the village. We do not want more. The site in question has no acceptable entrance for future housing. The buses are full, the school is full and we would prefer a Green filed to yet more houses. The proposed site also has underground springs and old mines.

H4Question Ref:

462 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04954

Stanningley Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

The site (ref 1150) is identified on Plan 11.3, Housing and 11.4, Employment as not suitable for allocation. Whilst it is accepted that as an existing employment site an allocation for employment uses is unnecessary, it is disappointing to find the sites potential to provide much needed housing has been overlooked. In our previous representations we confirmed that the site is suitable, deliverable and available (post 2016) for residential development and it remains our view that the site is capable of forming part of the Council’s 5 year supply and should be allocated as such.

Table 11.3.3 (providing a summary of site assessments carried out) states the site is:“in existing employment use, in existing employment area. Continuation of employment uses preferable. Visibility at access would require third party land, no highway support without that land”.In

response we would reiterate that the current lease extends to 2016. The site is currently underutilised being largely storage. Its location supports its redevelopment for a residential led mixed use scheme which would provide both housing (incorporating an element of over 55’s residential) and employment opportunities. The latter being likely to exceed those currently offered on site. This represents a more efficient use of this sustainable

brownfield site and supports the Council’s regeneration aspirations for this area of Leeds.With regards access, we would refer the Council to the location plan attached. Wilton Developments Client owns all the land included within the red line. In addition an option is held over the adjacent residential property. This would enable the creation of a suitable access. Further, the redevelopment of this site would benefit the adjacent business on Oxford Place (as with the wider area) through the creation of additional footfall and an overall increase in the local population and spending capacity. Early discussions in this regard suggest support for the sites redevelopment. This would be explored fully when

developing the planning application.

H2Question Ref:

The site (ref 1150), currently occupied by a builder’s merchant will become vacant in 2016. It is well located, being immediately adjacent to the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre (as amended). The surrounding area is mixed use with employment, residential and retail uses adjacent the site. The site is sustainable, being a brownfield site, located within easy walking distance of local amenities, 1m from New Pudsey Train Station and on a main bus route between Leeds and Bradford. Its redevelopment provides an opportunity to provide both housing (incorporating an element of over 55’s residential) and employment and as such it should be allocated as a residential led mixed use site in the Site Allocations DPD.

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme for the reasons set out above.

H7Question Ref:

Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme for the reasons set out above.

H8Question Ref:

Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme in the short term (0-5 years). The site will become vacant in 2016 and a scheme is being developed for its redevelopment. A planning application is likely to be submitted in advance of 2016. It is therefore, suitable, deliverable and available and should be included in the Council’s 5 year supply.

H11Question Ref:

463 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04954

Stanningley Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


n

RVol1Question Ref:

We support the proposed boundary for the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre. This reflects the growth of this centre and supports its role and function within Stanningley.

R1Question Ref:

Site CFSM016 is deemed acceptable for retail development in the table at paragraph 11.2.4 being located within the 300m buffer; set by the Sites and Allocations DPD as the maximum distance from the centre to be deemed an edge of centre site. The Planning for Town Centres Practice Guidance defines edge of centre as “a location that is well connected to, and within easy walking distance (i.e. up to 300m) of a Primary Shopping Area”. Whilst we accept the site is within 300m, this is not the only test and it is our view that this site is not well connected to the centre. The nature of surrounding uses, including: residential, car showrooms / garages and industrial, and of Town Street itself as a busy arterial route, creates a barrier to easy movement between this site and the defined local centre.

R3Question Ref:

The proposed change to the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre supports a mixed use development, incorporating an element of retail, for our client’s site. The site is located immediately adjacent to the centre as defined on plan 11.2G. There are retail uses bounding the site ensuring

any retail development here would form a natural extension to the centre. Further, the sites scale and location provides an exciting opportunity to deliver a sustainable mixed use scheme in a location which strengthens the existing centre. Applying the sequential approach, the site

promoted by our client (site ref 1150) is sequentially preferable to site CFSM016. It is capable of providing sufficient retail development to meet qualitative and quantitative retail needs identified in the Retail Study as part of a mixed use development. The sites location adjacent to the

defined centre allows for an opportunity to create a natural extension to the centre and should be allocated for mixed use development.

R4Question Ref:

464 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04954

Stanningley Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


We support the proposed boundary for the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre. This reflects the growth of this centre and supports its role and function within Stanningley.

R1Question Ref:

Site CFSM016 is deemed acceptable for retail development in the table at paragraph 11.2.4 being located within the 300m buffer; set by the Sites and Allocations DPD as the maximum distance from the centre to be deemed an edge of centre site. The Planning for Town Centres Practice Guidance defines edge of centre as “a location that is well connected to, and within easy walking distance (i.e. up to 300m) of a Primary Shopping Area”. Whilst we accept the site is within 300m, this is not the only test and it is our view that this site is not well connected to the centre. The nature of surrounding uses, including: residential, car showrooms / garages and industrial, and of Town Street itself as a busy arterial route, creates a barrier to easy movement between this site and the defined local centre.

R3Question Ref:

The proposed change to the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre supports a mixed use development, incorporating an element of retail, for our client’s site off Richardshaw Lane, Stanningley (1150). The site is located immediately adjacent to the centre as defined on plan 11.2G. There are retail uses bounding the site ensuring any retail development here would form a natural extension to the centre. Further, the sites scale and location provides an exciting opportunity to deliver a sustainable mixed use scheme in a location which strengthens the existing centre. Applying the sequential approach, the site promoted by our client (site ref 1150) is sequentially preferable to site CFSM016. It is capable of providing sufficient retail development to meet qualitative and quantitative retail needs identified in the Retail Study as part of a mixed use development. The sites location adjacent to the defined centre allows for an opportunity to create a natural extension to the centre and should be allocated for mixed use development.

R4Question Ref:

465 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04954

Stanningley Ltd

Representor No:

Name:


The site (ref 1150) is identified on Plan 11.3, Housing and 11.4, Employment as not suitable for allocation. Whilst it is accepted that as an existing employment site an allocation for employment uses is unnecessary, it is disappointing to find the sites potential to provide much needed housing has been overlooked. In our previous representations we confirmed that the site is suitable, deliverable and available (post 2016) for residential development and it remains our view that the site is capable of forming part of the Council’s 5 year supply and should be allocated as such. Table 11.3.3 (providing a summary of site assessments carried out) states the site is: “in existing employment use, in existing employment area. Continuation of employment uses preferable. Visibility at access would require third party land, no highway support without that land”. In response we would reiterate that the current lease extends to 2016. The site is currently underutilised being largely storage. Its location supports its redevelopment for a residential led mixed use scheme which would provide both housing (incorporating an element of over 55’s residential) and employment opportunities. The latter being likely to exceed those currently offered on site. This represents a more efficient use of this sustainable brownfield site and supports the Council’s regeneration aspirations for this area of Leeds. With regards access, we would refer the Council to the location plan attached. Wilton Developments Client owns all the land included within the red line. In addition an option is held over the adjacent residential property. This would enable the creation of a suitable access. Further, the redevelopment of this site would benefit the adjacent business on Oxford Place (as with the wider area) through the creation of additional footfall and an overall increase in the local population and spending capacity. Early discussions in this regard suggest support for the sites redevelopment. This would be explored fully when developing the planning application.

H2Question Ref:

The site (ref 1150) is identified on Plan 11.3, Housing and 11.4, Employment as not suitable for allocation. Whilst it is accepted that as an existing employment site an allocation for employment uses is unnecessary, it is disappointing to find the sites potential to provide much needed housing has been overlooked. In our previous representations we confirmed that the site is suitable, deliverable and available (post 2016) for residential development and it remains our view that the site is capable of forming part of the Council’s 5 year supply and should be allocated as such. Table 11.3.3 (providing a summary of site assessments carried out) states the site is: “in existing employment use, in existing employment area. Continuation of employment uses preferable. Visibility at access would require third party land, no highway support without that land”. In response we would reiterate that the current lease extends to 2016. The site is currently underutilised being largely storage. Its location supports its redevelopment for a residential led mixed use scheme which would provide both housing (incorporating an element of over 55’s residential) and employment opportunities. The latter being likely to exceed those currently offered on site. This represents a more efficient use of this sustainable brownfield site and supports the Council’s regeneration aspirations for this area of Leeds. With regards access, we would refer the Council to the location plan attached. Wilton Developments Client owns all the land included within the red line. In addition an option is held over the adjacent residential property. This would enable the creation of a suitable access. Further, the redevelopment of this site would benefit the adjacent business on Oxford Place (as with the wider area) through the creation of additional footfall and an overall increase in the local population and spending capacity. Early discussions in this regard suggest support for the sites redevelopment. This would be explored fully when developing the planning application.

The site (ref 1150), currently occupied by a builder’s merchant will become vacant in 2016. It is well located, being immediately adjacent to the Stanningley Bottom Local Centre (as amended). The surrounding area is mixed use with employment, residential and retail uses adjacent the site. The site is sustainable, being a brownfield site, located within easy walking distance of local amenities, 1m from New Pudsey Train Station and on a main bus route between Leeds and Bradford. Its redevelopment provides an opportunity to provide both housing (incorporating an element of over 55’s residential) and employment and as such it should be allocated as a residential led mixed use site in the Site Allocations DPD.

H3Question Ref:

No. Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme for the reasons set out above.

H7Question Ref:

No. Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme for the reasons set out above.

H8Question Ref:

Site 1150 should be allocated for a residential led mixed use scheme in the short term (0-5 years). The site will become vacant in 2016 and a scheme is being developed for its redevelopment. A planning application is likely to be submitted in advance of 2016. It is therefore, suitable, deliverable and available and should be included in the Council’s 5 year supply.

H11Question Ref:

466 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01645

Ady Starkie

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

467 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01836

Joanne Starkie

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

468 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00585

Robert Steele

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Roads leading to the site are inadequate. Commuter traffic to and fromthe site will exit onto Whitehall Road via the junction with Low Moorsideat the Woodcock inn traffic lights, or via Walsh Lane, or via WoolleyAvenue (which has traffic calming humps at the present time) or viaLawns Lane. All these routes will be bottle-necked at peak traffic times.Low Moorside is so narrow in parts that I have struck a wing-mirror onmore than one occasion with passing cars. Walsh Lane leading toWhitehall Road is without footpaths and is also too narrow for two carsto pass safely. Pedestrians using Walsh Lane to get to the bus stop onWhitehall Road will be at considerable risk. The junction of Walsh Laneand Whitehall Road is rather hazardous at present through the lack ofvisibility to and from the west side. Increased numbers of vehicles fromproposed new developments will also result in them using the minorunadopted road below 658 Whitehall Road (which parallels WhitehallRoad and has no footpath) as a dangerous rat run to and from WalshLane. (this has happened before — most recently while traffic lights werebeing installed at the Woodcock inn junction on Whitehall Road - asnotified to the Highways Dept at the time). It should be noted that theRingways junction with the Leeds Ring Road and Whitehall Road isalready unacceptably congested at peak times.The proposed site has long been recognised locally as a habitat forwildlife such as butterflies and insects as well as summer pasture forhorses. There is also a bat colony that clearly can be seen foraging ingardens adjoining the site (eg 652 Whitehall Road) in summer months.Sewage pipes in New Farnley village are old structures and are barelyadequate for the existing community's homes. They will be inadequatefor new developments.Schools and Healthcare surgeries are inadequate to support a proposednew development of this size (not to mention the other sites proposed inthe vicinity.

H4Question Ref:

469 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00293

Tony Stevenson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - I wish to state my objection to hundreds of houses proposed in and around New Farnley. New Farnley is a village situation with surrounding houses which is only suitable for the people which it already supports. There are no major roads and infrastructure and facilities to support any house, people, cars etc.

H4Question Ref:

470 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04998

H Stevenson

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

YesSite reference:3124Reason:We consider that this site is one of the most suitable sites for housing development and should therefore be identified as green. The site is well related to the existing urban area and is close to shops and services, community and leisure facilities,

public transport, education and local health facilities. The site's contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt is minimal. Therefore, the removal of the site from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing will not materially affect the efficacy of the Green Belt

in this part of the district.The adjoining settlement has capacity for additional housing and the allocation of this site can usefully contribute to meeting the acknowledged housing requirements.Development of this site would constitute sustainable development with no significant

adverse impact. The site is available as soon as required, is developable without any insurmountable physical constraints to development, and is deliverable in the short term.Further more detailed justification will be provided in due course.

H3Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

Site reference:3124Reason:Whilst we agree that this site has potential for housing development, we also consider that it is one of the most suitable sites for housing development, and therefore should be identified as green.

H4Question Ref:

Site reference:3124Reason:It is considered that this site is one of the most suitable sites for housing development and should be identified as green. The site is well related to the existing urban area and is close to shops and services, community and leisure facilities, public transport,

education and local health facilities. The site's contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt is minimal. Therefore, the removal of the site from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing will not materially affect the efficacy of the Green Belt in this part of the

district.The adjoining settlement has capacity for additional housing and the allocation of this site can usefully contribute to meeting the acknowledged housing requirements.Development of this site would constitute sustainable development with no significant adverse impact.

The site is available as soon as required, is developable without any insurmountable physical constraints to development, and is deliverable in the short term.Further more detailed justification will be provided in due course.

H5Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

3124 Short

H11Question Ref:

471 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00952

Ac & Mb Stockwell

Representor No:

Name:


We wish to record our opposition to the proposed building on the sites 2121, 1114, and1110 as we feel that the amount of traffic using Bagley Lane and Calverley Lane toaccess two of the proposed sites, together with the additional pressure of more trafficusing Farsley Town Street and attempting to access the already busy Ring Road as wehave to do now, will make the current busy traffic situation a virtual bottle neck. As itis, it is not unknown for three No. 16 buses to be on the same stretch of Farsley TownStreet at the same time and heading in the same direction.We are also aware of pressure on local school places with some children having totravel out of the immediate area.We also feel that the little bit of green belt area between Farsley and the Ring Roadshould be maintained and increased by the site area 2121 which we understand is notcurrently 'green belt'We fully agree and support Councillors Andrew Carter and Ron Wood in theirobjections for our reasons above and urge that these areas of land be protected

H4Question Ref:

472 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04922

Neil Stokoe

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

Site Reference 2123Unsuitable for building due to visible subsidence and flooding owing to area being subject to original workings of clay mining.Unsuitability further aggravated by conservation considerations such as bats and designated adjacent 'butterfly

trap'.Furthermore infrastructure is simply not capable of accommodating any such development as related increase in personnel and traffic would be beyond current road network,access to amenities and schools.

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

473 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02865

Charles And Joan Storr

Representor No:

Name:


Your proposal of 5000 additional houses to Garforth is totally unacceptable. No thought appears to have been given to schools, doctors, dentists, parking, road congestion or the green belt.

My Husband and I have lived in Garforth since 1964. We have seen many changes and it has grown considerably and facilities are now fully in use, with already a huge increase in traffic. Your proposals are a step too far and will totally change this area. Please think again.

We wish to record our total opposition to your proposals.

H1Question Ref:

Your proposal of 5000 additional houses to Garforth is totally unacceptable. No thought appears to have been given to schools, doctors, dentists, parking, road congestion or the green belt.

My Husband and I have lived in Garforth since 1964. We have seen many changes and it has grown considerably and facilities are now fully in use, with already a huge increase in traffic. Your proposals are a step too far and will totally change this area. Please think again.

We wish to record our total opposition to your proposals.

H4Question Ref:

The Ridge Road is a much preferred alternative and will not incur such massive changes to Garforth's already busy roads and facilities.

H4Question Ref:

The Ridge Road is a much preferred alternative and will not incur such massive changes to Garforth's already busy roads and facilities.

H7Question Ref:

474 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02490

Janet Stott

Representor No:

Name:


1124- Upper Carr Lane Caverley - Green to Red.My husband & myself have lived in Calverley for almost 47 years since we got married in 1966. We have always thought Calverley as a nice rural place to live. There has been a few houses built but nothing on the scale which is being proposed. We live in Carr Hill Nook which is opposite site no 1124 the site for 18 homes (which is supposed to be green belt what has happened to this policy of not building on green belt land?) We are appalled that they are thinking of building on this land.And on the sites in Calverley as regard to site 1124, what a ridiculous suggestion of bringing "The Settlement together, Calverley is supposed to be open & rural not all stuck on top of each other. We will end up from one end of Leeds to the other as one big urbanised sprawl, what an horrendous sight. We originally were not included in Leeds, now it seems we are all going to be crammed together just a load of brick buildings.

H1Question Ref:

475 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00354

Joanne Tanner

Representor No:

Name:


Dear sir,I am writing to lodge my objections to the proposed housingdevelopments 1114 and 2121.I live on Calverley Lane which already has an ever increasing volume oftraffic.Since the introduction of new traffic lights at Pudsey railway stationwhich causes long tailbacks into Bradford, calverley Lane is used as a"rat run" which is not acceptable.The proposed sites will only cause greater disruption with Farsleybecoming Gridlocked by a higher car volume.If you care to drive from the outer ring road from Horsforth into Farsleythen up to the Leeds / Bradford road to Dawsons comer,then turn rightonto the outer ring road up to Horsforth you will find that this triangle ofroad usage is at capacity already.On this point alone(and there are many others) these proposals for formore houses/cars in a highly built up area unacceptable.

H4Question Ref:

476 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01741

Kevin Tanner

Representor No:

Name:


1110 /1114 / 2121As your map of Aireborough shows the last of the green land onthe outskirts of Farsley is now under review for sale todevelopers, I wish it known my reasons for objecting to Site1110,1114,and 2121.This will greatly devalue Farsley from a village to a compact,dense housing area which will lose it's charm and character.This will effect the local population with a great strain on allamenities which are at full capacity already.In the area there are plenty of new houses which are unsold dueto high prices with many being "let" with few taker's.The main Farsley town street is already a "rat run" for trafficwishing to get to Bradford because of jamming on the Leeds -Bradford main road at most times.This, over last few years has become a big problem whichshould be looked at, I should know as I live on this road.A major point that should cause concern to you is that rainfallfrom the Pudsey,Horseforth,Calverley area's always channeldown to Rodley which has flooding problems.The sites 1114 and 2121 in Farsley tend to soak up the rainfall inFarsley.If these sites were to be concreted over for housing it would leadto more flooding at rodley with more costs to the rate payers andultimately the council.Also with a very large housing project having been given the goahead in the Calverley,rodley area ( Sandoz chemical site)which again will heavily impact the farsley ring road it would beprudent to see how this will impact on the area first and makefurther housing decisions later.Many people including myself are very worried that life inFarsley will change for the worse if these housing projects gothrough (some locals have put up their houses for sale already inanticipation of these plans going through)It is a very important decision to make on wether a housingproject goes through or not especially if the people concerned -Land owners , Architects, house builders, and ultimately theCouncil do not live in the area.Once these things are set in motion the locals cannot go back towhat they had, whilst those who made this project happen arenot concerned any further.Please give my objections your fullest attention

H4Question Ref:

477 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00417

C Tann

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – Access very poor only room for one car in places. Health and safety to public only one footpath to walk on.Water level high after rain, water runs off field through gardens and down driveways.Destroying wildlife environment.Near Listed Building.This would cause more traffic congestion to this area and also in the coming years.Schools in this area already full.Question arising about old mine workings.We strongly oppose any building work in this area.

H4Question Ref:

478 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01680

Elizabeth Taylor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

479 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01722

P Taylor

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

480 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03232

Richard Taylor

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Consistent with brownfield sites and highway considerations

H1Question Ref:

y

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1305 on Outwood Lane has particular highway issues that make development unsuitable - as well as being a greenfield site in a conservation area

H7Question Ref:

Site 626 - Kirkstall Forge - is long overdue to be developed with associated new railway station.

H11Question Ref:

481 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01629

Bryan Tearle

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

482 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01631

J.f Tearle

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

483 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02086

A K Tharh

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

484 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00302

Terence And Eva Thompson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 -1. This site is not suitable for house building because of the reasons given below:The exit from the proposed site would be joining existing traffic from the housing estate consisting of hundreds of houses at Maple Drive, Barkers Well, Stephensons Way, Play Ground, Newton Square, Well Home, Low Moor Side, Wolly Avenue, Castle Ings and Walsh Lane.

H4Question Ref:

2123 - All this traffic joins together on Lawns Lane to exit onto Whitehall Road, next to Bolton Garage.2. All these roads struggle to cope with existing traffic as they are not wide enough.3. More traffic would only cause rat runs for cars finding a way out to Whitehall Road, as is the case we have from 4 pm onwards on Walsh Lane because of the traffic light on the junction with Whitehall Road and Back Lane.4. Traffic From the two schools, Lawns Park Primary and Farnley Park High on Lawns Lane also add to traffic from the above housing estates.

H4Question Ref:

2123 5. More housing will also spoil the ambiance of the village, as it still has late 17th Century buildings and this needs to be protected.6.There is also constant movement of the ground in the site because of past mining. This causes problems with drainage, settlement and flooding.7. Because the site consists of houses on all 4 boundaries it will cause turmoil and stress to all residents during construction.8. Not enough local amenities to support more housing.

H4Question Ref:

485 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00718

Margaret Thompson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - New Farnley is a lovely countrified village to live in, there are pleasant walks, then fields and the bus route from Branch Road to the Woodcock and beyond is like a ride out in the country. We do not want huge estates to be built on what was known as ‘green belt’ land. We have only 1 bus route along Whitehall Road which is less than adequate at certain times, so a lot will need to be changed to accommodate a lot more people.

H4Question Ref:

486 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05086

Maggie Thompson

Representor No:

Name:


2123 Low Moor Side, New Farnley Amber to Red (Assumed)

1 Introduction1.2 The following statement, in relation to the current consultation about Site Allocations Plan proposal 2123, is made by the New Farnley Vision Group, which was established in 2006 to promote the interests of local residents and their environment. It should also be borne in mind that the group has recently published a Village Design Statement following extensive consultation with local residents, relevant organisations and Leeds City Council. The New Farnley Village Design Statement can be viewed at: http://search.bt.com/result?p=new%20farnley%20village%20design%20statement1.3 The Village Design Statement now has the status of a supplementary planning document and, as such, means that any development plan for New Farnley should involve full consultation with the local community. However, there has been no consultation prior the publication of the Site Allocations Plan and, more specifically, on proposal 2123. The Village Design Statement also contains guidance for development, and notes, among other things, ‘a general presumption against development within the countryside surrounding New Farnley’. However, where development does take place, the design statement clearly enunciates core general principles and detailed guidance in respect of new buildings and their impact upon the local landscape (see pages 59-60 of the New Farnley Village Design Statement).1.4 The following statement of objections and issues are submitted following a recent public meeting and a meeting of the New Farnley Vision Group to discuss proposal 2123. The objections and issues discussed at these meetings focus on road access, sustainability and suitability of the site in question. 2 Access2.1 The suggestion that this site has capacity for 129 houses raises problems in relation to access. Based on average car ownership of 12 per 10 households (Office for National Statistics), the existence of a possible additional 156 cars would exacerbate existing access problems. It is acknowledged that issues of access are also raised in the City Council’s own assessment of this site, hence its amber status, however, there is no detail of what is meant by access in this assessment, so a range of issues is identified within the rest of this section. 2.2 First, the site could only be accessed via Low Moor Side Lane, which is a rather narrow road and, at points, the ability of vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass each other is only possible with considerable care. Cars joining Low Moor Side Lane from Walsh Lane have restricted vision and additional cars would compound the problem.2.3 Second, a related issue is the fact that Low Moor Side Lane gives access to the ring road via a shortcut through New Farnley rather than the longer route via the A58 and Branch Road. This would mean the increased use of additonal rather narrow roads, such as Chapel Lane, which are already unsuitable for two-way traffic. It would also exacerbate an already existing serious problem of access to narrow roads for the emergency services to and from New Farnley. 2.4 Third, cars parked outside existing homes on Low Moor Side Lane would make access even more difficult and congestion more likely. 2.5 Fourth, additional vehicles could increase the risk of car crashes and of road accidents, especially to vulnerable groups such as children and elderly people. Local residents report two road deaths in recent years on Low Moor Side, which is linked to Low Moor Side Lane. As New Farnley has a high number of horse riders, who frequently use Low Moor Side Lane as a riding route (there are also stables and horse-grazing fields on Low Moor Side), the dangers from increased car traffic in this area are all too obvious. 2.6 Any close examination of the risks overall, therefore, makes a development of the size proposed undesirable from the perspective of traffic access and related issues.3 Sustainability3.1 The development of another 129 households also raises issues of whether the village could support such an increase. In other words, would village life be sustainable? 3.2 First, based on average household size in the UK in 2012 of 3.1 people (Office for National Statistics), that would mean that up to 400 people could be living on the site, perhaps more if the accommodation was mainly aimed at families with children. The current average number of children living in households nationally is 1.8 (Office for National Statistics), which could mean an additional 232 children, possibly more, if the development went ahead. 3.3 Second, there is also the question of more demand for limited school places. Bearing in mind that many New Farnley children attend primary school in Morley, where demand for places already exceeds supply, the pressure on school places could become acute. In the Old Farnley, most schools there are already full (information supplied by ward councillor). An increase in the primary school population might well mean the provision of a primary school in New Farnley itself and, in the current financial context, this raises the question of affordability. Pressure for places in secondary schools, of course, would also be increased.3.4 Third, an increased population in New Farnley would also put a strain on other facilities such as shops (there is currently only one general store), pubs (only one) and other local facilities, such as the rather small doctor’s surgery. 3.5 Life in New Farnley, under the above circumstances would become not only unsustainable but also a lot uncongenial for its residents.

4 Suitability of site for housing4.1 Issues of drainage, mining and wild life also bring into the question whether the proposed site is suitable for housing. 4.2 First, a significant drainage problem already exists on the site in question. The potential development in the Site Allocations Plan becomes flooded on a regular basis, with water leaking into the gardens and footpath behind the houses in Castle Ings Gardens. Local residents, therefore, have understandably questioned whether it is possible to build houses in such circumstances. There is also concern that more recently built developments in the area, such as the Wellhomes, the Lodge Hill estate and Stephensons Way, were connected to the old original sewers, and, as a result, have now put a strain on the sewerage system. For example, there have been problems of blocked sewers behind the houses on Croft Terrace, and an engineer working on the nearby Lodge Hill estate system commented that this had resulted from the houses being connected to existing sewers on Coach Road and that the sewerage system could no longer cope. There is a fear that if the same pattern followed on any new site in the village, then the strain on the sewerage system would lead to breaking point.4.3 Second, a number of years ago, residents recall that the house builders, Barratt Homes, considered the possibility of a housing development on site 2123 but, after extensive drilling, found the site to be unsuitable. This may be linked to a network of old mine works and the increased likelihood of subsidence and other problems.4.4 Third, local residents point to the existence of wildlife habitats on the proposed site. A number of years ago, former Leeds City Councillor, Claire Nash, started an initiative to develop a butterfly garden on the part of the site that is fenced off from the bottom of Low Moor Side Lane and ends just before 19 Low Moor Side Lane. It is bordered on its far side by a footpath. The site of the butterfly garden, it is understood, belongs to Leeds City’s Council’s Housing Department. The New Farnley Vision Group has raised the purpose to which the field has now been put, i.e. the grazing of horses - rather than Claire Nash’s original initiative - with Leeds City Council on several occasions. In addition, residents report the fact that the site as whole provides a wild life habitat for bats, newts and foxes and these would be disturbed or destroyed if the development went ahead. 5 Conclusion

H4Question Ref:

487 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05086

Maggie Thompson

Representor No:

Name:


5.1 It is clear from a close examination of the issues in relation to the proposed development that considerable issues arise in terms of access, sustainability and suitability. Therefore, as an organisation concerned with the promoting the interests of the local community and its environment, the New Farnley Vision Group objects to the potential development. New Farnley Vision Grouphttp://cwnf.btck.co.uk/

488 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 4097

5.12The land at Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal (Site Ref: 4097) adjoins the Stylo House site at its eastern extent. This site has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.

5.13Sites identified as amber are deemed to either have issues which need to be resolved or where they are not considered to be in such a favoured location as those highlighted in green.

5.14It is evident from a review of the summary reasons for the colour coding for this site, it has not been colour coded amber as a result of it being considered to be in a less favoured location as those highlighted in green. Indeed, the site’s location cannot be considered to be less favourably when it directly adjoins a site which is colour coded green.

5.15The summary reasons for the colour coding highlights the opportunity this site provides in providing additional development land alongside the Stylo House site, providing suitable access is provided through the adjacent site. Access into the site appears to be the reason why the site has been coded amber rather than green.

5.16A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the site scores well with no issues to be resolved. Highways identify that public transport improvements are required, but this is something that can be readily addressed and as such should not constitute ‘an issue to be resolved’ resulting in an amber score.

5.17We do not support all of the Council’s conclusions with regard to the Green Belt assessment of this site. The assessment suggests the development of this site would result in isolated development, yet this is clearly not the case. This site adjoins a developed site which has been in employment use and forms the eastern extent of Apperley Bridge. Furthermore, there are three residential dwellings to the east of Calverley Cutting. The development of this site will result in a small extension to the existing extent of built development in Apperley Bridge, and cannot therefore be concluded to be in an isolated location.

5.18The Council’s highways review of the site concludes they support the site for development and there are no other comments within the detailed assessment which suggests there are issues which need to be resolved. Thornhill Estates are in discussion with TCS in order to agree a joint approach to deliver the site and as such access is not considered to be an issue.

5.19It is unclear from the Council’s detailed assessment whether the site has actually been colour coded amber because the Council consider it is in an isolated location as referred to in the Green Belt assessment, or because the Council consider a suitable access needs to be provided through the adjacent site. As has been evidenced, the site is not in an isolated location, it adjoins a brownfield site which is identified as having the greatest potential to be allocated for housing. It has also been demonstrated a suitable access can be achieved.

5.20On the basis of the evidence set out, it is maintained the site is in a wholly suitable location for development and we agree with the Council’s conclusions that the site would not result in urban sprawl as it is well contained as a result of the canal to the north and Calverley Cutting to the east. There are no highways issues with the development of this site, the Council’s highways team have concluded they support the identification of this site for housing and the site is not in an isolated location. In this regard, there are no issues to resolve and it is not in a less favourable location. The site should therefore be colour coded green.

See also representations submitted for full details

H1Question Ref:

Site 1337

5.10In relation to the Stylo House site (Site Ref: 1337), this site has been colour coded green and we agree this site should be identified as ‘green’ as it represents one of the most suitable sites to allocate for housing development.

5.11The Council correctly conclude the redevelopment of the brownfield Stylo House site for residential development is acceptable in principle. The Council do not identify any development constraints in relation to the Stylo House site, which supports the conclusions of the technical reports which have been submitted to the Council in support of the outline planning application for the redevelopment of the site for up to 80 houses (of which approximately one quarter of the site lies within the jurisdiction of Leeds City Council). We therefore support the Council’s conclusions in relation to this site.


H1Question Ref:

489 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 4097

5.23The Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal site has been identified as an amber site when it would be more appropriate for the site to be coded as a green, given the site has the greatest potential for allocation.

5.24As previously stated, it is not clear whether the site has been coded amber because the Council consider the site to be in an isolated location or because they consider a suitable access would need to be provided through the adjoining Stylo House site. However, it has been demonstrated the site is not in an isolated location and an access into the site can be achieved.

5.25The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sites they have classified as being ‘green’. Based on the Council’s calculation, sites to deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests this figure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council’s evidence some amber sites will be required. However, it is maintained the Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal site does not have any potential issues to resolve and is not in a less favourable location and as such this site will increase the number of ‘green’ sites in the Outer West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement in this area.


H4Question Ref:

5.21Some of the sites that have been identified as ‘amber’ represent sites with potential for future housing development as they are sites with issues which the Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether issues identified can be resolved.

5.22However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of Calverley Cutting site where the Council suggest there may be access issues but there is a proven solution. The Council therefore has sufficient evidence that issues they have identified can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. On this basis, it is considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue/s identified.


H4Question Ref:

Sites 4097 and 1337

5.26The Stylo House and Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal sites (refs: 1137 and 4097) should be developed in the short term. The sites are deliverable in the short term as they are available now, they offer a suitable location for development now and are achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

See also representation submitted for full details.

H11Question Ref:

490 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1124

In relation to the land off Upper Carr Lane (Site Ref: 1124), this site has been colour coded green and we agree this site should be identified as ‘green’ as it represents one of the most suitable sites to allocate for housing development.

The Council correctly identify the Upper Carr Lane site would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement of Calverley. They conclude the site is well contained and would not result in urban sprawl, a suitable access can be achieved and there would be no detrimental impact on the local highway network. We support the Council’s conclusions in this regard.

The site is in a sustainable location adjacent to the existing settlement of Calverley and could deliver approximately 20 dwellings. A Transport Assessment has been undertaken by Pell Frischmann which concurs with the Council’s conclusions that the site will not have a harmful impact on the operation of the local highway network.

See representation submitted for full details

H1Question Ref:

Site 1124

The land off Upper Carr Lane, Calverley (ref: 1124) should be developed in the short term. This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years


H11Question Ref:

491 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1117

The site to the west of Calverley Cutting (our ref: 1117A) has been identified as a red site when considered along with the land to the east of Calverley Cutting. As previously set out the two sites should be assessed separately and the land to the west of Calverley Lane should be identified as a green site as this is a site which has the greatest potential to be allocated for housing.

In the Council’s detailed assessment, which encompasses the land to the east and west of Calverley Cutting, it is noted the site is in two sections, split along the centre by a public footpath with trees on either side. We do concur with the Council’s assessment that the sites are well contained with the main road to the south and woodland and residential dwellings to the north.

The Green Belt assessment of both sites concludes the site are well connected to the built up area, the development of the sites would partially round off the existing settlement and provide access to the countryside. The assessment highlights there are trees, but this relates to the tree lined footpath which separates the two sites.

The Green Belt assessment concludes the sites are in a Conservation Area which could have some effect on the character of the site. It is maintained a sensitively designed scheme would ensure there would be no harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. The remainder of the Council’s conclusions relate to positive aspects of these sites, namely that they are well contained with low potential for sprawl and the footpath (Calverley Cutting) provides access to the countryside. In this regard, there are no Green Belt reasons which would justify the Council’s conclusion the land to the west of Calverley Cutting is unsuitable for housing development.

The Highway’s appraisal of the site identifies that part of the site would need to be accessed through a ransom strip. This reference is to the public footpath (Calverley Cutting) which separates the two sites and hence the reason why the sites were not put forward as a single entity.

The Highways appraisal identifies the sites have ‘good accessibility all round’ and that there is suitable frontage onto Carr Road for access into the land to the west of Calverley Cutting. Congestion is noted into Bradford and Rodley roundabout, but this relates to all larger developments proposed in Calverley and can be mitigated through junction improvements.

The Council’s Highways officer concludes the site is suitable for partial development, which refers to the suitability of the land to the west of Calverley Cutting, with the land to the east requiring a suitable access solution. In this regard, Highways support the development of the land to the west of Calverley Cutting for residential development.

West Yorkshire Ecology and the Council’s Ecology officer also support the development of the site for residential use with mitigation suggested to protect and enhance the wildlife corridor function across the site.

On the basis of the Council’s own evidence there is no justification for identifying the land to the west of Calverley Cutting as a site that is not suitable for allocation for housing. The site does not perform a Green Belt function with residential development to the north, east and south and would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement. There are no highways objections to the development of this part of the site and no ecology objections.

A masterplan has been prepared for this site (Appendix 2), which has been submitted to the Council as part of previous representations to the Core Strategy. In preparing the masterplan, detailed technical reports were also prepared and also conclude there are no technical constraints to the development of this site. In particular, the ecology survey undertaken concludes the site is of low conservation value. The Transport Assessment confirms a satisfactory access can be achieved from Carr Road and that contributions can be provided to assist in delivering junction improvements on the local highway network. The masterplan has also been designed to support the retention of the existing trees on the site, including the area to the eastern extent of the site.

The overall conclusions of the Council’s detailed assessment confirm the site is well contained, but reference is made to the eastern section through the footpath which separates the two sites. Reference is also made to the line of protected trees along the footpath and that development would significantly impact on the trees and the footpath. The Council’s conclusion therefore relates solely to the footpath which separates the two parcels of land. We have not promoted these sites on the basis of them being a single entity and based on the Council’s detailed site assessment and conclusions, not only is the land to the west of Calverley Cutting wholly suitable, there are no issues which need to be resolved in order to bring this site forward.

On the basis of the evidence set out, the land to the west of Calverley Cutting has the greatest potential to be allocated for housing and should be colour coded green accordingly.


H1Question Ref:

492 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1117

The site to the west of Calverley Cutting (our ref: 1117A) has been identified as a red site when considered along with the land to the east of Calverley Cutting. As previously set out the two sites should be assessed separately. It is maintained the land to the west of Calverley Cutting should be identified as a green site, whilst the land to the east of Calverley Cutting (our ref: 1117B) should be identified as an amber site as the site is suitable for housing development but there are access issues to be resolved.

As set out in relation to the review of the land to the west of Calverley Cutting (our ref: 1117A), it is evident the Council do consider the sites are suitable for housing development in principle, with there being no Green Belt, highways or ecology objections to their development. It is the need to provide an access to the land to the east of Calverley Cutting that has resulted in both sites being identified as being unsuitable for housing allocation.

We do agree with the Council’s general conclusions of the site assessment which clearly identify the sites are suitable for housing development in principle. The development of this site would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement, it does not fulfil a Green Belt function and there are existing dwellings to the north, east and south of the site.

Whilst it is accepted an acceptable access solution needs to be achieved over the cutting, in light of the site’s suitability for residential development it should therefore be identified as an amber site, as it has potential for housing but there are issues which need to be resolved.

On the basis of the Council’s evidence and technical reports which have been prepared in support of the development of this site and submitted to the Council as part of representations to the emerging Core Strategy, it is maintained the site to the east of Calverley Cutting does have potential to be allocated for housing and it should be identified as an amber site, as it is maintained an access solution for this site can be achieved.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1117

We disagree that the sites to the west and east of Calverley Cutting should be categorised as red. As previously set out, the Council’s conclusions in relation to this site, rest on it being assessed as a single parcel of land when there is a physical barrier in the form of a public footpath, which separates the two sites.

For the reasons previously set out, and as supported by the Council’s own assessment, the sites are wholly suitable for residential development .The land to the west has no constraints to development and should be a ‘green’ site and the land to the east of Calverley Cutting should be identified as an ‘amber’ site in recognition of the fact a satisfactory access solution needs to be agreed.


H7Question Ref:

Site 1117

We do not agree that all of the sites that have been identified as ‘red’ are not suitable for allocation. In relation to land ‘east and west of Calverley’ (Site Ref:1117) this site has been colour coded red when it should be assessed as two separate sites with the land to the west being identified as a green site and the land to the west as an amber site.


H7Question Ref:

Site 1117

The land east and west of Calverley Cutting (ref: 1117 / our refs: 1117A and 1117B) should be developed in the short term. The sites are deliverable in the short term as they are available now, they offer a suitable location for development now and are achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.


H11Question Ref:

493 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 1123A and 1123B

The northern part of the Foxholes Crescent site has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.


The summary reason for the resultant amber colour coding advises that Site 1123A has a natural tree lined boundary along the eastern side which contains the site. However, the eastern boundary of the site comprises the rear boundaries of the existing dwellings off Foxholes Crescent. It is unclear whether the Council’s conclusions are referring to the tree belt at the eastern extent of Site 1123B which sit inside the site boundary along the length of a public bridleway.

Whilst the Council’s assessment is incorrect in relation to the reference to trees, nevertheless the wider site is well contained with the presence of the bridleway along its eastern and southern boundary so as to prevent urban sprawl.

The more detailed assessment of the site suggests there is a narrow access at the north eastern corner of the site which currently comprises a footpath. No mention is made of the existing access spur from Foxholes Crescent.

The Council’s Highway review concludes they do not support the development of the site, and the assessment appears to be in reference to the whole land parcel. They conclude the site is suitable for partial development. The site is considered to perform poorly in relation to public transport accessibility and there being localised congestion on the A647. It is assumed these comments actually relate to the A657 which runs through Calverley along its eastern and northern extent.

Pell Frischmann have undertaken a transport assessment which has assessed the impact of the proposed development of the Foxholes Crescent site upon the local highway network. This assessment has been provided to the Council as part of previous representations to the emerging Core Strategy. This assessment identifies a principal means of access into the site would be from Woodhall Road via a new roundabout. A secondary access would be provided from the existing access spur off Foxholes Crescent. However, it is proposed this access would only be used by emergency vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

The transport assessment indicates the site entrance and the Woodhall Road / Foxholes Crescent / Upper Carr Lane junction have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The A6210 Broadway / A657 Rodley Lane / A6120 Ring Road Farsley junction and the A657 Town Gate / Woodhall Road junction do not have sufficient capacity at peak periods. Improvement of these junctions would therefore be required.

Whilst junction improvements are required, it is maintained improvements in local capacity can be achieved along with the provisions of a travel plan to encourage sustainable modes of transport. In this regard, the highways issues identified by the Council can be addressed and as such there are no issues which need to be resolved and the site is one which has the greatest potential to be allocated for housing. Site 1123A should therefore be colour coded green.

In addition, it is maintained site 1123A should be extended to incorporate part of 1123B. The Council’s reasoning for setting the boundary between the red and amber parts of the site is based on what area the Council consider would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement. We do not agree with the boundary that has been identified based on this reasoning.

The Council has identified the north eastern extent of the site as being red, yet the development of this part of the site would not be incongruous with the extent of built development which sits to the south of Monson Ave to the east. The development of this part of the site would form a natural extension to the line of dwellings along Monson Avenue. Even the highways comments for 1123B advise the site is suitable for partial development. In this regard, there is clear evidence to support part of the southern site (ref: 1123B) being identified as green and therefore incorporated into the northern part of the site (ref: 1123A).

Based on the masterplan for the site, there is justification for the whole of the Foxholes Crescent site to be allocated for housing with the details of the allocation ensuring the extent of built development is kept within the parameters set out on the masterplan, with the additional land to the south and south east being kept open and providing open space for the development.

The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sites they have classified as being ‘green’. Based on the Council’s calculation, sites to deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests this figure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council’s evidence, the capacity from green sites is only 1,655 dwellings and therefore 1,005 dwellings will need to be delivered from ‘amber’ sites in any event. There is detailed evidence the Foxholes Crescent site does not have any potential issues to resolve and therefore this site will increase the number of ‘green’ sites in the Outer West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement in this area.


H1Question Ref:

Site 1123A

The northern Foxholes Crescent site has been identified as an amber site when it would be more appropriate for the site to be coded as a green, given the site has the greatest potential for allocation.

As previously stated, whilst the Council consider there are highways issues associated with the development of this site, the transport assessment provides evidence these issues can be addressed / mitigated to an acceptable degree. The highways issues have therefore been addressed and as such there are no ‘issues’ to resolve.


H4Question Ref:

494 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1123A and 1123B

The southern part of the Foxholes Crescent site is categorised as a red site, when part of it should be green and the remainder categorised as an amber site. Based on the masterplan that has been prepared for the site, some of the southern part of the site is suitable for residential development, with the remainder providing open space for the wider Foxholes Crescent development.

The site was submitted as a potential residential development allocation as a single parcel of land. It is the Council who has split the land into two sites with the northern most part being colour coded amber and the southern part being colour coded red. We do not support the Council’s conclusions that the northern part of the site should be amber, it is maintained that part should be green and at the very least the area of Site 1123A extended because at present, it does not reflect boundaries on the ground. It is maintained the northern part of the site should be larger than the Council has identified and therefore the part of the site that is identified to be ‘red’ should be reduced and this remaining area colour coded amber to reflect its potential to deliver open space for the associated residential development of 1123A.

The Council’s assessment of the 1123B site suggests it would result in isolated development. This is not the case, as the site directly adjoins Site 1123A which has the greatest potential for housing allocation and adjoins the existing settlement boundary. It would appear the Council has concluded it is isolated because on its own, as a result of the division of the site into two parcels, it does not directly adjoin the existing settlement limits. The Council cannot conclude the site is isolated when they have arbitrarily divided the site into two parcels of land. In the context of the Green Belt assessment, the site should be taken as a whole.

We do support the Council’s conclusions with regard to the site having natural / physical features which provide a good barrier between the existing urban area and undeveloped land. It is also concluded there is strong defensible boundary between the site and the existing urban area. These conclusions demonstrate the site can be developed without resulting in urban sprawl. It is maintained that 1123A should be extended to incorporate part of 1123B at its north western extent with the remainder of site 1123B being identified as amber. A masterplan document for the site has previously been submitted to the Council as part of representations to the emerging core strategy. A copy of the masterplan is provided at Appendix 2 for ease. This masterplan shows the development of houses within a smaller area of the whole parcel of land which reflects a natural rounding off of the settlement with the remaining area providing open space for the development and ensuring the retention of existing hedgerows.

The masterplan creates an open frontage to Woodhall Road ensuring a sense of openness on the approach to the village. Existing hedgerows will be reinforced creating a strong landscape structure to the south of the site and providing screening. The open space is positioned to the south of the site to maintain open space adjacent to the open countryside.

On the basis of the case set out, there is clear evidence to support the north eastern extent of Site 1123B being identified as green and incorporated into Site 1123A with the remainder of Site 1123B being identified as amber on the basis that whilst it may not be suitable for housing, its incorporation into the wider site would allow for the provision of on-site open space.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1123A and 1123B

Some of the sites that have been identified as ‘amber’ represent sites with potential for future housing development as they are sites with issues where the Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether the issues identified can be resolved.

However, there are amber sites where an issue has been identified but a solution has been put forward, such as in the case of the northern Foxholes Crescent site (ref: 1123A) and part of the southern site (ref: 1123B). The Council suggest there are highways and accessibility issues to be resolved, but the Transport Assessment demonstrates these issues can be satisfactorily addressed. The Council therefore have sufficient evidence that this issue does not present a development constraint. On this basis, it is considered the site should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue identified.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1123B

We do not agree that all of the sites that have been identified as ‘red’ are not suitable for allocation. In relation to the southern part of the Foxholes Crescent site which has been colour coded red (ref: 1123B), it is maintained that part of the site should be incorporated into Site Ref: 1123A in conjunction with the extent of built development shown on the masterplan and the remaining part of the Foxholes Crescent site should be coded amber, in recognition that this part of the site could deliver on-site open space.


H7Question Ref:

Sites 1123A and 1123B

The Foxholes Crescent sites (refs: 1123A and 1123B) should be developed in the short term. The sites are deliverable in the short term as they are available now, they offer a suitable location for development now and are achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.


H11Question Ref:

495 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1114

The land at Kirklees Knowl (Site Ref: 1114) has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.


A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the site scores well with no issues to be resolved. Highways identify that public transport improvements are required, but this is something that can be readily addressed and as such should not constitute ‘an issue to be resolved’ resulting in an amber score.

In the summary table within the Outer West area Issues and Options paper, the final comment suggests there are highways issues to resolve and that development would best be combined with adjacent sites. The Council’s also state that the site is part of a larger area and should be considered alongside sites 1110 and 2121.

Sites 1110 and 2121 are also UDP PAS sites, but they are not in the same ownership as the Kirklees Knowl site and both of these sites are in more than one ownership. This raises questions regarding their availability / deliverability. Nevertheless, a masterplan has been prepared and submitted as part of an outline planning application for the Kirklees Knowl site, that facilitates the delivery of the adjoining land.

The Masterplan provides two access points from the northern extent of the Kirklees Knowl site into Site Ref: 1110 along with an access spur from a proposed roundabout to the west of the Kirklees Knowl site providing access to Site Ref: 2121. A copy of this masterplan is provided at Appendix 2. In this regard, the land at Kirklees Knowl does not in any way prejudice the future development of the two adjoining sites, it supports their future development. In this regard there are not any highways issues to resolve, the development of the Kirklees Knowl site provides access solutions for both of the adjoining sites.

The Council also refer back to comments made by the UDP Review Inspector who commented that the urban edge is clear and well defined and that this area forms part of an open tract of land that could contribute to Green Belt purposes. Despite these comments, the Council identified the site as PAS land and the original UDP Inspector concluded it should be removed from the Green Belt. As such, the site is not within the Green Belt and given there is no stated intention to extend the Green Belt, it would appear illogical to classify the site as being amber for Green Belt related reasons, when the site is no longer within the Green Belt, as confirmed by the Council’s own site assessment.

The site lies adjacent to the existing settlement limits of Farsley within easy walking distance of Farsley centre which provides a wide range of local services and facilities. The Kirklees Knowl site also adjoins a site, in the same ownership, which was granted planning permission upon appeal and which is currently under construction. There is a clear defensible boundary to the northern extent of the site as a result of the presence of the A6129 (Farsley Ring Road) resulting in the Kirklees Knowl site being a logical extension which rounds off the settlement with the Ring Road providing a clear boundary between Farsley and the settlement of Calverley to the north.

There are no technical or physical constraints to development as evidenced by the outline planning application that has been submitted to the Council. This site is therefore also deliverable within the short term and can contribute to assisting the Council achieving a five year housing land supply.

On the basis of the evidence set out, it is maintained the site is in a wholly suitable location for development and there are no highways issues to resolve, the masterplan for the site provides access spurs into both adjoining sites and the detailed allocation can ensure these spurs are delivered to provide this certainty. In this regard, there are no issues to resolve with the site and it is not in a less favourable location. The site should therefore be colour coded green.


H1Question Ref:

Site 1114

The Kirklees Knowl site has been identified as an amber site when the site should be coded green, given it has the greatest potential for allocation.

As previously stated, whilst the Council consider there are highways issues to resolve. This issue relates to ensuring access, and therefore the development potential of two adjoining sites, can be achieved. This ‘issue’ is easily resolved through the provision of access spurs to these sites and this is the solution that has been presented to the Council as part of the outline planning application for the site.

The requirement to ensure access and connectivity with the adjoining sites should not therefore deemed to be a development constraint. On this basis the Kirklees Knowl site should not be considered a site where issues need to resolved as the landowner has put forward an acceptable solution to the issue highlighted by the Council.

The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sites they have classified as being ‘green’. Based on the Council’s calculation, sites to deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests this figure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council’s evidence some amber sites will be required. However, it is maintained there is detailed evidence the Kirklees Knowl site does not have any potential issues to resolve and therefore this site will increase the number of ‘green’ sites in the Outer West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement in this area.


H4Question Ref:

496 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1114

Some of the sites that have been identified as ‘amber’ represent sites with potential for future housing development as they are sites with issues which the Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether issues identified can be resolved.

However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of Kirklees Knowl where the Council suggest there are highway issues to resolve where a known solution has been put forward. On this basis the Council have sufficient evidence to know any identified issues can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. It is therefore considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue identified and whether there is evidence to support this.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1114

The land at Kirklees Knowl, Bagley Lane (ref: 1114) should be developed in the short term. This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.


H11Question Ref:

497 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1114

The Kirklees Knowl site has been identified as an amber site when the site should be coded green, given it has the greatest potential for allocation.

As previously stated, whilst the Council consider there are highways issues to resolve. This issue relates to ensuring access, and therefore the development potential of two adjoining sites, can be achieved. This 'issue' is easily resolved through the provision of access spurs to these sites and this is the solution that has been presented to the Council as part of the outline planning application for the site.

he requirement to ensure access and connectivity with the adjoining sites should not therefore deemed to be a development constraint. On this basis the Kirklees Knowl site should not be considered a site where issues need to resolved as the landowner has put forward an acceptable solution to the issue highlighted by the Council.

The Council has identified 1,655 units which could be delivered from sites they have classified as being 'green'. Based on the Council's calculation, sites to deliver 2,660 units will be required, although our evidence suggests this figure should be significantly higher. Even on the Council's evidence some amber sites will be required. However, it is maintained there is detailed evidence the Kirklees Knowl site does not have any potential issues to resolve and therefore this site will increase the number of 'green' sites in the Outer West area and contribute towards meeting the housing requirement in this area.


H4Question Ref:

Site 1114

Some of the sites that have been identified as 'amber' represent sites with potential for future housing development as they are sites with issues which the Council does not have sufficient information to determine whether issues identified can be resolved.

However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of Kirklees Knowl [1114] where the Council suggest there are highway issues to resolve where a known solution has been put forward. On this basis the Council have sufficient evidence to know any identified issues can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. It is therefore considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue identified and whether there is evidence to support this.

H4Question Ref:

498 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1114

The land at Kirklees Knowl (Site Ref: 1114) has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.


A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the site scores well with no issues to be resolved. Highways identify that public transport improvements are required, but this is something that can be readily addressed and as such should not constitute 'an issue to be resolved' resulting in an amber score.

In the summary table within the Outer West area Issues and Options paper, the final comment suggests there are highways issues to resolve and that development would best be combined with adjacent sites. The Council's also state that the site is part of a larger area and should be considered alongside sites 1110 and 2121.

Sites 1110 and 2121 are also UDP PAS sites, but they are not in the same ownership as the Kirklees Knowl site and both of these sites are in more than one ownership. This raises questions regarding their availability / deliverability. Nevertheless, a masterplan has been prepared and submitted as part of an outline planning application for the Kirklees Knowl site, that facilitates the delivery of the adjoining land.

he Masterplan provides two access points from the northern extent of the Kirklees Knowl site into Site Ref: 1110 along with an access spur from a proposed roundabout to the west of the Kirklees Knowl site providing access to Site Ref: 2121. A copy of this masterplan is provided at Appendix 2. In this egard, the land at Kirklees Knowl does not in any way prejudice the future development of the two adjoining sites, it supports their future development.

In this regard there are not any highways issues to resolve, the development of the Kirklees Knowl site provides access solutions for both of the adjoining sites.

The Council also refer back to comments made by the UDP Review Inspector who commented that the urban edge is clear and well defined and that this area forms part of an open tract of land that could contribute to Green Belt purposes. Despite these comments, the Council identified the site as PAS land and the original UDP Inspector concluded it should be removed from the Green Belt. As such, the site is not within the Green Belt and given there is no stated intention to extend the Green Belt, it would appear illogical to classify the site as being amber for Green Belt related reasons, when the site is no longer within the Green Belt, as confirmed by the Council's own site assessment.

The site lies adjacent to the existing settlement limits of Farsley within easy walking distance of Farsley centre which provides a wide range of local services and facilities. The Kirklees Knowl site also adjoins a site, in the same ownership, which was granted planning permission upon appeal and which is currently under construction. There is a clear defensible boundary to the northern extent of the site as a result of the presence of the A6129 (Farsley Ring Road) resulting in the Kirklees Knowl site being a logical extension which rounds off the settlement with the Ring Road providing a clear boundary between Farsley and the settlement of Calverley to the north.

There are no technical or physical constraints to development as evidenced by the outline planning application that has been submitted to the Council. This site is therefore also deliverable within the short term and can contribute to assisting the Council achieving a five year housing land supply.

On the basis of the evidence set out, it is maintained the site is in a wholly suitable location for development and there are no highways issues to resolve, the masterplan for the site provides access spurs into both adjoining sites and the detailed allocation can ensure these spurs are delivered to provide this certainty. In this regard, there are no issues to resolve with the site and it is not in a less favourable location. The site should therefore be colour coded green.


H4Question Ref:

The land at Kirklees Knowl, Bagley Lane (ref: 1114) should be developed in the short term. This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:


However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of Kirklees Knowl [1114] where the Council suggest there are highway issues to resolve where a known solution has been put forward. On this basis the Council have sufficient evidence to know any identified issues can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. It is therefore considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue identified and whether there is evidence to support this.


499 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1117

The sites to the east and west of Calverley Cutting have been demonstrated to be suitable, available, achievable and developable for residentialdevelopment. A masterplan has been prepared for both sites (Appendix 2) and shows the sites can be developed without harm to existing landscape features.

Edmund Thornhill does not support the Council's conclusions with regard to Calverley Cutting sites. The sites are suitable for allocation for housing, as evidenced by the Council's detailed site assessment. The only key issue identified relates to the need to provide an access over Calverely Cutting to enable the development of the eastern site. The Council's conclusion on the site as a whole therefore rests on this access issue.

Edmund Thornhill has promoted the land as two separate sites and it is evident the Council's assessment does clearly identify the sites are suitablefor residential development in principle. The sites should be assessed separately on their own merits.

In assessing the land to the west of Calverley Cutting (our ref: 1117A), this site is wholly suitable for allocation for housing, it would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement and there are no issues to be resolved. On this basis, the land to the west of Calverley Cutting should be identified as a site which has the greatest potential to be allocated for housing and should be colour coded green.

The land to the east of the Calverley Cutting (1117B) is also suitable for residential development in principle with the only issue being a suitableaccess over the cutting needs to be agreed. In this regard, it is a site which has potential, but where access issues need to be resolved. On this basis, the land to the east of Calverley Cutting should be identified as an amber site.


H7Question Ref:

Site 1117

The land east and west of Calverley Cutting (ref: 1117 / our refs: 1117A and 1117B) should be developed in the short term. The sites are deliverable in the short term as they are available now, they offer a suitable location for development now and are achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:

500 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1124

In relation to the land off Upper Carr Lane (Site Ref: 1124), this site has been colour coded green and we agree this site should be identified as 'green' as it represents one of the most suitable sites to allocate for housing development.

The Council correctly identify the Upper Can Lane site would result in a natural rounding off of the settlement of Calverley. They conclude the site is well contained and would not result in urban sprawl, a suitable access can be achieved and there would be no detrimental impact on the local highway network. We support the Council's conclusions in this regard.

The site is in a sustainable location adjacent to the existing settlement of Calverley and could deliver approximately 20 dwellings. A Transport Assessment has been undertaken by Pell Frischmann which concurs with the Council's conclusions that the site will not have a harmful impact on theoperation of the local highway network.


H1Question Ref:

Site 1124

The land off Upper Carr Lane, Calverley (ref: 1124) should be developed in the short term. This site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:

501 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


Site 1337

In relation to the Stylo House site (Site Ref: 1337), this site has been colour coded green and we agree this site should be identified as 'green' as it represents one of the most suitable sites to allocate for housing development.

The Council correctly conclude the redevelopment of the brownfield Stylo House site for residential development is acceptable in principle. The Council do not identify any development constraints in relation to the Stylo House site, which supports the conclusions of the technical reports which have been submitted to the Council in support of the outline planning application for the redevelopment of the site for up to 80 houses (of which approximately one quarter of the site lies within the jurisdiction of Leeds City Council). We therefore support the Council's conclusions in relation to this site.

H1Question Ref:

Site 4097

The land at Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal (Site Ref: 4097) adjoins the Stylo House site at its eastern extent. This site has been colour coded amber, but it is maintained this site should be colour coded green.


It is evident from a review of the summary reasons for the colour coding for this site, it has not been colour coded amber as a result of it being considered to be in a less favoured location as those highlighted in green. Indeed, the site's location cannot be considered to be less favourably when it directly adjoins a site which is colour coded green.

The summary reasons for the colour coding highlights the opportunity this site provides in providing additional development land alongside the Stylo House site, providing suitable access is provided through the adjacent site. Access into the site appears to be the reason why the site has been coded amber rather than green.

A review of the more detailed individual site assessment identifies the site scores well with no issues to be resolved. Highways identify that public transport improvements are required, but this is something that can be readily addressed and as such should not constitute 'an issue to be resolved resulting in an amber score.

We do not support all of the Council's conclusions with regard to the Green Belt assessment of this site. The assessment suggests the development of this site would result in isolated development, yet this is clearly not the case. This site adjoins a developed site which has been in employment use and forms the eastern extent of Apperley Bridge. Furthermore, there are three residential dwellings to the east of Calverley Cutting. The development of this site will result in a small extension to the existing extent of built development in Apperley Bridge, and cannot therefore be concluded to be in an isolated location.

The Council's highways review of the site concludes they support the site for development and there are no other comments within the detailed assessment which suggests there are issues which need to be resolved. Thornhill Estates are in discussion with TCS in order to agree a joint approach to deliver the site and as such access is not considered to be an issue.

It is unclear from the Council's detailed assessment whether the site has actually been colour coded amber because the Council consider it is in an isolated location as referred to in the Green Belt assessment, or because the Council consider a suitable access needs to be provided through the adjacent site. As has been evidenced, the site is not in an isolated location, it adjoins a brownfield site which is identified as having the greatest potential to be allocated for housing. It has also been demonstrated a suitable access can be achieved.

On the basis of the evidence set out, it is maintained the site is in a wholly suitable location for development and we agree with the Council's conclusions that the site would not result in urban sprawl as it is well contained as a result of the canal to the north and Calverley Cutting to the east. There are no highways issues with the development of this site, the Council's highways team have concluded they support the identification of this site for housing and the site is not in an isolated location. In this regard, there are no issues to resolve and it is not in a less favourable location. The site should therefore be colour coded green.

H4Question Ref:

The Stylo House and Calverley Cutting / Leeds Liverpool Canal sites (refs: 1337 and 4097) should be developed in the short term. The sites are deliverable in the short term as they are available now, they offer a suitable location for development now and are achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:

502 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05539

Edmund Thornhill

Representor No:

Name:


[Comments below relate to Outer West HMCA]

12 of the sites (268 dwellings) are existing UDP allocations that have yet to be developed. Given the UDP was originally adopted in 2001, some 12years ago, there has to be a detailed review of these particular sites to determine whether there is a realistic likelihood they will come forward for development given they haven't come forward in the lifetime of the UDP.

There is no evidence the Council has undertaken any such review of the undeveloped UDP allocations. Indeed, there are errors within this section, with Site 645 (Bagley Lane, Farsley) being shown as having capacity for 50 dwellings, when there is Reserved Matters approval for 45 dwellings. The site at Delph End in Pudsey (Ref: 646) is known to have ownership and access constraints and therefore it is not considered this site will deliver the 27 units identified by the Council.

This clearly demonstrates the need for a thorough review of the supply the Council is identifying given the deliverability of these sites is essential as this existing supply is being used to determine the number of new sites that will be required. If some of these sites do not deliver the number of dwellings expected, if any at all, but they are included in the Council's supply, this will result in insufficient new sites being identified to meet the requirement in this area.




Thirdly, the Council advise the supply figure will constantly change as planning permissions are granted, but they do not similarly acknowledge that some permissions will expire without being implemented due to issues with viability or other site development constraints. Again, there does not appear to have been any assessment undertaken of these sites, which form a critical part of the Council's supply, and which determine the number of new sites needed.

A site by site review is essential if the Site Allocations DPD is to be found sound as the current approach presents a high risk that insufficient sites will be identified to meet the housing needs of the District, resulting in the plan being ineffective.

The Council identify 48 sites which they state have planning permissions with units still remaining to be built as at 31/03/2012. Given the base date is over a year old it is likely that some of these permissions will have subsequently expired. In addition, as with the undeveloped allocations the Council are including within their supply, there is also evidence that some of the sites with planning permission are undeliverable.

To cite some examples, the outline scheme for 84 flats at Canal Wharf (site ref: 625) was approved on 17 May 2010 and therefore expired on 17 May 2013. This permission was not implemented. The Council has included a site at Wesffield Mill which had planning permission for 75 two bed flats. The permission expired on 3 March 2011 and whilst an application was submitted to extend the time limit for implementation, this was later withdrawn and therefore the site no longer benefits from planning permission for the 75 units identified. A site at Swinnow Row (ref: 26) is identified to have capacity for 67 dwellings, yet the most recent permission for the site is for 25 dwellings.

It is clear that if the Council proposes to reduce the number of new sites they need by relying on sites with planning permission or current undeveloped UDP allocations, they need to be certain these sites are deliverable and that they will deliver the number of units identified. The Council does not yet appear to have undertaken a detailed review of the deliverability of these sites. This is essential if the plan is to be effective, otherwise there is a significant risk the Council will identify too few sites to meet the identified need.




However, there are amber sites where an issue, such as in the case of Calverley Cutting site where the Council suggest there may be access issues but there is a proven solution. The Council therefore has sufficient evidence that issues they have identified can be fully resolved or mitigated to an acceptable degree. On this basis, it is considered that sites should not be identified as amber solely because the Council has identified potential development constraints, due consideration should be given the ease of mitigating or resolving the issue/s identified.




The Council state at paragraph 11.3.2 of the Outer West paper that planning permissions with units still remaining to be built as at 31st March 2012 have been deducted. It is questioned why, when the consultation document is dated June 2013, is the Council using planning permission data that is over a year old.



503 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01758

A Thornton

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

504 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00392

Margaret Tough

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – With regard to the application to build on the land off Low Moor Side, New Farnley. I object strongly to this. There are many reasons I could give, mainly access to the field using a narrow and busy road. The fact that these properties will overshadow all the bungalows and eliminate privacy. Also, the building of property will divert the natural underground springs and change the direction of the water towards us.

H4Question Ref:

505 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00392

Margaret Tough

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

506 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06161

Trinity College, Cambridge

Representor No:

Name:


49-59 Armley Road LS12 2JLThe site is identified as site 3425 and CFSM052 as a mixed use site with housing potential rated amber. The site is a brownfield site adjacent to existing residential areas to the west and south of the site. Therefore, proposed use for residential with potential for showroom or tradecounter use would be more suitable than the existing use as a warehouse and factory units. Furthermore, the site scores much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than the nearby site 1340, which is rated green. Therefore, it is considered that site 3425 should be identified for a mixed use allocation including housing and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

Land between Barrack Street and Sackville Street LS7 2BQThe site is identified as site 3426 (housing) rated amber, and CFSM042 as a mixed use site with a retail component. It is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as being acceptable for residential development in principle. It is considered that the use of the site for residential use would be more appropriate than its current industrial and warehouse use, given its location adjacent to an existing residential area to the west.Therefore, it is considered that site 3426 should be identified for a housing or mixed use allocation and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

Cliffdale Road LS7 2JHThe site is identified as site 3427 rated amber. It is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as being acceptable for residential development inprinciple. The site score much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than nearby site 3137, which is rated green. In light of this, It is illogical for the site to be rated amber. Therefore, it is considered that site 3427 should be identified for a housing allocation and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

Site at Kirkstall Road, Studio Road and Park RoadThe site is identified as site 3432 as a mixed use site with housing potential rated amber and as CFSM043 for employment with retail component rated green. Trinity College support the allocation of the site for employment with a retail component but consider that the site should also be allocated with a residential component. The site is a brownfield site adjacent to a residential area to the north and it is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as suitable for residential development. Furthermore, the site scores much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal for housing than nearby sites 230 and 2023, which are rated green. Therefore, Trinity College supports the allocation of site 3432 for employment with a retail component but considers the allocation should also include a residential component. Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

Site at Meanwood Road, Chancellor Street and Cross Chancellor Street LSG 2The site is identified as site 3233 [presume this is a mistake and the site ref is 3433] (housing) rated amber. The site is a brownfield site located adjacent to an existing residential area. It is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as suitable for residential development. Furthermore the site score more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal for housing than nearby site 3137. In light of this, It is illogical for the site to be rated amber. Therefore, it is considered that site 3233 should be identified for a housing allocation and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

Site at Torre Road and Lupton Avenue LS9 7The site is identified as site 3411 (housing) rated amber. The site is located to the south and east of a predominantly residential development, including Brownhill Primary School. Therefore, the use of the site for residential would be more appropriate than the existing poor quality industrial/commercial accommodation. It is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as being acceptable for residential development inprinciple. Furthermore, the site scores much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than nearby sites 200 and 411, which are rated green. In light of this, It is illogical for the site to be rated amber. Therefore, it is considered that site 3411 should be identified for a housing allocation and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

Site at Waterloo Lane and Waterloo Way LS13 2The site is identified as site 3412 for housing (rated amber), CFSM044 as mixed use sites with a housing component (rated amber) and part of the site as a proposed Primary Shopping Area. The site is located within an area designated as "Town Centre". To the West of the site is the WaterlooLane Local Centre around the Bramley Centre. Trinity College supports the identification of the part of the site to the south of Waterloo Way within the proposed Primary Shopping Area. However, Trinity College consider that the part of the site to the north of Waterloo Way should also be identified as Primary Shopping Area. To the north, east and south of the site is residential development. Trinity College considers that the siteshould be identified as a mixed use site for both retail and residential development. It is noted that the Council has assessed the site as being acceptable for residential development in principle. Furthermore, the site scores more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than nearby sites 163and 4041, which are rated green. Therefore, Trinity College considers that whole of site 3412 should be allocated as Primary Shopping Area with residential (rated green) and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

H4Question Ref:

Nowell Approach off Nowell Lane LS9 GJD -[see plan submitted]This site was submitted by Bidwells on behalf of Trinity College in response to the call for sites in 2012. However, the site has not been identified on the Council's maps and has not been assessed. Therefore, the original submission is attached. The site is currently a complex of poor quality commercial units and it is proposed for residential development. It is located adjacent to residential development to the east sound and west and the wider area is within a Neighbourhood Renewal Area. Therefore, Trinity College considers that the site should be allocated for residential use and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

H10Question Ref:

507 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS06161

Trinity College, Cambridge

Representor No:

Name:


Site at Waterloo Lane and Waterloo Way LS13 2 - [This site is in Outer West area not Inner]The site is identified as site 3412 for housing (rated amber), CFSM044 as mixed use sites with a housing component (rated amber) and part of the site as a proposed Primary Shopping Area. The site is located within an area designated as "Town Centre". To the West of the site is the WaterlooLane Local Centre around the Bramley Centre. Trinity College supports the identification of the part of the site to the south of Waterloo Way within the proposed Primary Shopping Area. However, Trinity College consider that the part of the site to the north of Waterloo Way should also be identified as Primary Shopping Area. To the north, east and south of the site is residential development. Trinity College considers that the siteshould be identified as a mixed use site for both retail and residential development. It is noted that the Council has assessed the site as being acceptable for residential development in principle. Furthermore, the site scores more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than nearby sites 163and 4041, which are rated green. Therefore, Trinity College considers that whole of site 3412 should be allocated as Primary Shopping Area with residential (rated green) and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

R1Question Ref:

49-59 Armley Road LS12 2JLThe site is identified as site 3425 and CFSM052 as a mixed use site with housing potential rated amber. The site is a brownfield site adjacent to existing residential areas to the west and south of the site. Therefore, proposed use for residential with potential for showroom or tradecounter use would be more suitable than the existing use as a warehouse and factory units. Furthermore, the site scores much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal than the nearby site 1340, which is rated green. Therefore, it is considered that site 3425 should be identified for a mixed use allocation including housing and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

Land between Barrack Street and Sackville Street LS7 2BQThe site is identified as site 3426 (housing) rated amber, and CFSM042 as a mixed use site with a retail component. It is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as being acceptable for residential development in principle. It is considered that the use of the site for residential use would be more appropriate than its current industrial and warehouse use, given its location adjacent to an existing residential area to the west.Therefore, it is considered that site 3426 should be identified for a housing or mixed use allocation and Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

Site at Kirkstall Road, Studio Road and Park RoadThe site is identified as site 3432 as a mixed use site with housing potential rated amber and as CFSM043 for employment with retail component rated green. Trinity College support the allocation of the site for employment with a retail component but consider that the site should also be allocated with a residential component. The site is a brownfield site adjacent to a residential area to the north and it is noted that the site is assessed by the Council as suitable for residential development. Furthermore, the site scores much more highly in the Sustainability Appraisal for housing than nearby sites 230 and 2023, which are rated green. Therefore, Trinity College supports the allocation of site 3432 for employment with a retail component but considers the allocation should also include a residential component. Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan .

R3Question Ref:

Site at Domestic Street, Sydenham Street and Holbeck Lane - [plan attached to original submission]Trinity College propose the site at Domestic Street, Sydenham Street and Holbeck Lane as a suitable location for alternative uses such as trade counter, retail or showroom as the site is adjacent to similar uses. Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

R4Question Ref:

Site at Kirkstall Road Bath and Burley Place - [plan attached to original submission]The site at Kirkstall Road Bath and Burley Place is currently in use as a car repair garage. Trinity College propose the as a suitable location for alternative uses such as trade counter, retail or showroom. Trinity College request that the Council makes the necessary changes to the Local Plan.

R4Question Ref:

508 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05400

Richard Trusson

Representor No:

Name:


Sites 4049,1193B and 1193A run the risk of merging Calverley into the general urban sprawl ofLeeds and making it just one more name that is hard to tie down to an actual place as there isno break in development from Leeds City Centre along the A657 and out to Keighley. I knowFarsley is also being asked to accept new development along the ring road, again filling in thegaps and creating a continuous urban sprawl.

H4Question Ref:

I would argue that 1123A and 1123B would be expected to also significantly increase traffic ratrunning through the village. I have only once seen police stopping drivers after the introductionof access only restrictions. Rat running is still endemic and I do not see any initiatives to furtherreduce traffic on residential streets.

H4Question Ref:

I would argue that 1123A and 1123B would be expected to also significantly increase traffic ratrunning through the village. I have only once seen police stopping drivers after the introductionof access only restrictions. Rat running is still endemic and I do not see any initiatives to furtherreduce traffic on residential streets.

H7Question Ref:

Sites 4049,1193B and 1193A run the risk of merging Calverley into the general urban sprawl ofLeeds and making it just one more name that is hard to tie down to an actual place as there isno break in development from Leeds City Centre along the A657 and out to Keighley. I knowFarsley is also being asked to accept new development along the ring road, again filling in thegaps and creating a continuous urban sprawl.

H7Question Ref:

Site 1117 will add to congestion on Carr Road pushing more people through the village. This is abusy road with traffic often queued back into the village. I would suggest that withoutsignificant changes to the road, perhaps the introduction of a roundabout at the exit for thenew housing, it will make the road dangerous at peak times.

H7Question Ref:

I am writing to say that I am opposed to any new development in Calverley what so ever at thistime. This is for a variety of reasons;There is already significant new housing either being built or already built within a few miles ofCalverley, for example the old factory site on Low Hall Road. There has been no correspondingincrease in local facilities, especially school places, to accommodate increased numbers ofschool aged children. The catchment area for Calverley Parkside is now measured tens ofmeters from the school, certainly any new housing will fall outside this, where do you expectchildren to go? The church school in the village is no better off and suffers from chronicshortage of parking space leading to some very dangerous situations at the start and end of theschool day.While there has been an attempt to reduce traffic flow through the village I have not seen anynoticeable impact. Unless you count the recent impact outside my house of a car cutting thecorner and driving on the wrong side of the road knocking a cyclist off. While thankfully crashesare rare cutting the corner, speeding and high volumes of traffic are not. Proposal 1124 wouldbe expected to increase the traffic flow along Hollin Park Drive and Upper Car Lane, we saw anincrease in traffic after the conversion of the old Yorkshire Water site to the immediate west of1124.If any of these developments were to go ahead, and I oppose all of them, significant investmentmust be made in increasing facilities within the village and creating infrastructure links to Leedsand Bradford. For example did you know you cannot catch a direct bus from Calverley to NewPudsey Train Station? Adding a route would help there. Actually blocking some of the roads inthe village, for example the Hollin Park Drive/Woodhall Road junction, the St Stephens Road/Carr Hill Avenue junction would, I believe, reduce rat running. It would also cause me problemshowever I accept those as the price for reducing traffic in the village. Changing the choke pointjunction of the A657 and A658 to improve traffic flow would reduce the need to rat run.I would also be interested to see what evidence there is for a demand for new housing. Haveall the houses been sold at the existing new developments in the near area? Who have theybeen sold to? Private families or speculators? Calverley is lucky in that it still has a village ‘feel’,mainly I think because there is a clear gap between it and its surrounding urban neighbours.The proposed developments risk losing this and the separate identity Calverley has.


509 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05002

Trustees Of A. Vint

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:





H1Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

1201 Short

H11Question Ref:

510 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950

Trustees Of Brick Mill Estate

Representor No:

Name:


We agree that the Site Allocations Plan needs to identify enough sites to meet the Core Strategy Publication Draft housing target to deliver the ambitious level of growth required, as well as meet the need for specialist accommodation, and the focus on accommodating development within the identified Settlement Hierarchy. We also agree that the scale of the housing target means that a selective Green Belt review is necessary around the areas of the settlement hierarchy as identified in the Core Strategy Publication Draft Spatial Policy 10 ‘Green Belt’. We consider some of the ‘green’ sites identified represent suitable sites for allocation as future housing development.

However, we consider the Roker Lane site to be equally or more appropriate and suitable for allocating for future housing development than some of the ‘green’ sites identified by LCC. The Site is located at the southern edge of Pudsey, a Main Urban Area; would represent a “rounding off” of the settlement given the residential development to the west, north and east of the Site; has strong boundaries; comprises grazing land; and is available for immediate development given the owner’s aspiration to release the land for development. Furthermore, development at the Site has a low potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl. Development of the Site would not result in the merging of settlements. The Site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Development of the Site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features. Therefore, it is considered that the allocation of the Roker Lane site would make an important contribution to the delivery of housing and therefore make an important contribution to the soundness of the Site Allocations Plan; and should be included as a ‘green’ site within the SHLAA and Site Allocations Plan.

Jones Lang LaSalle considers some sites are less suitable for Green Belt release than the land at Roker Lane site. Reason why our site is comparable/better1060A – comparable1124 – comparable1201 – comparable3011 – comparable3050 - Issue with Listed Building on site.3377A – comparable3455B – poor accessibility

H1Question Ref:

Why we consider some ‘green’ sites are not be as suitable for consideration for allocating for future housing development as the Roker Lane site:3050 - Issue with Listed Building on site. There are no Listed Buildings on the Roker Lane site.3455B - Poor accessibility. Accessibility is strong and available at the Roker Lane site.

H2Question Ref:

We consider that the Roker Lane site is suitable to be allocated in the Outer West area for residential development and therefore should be colour coded green. Please see response at Question H10.

H3Question Ref:

We agree that the Site Allocations Plan needs to identify enough sites to meet the Core Strategy Publication Draft housing target to deliver the ambitious level of growth required as well as meet the need for specialist accommodation, and the focus on accommodating development within the identified Settlement Hierarchy. We also agree that the scale of the housing target means that a selective Green Belt review is necessary around the areas of the settlement hierarchy as identified in the Core Strategy Publication Draft Spatial Policy 10 ‘Green Belt’. We consider some of the ‘amber’ sites identified to represent suitable sites for future housing development.

Jones Lang LaSalle considers some sites are less suitable for Green Belt release than the land at Roker Lane site. Reason why our site is comparable/better1053A - Access to the site is dependent on neighbouring site.1123A - Requires frontage of neighbouring site (1123B) to achieve visibility at accesspoint. Site 1123B has been identified as ‘sites not considered suitable for allocation forhousing’.1193A - Some on-site trees are subject to a TPO.3124 - Relies on development of site 1195 for it to relate to the urban area.3455A - Some potential for further sprawl to the adjoining field. Access only through site 3455B.3464 - Highways issues re. access. No highway frontage and poor accessibility.76 - Dick Lane Pudsey [assume means site 669] Potential issues with loss of playing pitch through greenspace review.4046 - Suitable access would require extension of existing footway and removal of a number of trees.4049 - Visibility splays not achievable – poor horizontal and vertical alignment.4097 - Suitable access is required through the adjacent site (site 1337)

H4Question Ref:

We agree that the Site Allocations Plan needs to identify enough sites to meet the Core Strategy Publication Draft housing target to deliver the ambitious level of growth required as well as meet the need for specialist accommodation, and the focus on accommodating development within the identified Settlement Hierarchy. We also agree that the scale of the housing target means that a selective Green Belt review is necessary around the areas of the settlement hierarchy as identified in the Core Strategy Publication Draft Spatial Policy 10 ‘Green Belt’. We consider the sites identified as ‘red’ are not suitable for allocation for future housing development.

H7Question Ref:

511 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950


Representor No:

Name:


Yes.

Roker Lane, Pudsey, LS28 9NACALL FOR SITES FORM (See site plan on representation)The site is not already a SHLAA site submission.Submitted by site owner (via agent)Northing 432215Easting 4226444.4 hectaresCurrent uses: Grazing land let to a farmer; and single terrace property at 19 Roker Lane, let to a tenant.Surrounding uses: Residential, agricultural and greenbelt.

The Site is 4.39 hectares (10.75 acres) and is located to the south of Pudsey. The Site is bound to the north by Roker Lane with Fulneck Court opposite to the north. The back garden boundaries of houses on Oakdene Close form the western boundary to the Site with Hare Lane running along the south western corner of the Site. A strong tree-line forms the southern boundary, with stonewalling and barbed wire in addition to trees and shrubs forming the majority of the eastern boundary. The boundaries of residential properties on Roker Lane and Northwood view are found to the north east of the Site.

The Site includes a house at the north east corner and a small rectangle of trees and shrubs towards the north east of the Site. There are no water bodies within the Site. The Site is relatively flat, gently sloping downwards towards the east and south of the Site. It is a predominantly grassland site. In addition to the tree-lined boundaries of the Site, a single tree is located at the eastern part of the Site in close proximity to the eastern boundary. Also, a small line of trees delineates the main site from the smaller, rectangular shaped parcel of land at the south west corner of the Site. The Site is currently used as grazing land which is let to a local farmer. A plan of the Site is enclosed at Appendix 1. Photographs of the Site and its boundaries are enclosed at Appendix 2.

The Trustees of Brick Mills Estate supports the need and commitment to provide a significant increase in the provision of housing. Jones Lang LaSalle acknowledges the targets and existing provision as set out in the emerging Core Strategy and Volume 1 of the Site Allocations Issues and Options document. In order for the LCC Site Allocations Plan to be sound, there needs to be a robust and sensible provision of housing which will require a significant increase in the number of housing provided. To facilitate this increase, Spatial Policy SP10 states that, “the selective review will generally consider Green Belt release around: i) the Main Urban Area (Leeds City Centre and surrounding areas forming the main urban and suburban areas of the city).” Housing delivery at the Site will make an important contribution to delivering one of the key objectives of the Core Strategy - to meet the housing target, deliver the ambitious levels of growth required as well as meeting the need for specialist accommodation, and the focus on accommodating development within the identified settlement hierarchy.

The site lies within policy areas N1, N37 and N40 of the UDP. The site is currently used as grazing land which is let to a local farmer. The site benefits from strong tree-lined and hedgerow boundaries in addition to stone walling. There are no water bodies within the site or at land adjacent to the site. Topography: The site is relatively flat, gently sloping downwards towards the east and south of the site. Ecology: The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website has been reviewed for information on statutory sites, notable habitats (e.g. ancient woodlands) and species of nature conservation value. There are no statutory sites of importance for nature conservation within the site boundaries. A Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat (England) is located to the west of the site but not adjacent. Open grass areas have the potential to provide suitable basking and foraging opportunities for common reptile species. The mature trees have the potential to support roosting bats. Trees and areas of vegetation have the potential to support nesting birds. Trees: In addition to the tree-lined boundaries of the site, a single tree is located at the east part of the site in close proximity to the eastern site boundary. Also, a small line of trees delineates the main site from the small parcel of land at the south west corner of the site. Flood Risk: The Environment Agency flood risk mapping shows that the site is located completely in Flood Zone 1, outside the extent of the 1 in 1000 fluvial (rive) flood. Flood risk from major rivers is therefore considered to be very low. The site is bounded to the north by Roker Lane and there is therefore a risk of surface water flow into the site from this area during heavy rainfall. It is not possible to define the risk from groundwater flooding without undertaking consultation with the relevant authorities. Highways Access: The site benefits from a frontage onto Roker Lane at which access to the site could be provided. The Roker Lane access could be widened by demolishing the property at 19 Roker Lane, which is owned by the Trustees. Access to the site is currently taken from the south west corner at Hare Lane and could provide future access. Air Quality: The site is not located within a Leeds City Council designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The main source of air pollutants in the vicinity of the site is the local road network including Roker Lane to the north. There are no obvious industrial sources in the vicinity of the site. Noise: The potential constraints with regard to noise affecting the site are envisaged to be mainly due to traffic noise along Roker Lane. There are no incompatible uses surrounding or close to the site that would create noise nuisance.

How will constraint(s) be overcome?Ecology:In order to assess the site’s ecological value, an ecological walkover survey within the site boundaries (i.e. the application site itself and immediate land up to 50m from its boundaries) following the ‘Extended Phase 1’ methodology as set out in Guidelines for Baseline EcologicalAssessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys (JNCC, 1990) should be undertaken.This survey would provide information on the key habitats within the site boundaries and would identify the potential for notable fauna to occur in or adjacent to the site and as such determine the need for any further surveys (e.g. bats roosting in trees). Flood Risk: As the site is greenfield, it will be necessary to attenuate surface water runoff to current greenfield rates. This will require the use of sustainable

H10Question Ref:

512 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950


Representor No:

Name:


drainage systems, which may include soakaways (although these are unlikely to be viable if groundwater flooding is an issue) as well as attenuation ponds or other features. Early consideration of site drainage from the earliest stages of masterplanning is recommended. If groundwater flooding is proved to be a risk then it is usually relatively easy to address through scheme and residential unit design. Highways Access: Initial scoping discussions with the local highways authority regarding the type and location of the potential junction at Roker Lane is required. Also, highway boundary details would need to be obtained. Noise: A noise measurement survey would be required to verify the exact levels. The results of the noise survey may then be used to determine if measures are warranted to meet accepted standards of internal noise. Consideration must also be given to external noise levels in gardens or recreation areas.. The potential impact of this development at the site on road traffic flows along Roker Lane must also be considered to indicate if development at the site will, once complete, have any impact on ambient noise levels for existing properties in the area. Utility Easements: Foul drainage from the site will also need to be considered from an early stage. Early consultation should be undertaken with United Utilities in order to establish the location of the nearest acceptable connection points.

Planning permission (Outline or Full) 2014Demolition/clearance (if necessary) 2015Commencement on site 2016Completion 2020-2021Circa 30 units per annum. In line with Core Strategy Publication Draft Policy H3 ‘Density of Residential Development’ a housing density of 35 dwellings per hectare for ‘Fringe urban areas’ is suggested. Based on this figure, and a site area of 4.39 hectares, approximately 154 units would be delivered at the site.

Within the UDP Proposals Map, the Roker Lane site is allocated within Policy N1 ‘Green Space’ and Policy N37 ‘Special Landscape Area’. Policy N1 ‘Green Space’ states that: “Development of land identified on the Proposals Map and city centre inset map ii as protected greenspace, will not be permitted for purposes other than outdoor recreation, unless the need in the locality for greenspace is already met and a suitable alternative site can be identified and laid out as greenspace in an area of identified shortfall.” The principal of releasing Green Belt land for development to meet housing targets as set out in the Core Strategy Publication Draft is established in Core Strategy Publication Draft Spatial Policy 10 ‘Green Belt’. Whilst the Core Strategy is yet to be adopted, it is at an advanced stage (Publication Draft) and therefore greater weight should be afforded to its policies compared to a less advanced documents. This is in accordance with NPPF paragraph 216 which states that: “From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: o The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given)……” This means that the requirement to release Green Belt land to achieve Core Strategy policies is a significant material consideration.

Policy N37 ‘Special Landscape Area’ states that: “In the designated special landscape areas, development will be acceptable provided it would not seriously harm the character and appearance of the landscape. The siting, design and materials of any development must be sympathetic to its setting and, where necessary, landscaping of the site will be required.” Development at the Site would be designed to not seriously harm the character and appearance of the landscape and to be sympathetic to its setting. The Site was previously allocated within the Proposals Map as Policy N40 ‘Urban Fringe Priority Area’ but this policy was not saved.

NPPF Section 6 ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ paragraph 47 states that:“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: o Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; o Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land…;. o Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6 – 10 and, where possible, for years 11 – 15…” Footnote 11 with reference to paragraph 47 states that: “To be considered developable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable….” Footnote 12 with reference to paragraph 47 states that: “To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.”

Any site identified in the SHLAA should also be considered available and be able to be viably developed in order to be in conformity with the NPPF. The Roker Lane site is available for development given the owners’ aspiration to release the land for development. Therefore the Site can be considered to be available and could be viably developed in the short term. This provides further evidence, in addition to the undertaking of the Green Belt Review Methodology, that the Site should be considered a ‘green’ site. This means that we consider the Roker Lane site should be considered for development before any site identified as ‘amber’. In line with Core Strategy Publication Draft Policy H3 ‘Density of Residential Development’ a housing density of 35 dwellings per hectare for ‘Fringe urban areas’ is suggested. Based on this figure, and the Roker Lane site area of 4.39 hectares, approximately 154 units could be delivered at the Site.

The capacity of the sites identified as “sites which have the greatest potential to be allocated for housing” in the Site Allocations Plan totals 1,705 units. Even if all the sites were developed out, this would leave a shortfall of 955 units. If the Roker Lane site were to be included as a ‘green’ site, its development could contribute an additional 154 units which would reduce the deficit to 801. Furthermore, the Roker Lane site should be preferred to any site identified as ‘amber’ in the Site Allocation Plan (Plan 11.3 ‘Housing – Outer West’). Table 11.3.3 shows that o 1,705 units were identified as green, ie having the greatest potential to be allocated for housing; and o 1,860 units were identified as amber, ie having potential but issues or not as favoured as green sites Green and amber sites equate to 1,705 +1,860 = 3565 units. If all green sites area allocated, they would contribute 1,705 units, leaving a residual of 955 units. If all amber sites are also allocated there would be no requirement for further housing to be allocated. In response to Question H10, it is considered that the Roker Lane site has the potential to contribute to the residential housing target, as a category green site. The site has an area of 4.39ha. At 35 dwellings per hectare, the site has potential to deliver 154 units, increasing the number of green category units to 1,859. This wouldleave a further 801 houses to be identified from the amber category.

The assessment of sites against the purposes of Green Belts as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework has been carried out which has identified a number of sites that are suitable for Green Belt release. Main Urban Areas are the preferred locations for Green Belt release, and the Site sits in this area. The Site has not currently been identified in the Green Belt review as land available for Green Belt release. Jones Lang LaSalle has therefore conducted an assessment of the Roker Lane Site against the purposes of Green Belts within the NPPF as set out below in

513 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950


Representor No:

Name:


response to question H10. We consider the Roker Lane site to be suitable for future housing development and therefore should be considered as a future housing allocation. Furthermore, we consider that the Roker Lane site is suitable for allocation as a ‘green’ site and therefore a site which has greatest potential to be allocated for housing. The allocation of the Roker Lane site has the potential to make an important contribution to the delivery of housing and therefore make an important contribution to the soundness of the Site Allocations Plan. The Site is located at the southern edge of Pudsey, a Main Urban Area which:o would represent ‘infill’ and ‘rounding off’ development given the residential development to the west, north and east of the site;o has strong natural boundaries;o comprises grazing land; ando is available for immediate development given the owners’ aspiration to release the land for development.Furthermore:o development at the Site has a low potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl;o development of the Site would not result in the merging of settlements;the Site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;o development of the Site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features.The Green Belt Review Methodology undertaken by LCC has also been applied by Jones Lang LaSalle to the Roker Lane site, the details of which are set out below and which demonstrates that the Site should be considered as a ‘green’ site.

Purpose 1. Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areasThis is not the same as urban development per se. It is a judgement as to whether a development would result in inefficient use of land considering the following criteria:

i. Would development of the site lead to/constitute ribbon development?- No – It does not constitute ribbon development. The northern part of the Site provides potential for infill development. To the south of the Site, development would “round-off” the site as it there is a strong natural boundary. There is therefore low potential for unrestricted sprawl.

ii. Would development result in an isolated development site not connected to existing boundaries?No – Development at the Site would constitute “infill” and “rounding-off” development. There are strong boundaries on all sides with houses to the east, west and north. Roads extend on the north (Roker Lane) and west (Hare Lane) sides. To thesouth and east are strong tree-belts. Therefore development would not result in an isolated development site, not connected to existing boundaries. Indeed, the existing tree lined boundaries could be enhanced where necessary on the southern and eastern boundaries. Therefore there is low potential for unrestricted sprawl.

iii. Is the site well connected to the built up area? Does it have 2 or more boundaries with the existing built up area?Yes – the Site is well contained and strongly connected to the built up area, particularly onthe northern side with housing developments abutting the north, east and west of the Site.It also forms part of the Roker Lane corridor which is heavily built up on either side with local services off Roker Lane to the north. Therefore there is low potential for urban sprawl.

iv. Would development of the site effectively ‘round off’ the settlement pattern?Yes – Development of the Site would effectively “round-off” the settlement pattern as there are strongly defined boundaries around the entire site. The northern part of the Site is surrounded on three sides (north, east and west) by residential development. Therefore there is little potential for urban sprawl. The southern part of the site is defined by a strong tree lined boundary and the eastern boundary is predominantly bound by a heavy hedgerow and tree line thus ‘rounding off’ the settlement pattern.

v. Do natural and physical features (major road, river etc.) provide a good existing barrier between the existing urban area and undeveloped land, which if breached may set a precedent for unrestricted sprawl?Yes – Strong natural and physical features provide a good existing barrier between the existing urban area and undeveloped land. Strongly defined boundaries include a strongtree-belt to the south and hedgerows/trees and stonewalling along the east and west boundaries to the Site. Roker Lane bounds the Site to the north with Hare Lane along the southern end of the western boundary. Therefore there is little potential for urban sprawl, and minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. These strong boundaries would prevent any development within the parcel from encroaching beyond these boundaries.

2. Prevent neighbouring towns from merging.It is impossible to define a minimum distance that there should be between settlements. The important consideration is whether development would appear to result in the merger of built up areas. Topography and features such as rivers and major roads can act asbarriers preventing merging. The assessment therefore looks at:i. Do natural features and infrastructure provide a good physical barrier or boundary to the site that would ensure that development was contained.Yes – There are strong boundaries on all sides with houses to the east, west and north. Roads extend on the north and west sides. To the south is a strong tree-belt. Stonewalling, trees and shrubs line the southern and eastern boundaries. Therefore the strong boundaries of the Site perform a role in preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

ii. Would development of the site lead to physical connection of 2 or moresettlements?No – Development of the Site would form part of the Pudsey settlement area. Also, development of particularly the northern part of the Site would constitute infill developmentwith the rest of the site resulting in ‘rounding off’. The nearest settlement (as indicated onthe LCC UDP (Review 2006) Map 21) shows that the nearest settlement is New Farnley tothe south east of the Site. This is 2 km away and visually this provides a large expanse ofGreen Belt land beyond the southern boundary of the Site and New Farnley. This would mean development of the Site would not narrow, visually or physically, the Green Belt to any significant extent thus there is no potential that development of the Site would lead to the merging/physical connection of settlements.

3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachmentThis is an assessment as to the extent to which the Green Belt constitutes ‘open countryside’ from assessing countryside characteristics . If the site has any such characteristics it can be said to assist in safeguarding the countryside form encroachment.The characteristics are:i. Is there a strong, defensible boundary between the existing urban area and the site –

514 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950


Representor No:

Name:


wall, river, main road, etc. (as opposed to garden boundaries)No – currently the Green Belt boundary follows the site’s northern boundary and partof the western and eastern boundary. Although Roker Lane bounds the Site to thenorth this is a small proportion of the overall boundary and therefore less robustthan it could be. Jones Lang LaSalle acknowledges that the use of gardenboundaries is not as robust as utilising physical features such as roads, tree beltsetc and have the potential for encroachment into the Green Belt. The existing gardenboundaries which bound the western and eastern boundaries on the northern part ofthe site are a substantial part of the green belt boundary and substantial part of theRoker Lane site boundary. The ability for these boundaries to encroach upon theGreen Belt suggests that redefining along strong physical boundaries would providestronger potential to avoid encroachment of the Green Belt. The Green Belt boundarywould be more robust if redefined to follow the strong established tree belt andhedgerow boundaries to the south and east of the site which are recognisable andpermanent physical features forming the most substantial established boundarieswithin this part of the Green Belt. The established road along Hare Lane to thewest of the site forms an additional strong boundary beyond the gardens of existingproperties west of the site. The natural and established boundaries south and east of the site provide ‘physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to bepermanent’ as stated in the NPPF.

ii. Does the site provide access to the countryside – footpaths, bridleways across the land, or is it a designated park/greenspace?No – There are no known footpaths or bridleways across the Site with limitedaccessibility and it is not a designated park/greenspace. Furthermore, the Site issecured with stonewalling along Hare Lane and parts of the eastern boundary (withadditional barbed wiring in places) and established tree belts and further maturevegetation. Access to the site is very limited and therefore does not perform a role inproviding access to the countryside for the urban population and consequently does notperform a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

iii. Does the site include national or local nature conservation designated areas (SSSIs etc.)? No – therefore the site does not perform a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

iv. Does the site include areas of woodland, trees or hedgerows that are protected (protected ancient woodland) or significant unprotected tree/hedge cover.No – The main part of the sites does not include any areas of woodland, trees orhedgerows that are known to be protected. Nor does the Site comprise an area ofsignificant unprotected tree/hedge cover. The Site comprises an established tree-beltwhich forms a physical boundary south and east of the Site. There is a small row of treespartially delineating the small rectangular shaped piece of land at the south west of theSite. The majority of the site is grazing land with no merit for protection, therefore it doesnot form a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Any proposal for the site would maintain and enhance the existing tress and hedges which bound the site. The site therefore does not perform a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

v. Does the site include any best and most versatile; grade 1, 2 or 3a (where known) agricultural land?No – The Site comprises low grade agricultural grazing land. Therefore, the Site does not perform a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

vi. Does the site contain buildings? If yes, are these in agricultural use?Yes – An end-terrace property at the north east of the Site is included within the Site boundary. This property is owned by the Site owners and is occupied on a rental basis.Therefore, this provides the opportunity to demolish the property on expiry of the leasein order to widen the Site access from Roker Lane. This means that the development onthis part of the Site would be classed as brownfield rather than Greenfield development, so the Site would not perform a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic townsMost towns have an historic core, so this assessment focuses on whether a site is adjacent to a conservation area, listed building, historic park or garden or other features of historic significance. Where a site is adjacent to such a features, development may still beable to preserve the setting and special character if done sensitively through appropriate design. This is a matter of judgement at initial site selection stage.For the assessment:i. Is the site adjacent to a conservation area, listed building or other historical features?ii. If ‘yes’ could development preserve this character?No – the Site is not within or adjacent to a conservation area, listed building or otherhistorical features.

5. Assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.Not to be included within Green Belt assessment because the Core Strategy policies encourage regeneration within the urban area.

Overall conclusion from assessment against all four purposes of Green Belt and essential characteristics of openness and permanence:� Development at the site has a low potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl.� Development of the site would not result in the merging of settlements.� The site does not performs an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.� Development of the site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features.Based upon the methodology adopted by the City Council, the site can therefore be considered to be appropriate for release from the Green Belt for residential development.

515 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04950


Representor No:

Name:


Summary:Land off Roker Lane, Pudsey. 4.39 ha, capacity 154. Green Belt site. The site has good access with a road frontage to the north on Roker Lane with potential for access of Hare Lane as well. The site relates well to the existing built up area being surrounded to the west, north and east by residential properties. The site is bounded by strong physical boundaries by way of a strong tree belt, stone walling and further mature trees and heavy planting to the south, west and east. The site is therefore well contained. The land slopes gently south towards the south.

No comment regarding sites identified in the Site Allocation Plan. The Roker Lane site is available to come forward for development in the short term, i.e 0-5 years.

H11Question Ref:

The Roker Lane site could be considered suitable for use solely or in part for elderly housing accommodation, on the basis of its proximity to the existing settlement. Further details in respect of suitability of the site for release to develop in the green belt are provided in response to question H10.

H15Question Ref:

516 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS02860

Robert Utley

Representor No:

Name:


If the site at 823 is anything to go by this lovely place would become a horrific and ugly symbol of greed. It would be wonderful (with proper road crossing of course) if this could be made a park area with a spot for sledging since the site at 823 removed our only sloped land nearby

H1Question Ref:

The traffic and drainage issues associated with all the sites except 1232 should logically remove them from consideration. 1232 is the only site that would not affect the drainage and congestion issues we already have in the town, are you prepared to put childrens lives in danger so that developers can make more profit? think about it, this is a fact that should not be ignored or swept under the carpet.

H1Question Ref:

At present there is no reason to cross wakefield road so I am sure the accident/mortality figures there are currently low but building on 3112, 3111, 1100 and 1044 would change this so they should be left as the wonderful view across field with the beautiful walk along the top of the hill that I have regularly used and enjoyed throughout my life.

H1Question Ref:

The traffic and drainage issues associated with all the sites except 1232 should logically remove them from consideration. 1232 is the only site that would not affect the drainage and congestion issues we already have in the town, are you prepared to put childrens lives in danger so that developers can make more profit? think about it, this is a fact that should not be ignored or swept under the carpet.

H4Question Ref:

At present there is no reason to cross wakefield road so I am sure the accident/mortality figures there are currently low but building on 3112, 3111, 1100 and 1044 would change this so they should be left as the wonderful view across field with the beautiful walk along the top of the hill that I have regularly used and enjoyed throughout my life.

H4Question Ref:

If we have to choose a site the only one that could solve the housing shortage in the area is 1232, the array of design options and potential there is staggering, it could be divided up into sections and some set aside for smaller local developers and builders to boost the local economy. I am sure you are aware that big developers now employ craftsmen on a temporary basis so they have no responsibility for them long term. This means when this project is finished in a couple of years they will be unemployed again, who will be better off? Will house prices simply not steeply rise again?

H4Question Ref:

My main point I would like to make is that the developers should be forced to create large, useable greenspaces with and around their sites and that some plots of land I very strongly suggest be made available for self-build homes so other people can get the pleasure, contentment and output of creativity that I have had the privilege of having. Obviously this has been a challenge for me and hard work but I would like to volunteer to be on the committee mentioned by Councillor Mark Dobson to help wherever it is needed. This could make our town exceptional, inspirational and with the right ideas, planning and design quite possibly an exemplary model for the future.


I noticed that the population of Aberford (where there is to be no building) received letters notifying them of the proposals. In Garforth this was not the case, I would ask why?


517 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04708

Julie Varley

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

IT IS BEING SUGGESTED TO BUILD FURTHER HOUSING IN PUDSEY, WHICH IS ALREADY SUFFERING FROM OVERBUILD. THE SCHOOLS ESPECIALLY THE SECONDARY/ACADEMIES ARE ALREADY FULL AND CURRENT LOCAL RESIDENTS ALREADY FIND DIFFICULTY IN GETTING PLACES AT THESE CLOSEST SCHOOLS.

H1Question Ref:

SITE 2120 - OWLCOTES FARM / SITE 3440 OWLCOTES RESERVOIRCURRENT TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY AT PEAK TIMES IS ALREADY VERY BUSY AND QUEUES ARE DAILY. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WOULD MAKE THIS CURRENT SITUATION EVEN MORE INTOLLERABLE.

POLLUTION FROM INCREASED CARS AND NOISE FROM THE RELATED DEVELOPMENT WOULD VASTLY INCREASETRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE PAST THE RESERVOIR SITE DUE TO ALREADY HIGH VOLUMES OF TRAFFIC AND SPEED. ACCESS TO BOTHS SITES ESPECIALLY SITE 2120 WOULD BE DIRECTLY ONTO A VERY BUSY ROAD, WHICH

COULD PROVE FATAL.DEER HAVE MOVED ONTO LAND ADJOINING OWLCOTES FARM AND BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING WOULD SCARE THEN AND THERE YOUNG ONES AWAY.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

SITE 1073A - OWLCOTES FARM BATS ARE CURRENTLY AND HAVE BEEN NESTING ON THIS SITE FOR YEARS AND CAN BE SEEM ON A NIGHTLY BASIS. THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES AND PART OF THE LOCAL WILDLIFE WHICH IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP. DEER ARE ALSO LIVING ON ADJOINING LAND AND WOULD BE SCARED AWAY BY BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING. THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, NOISE AND POLLUTION THAT A DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE WOULD BE DETRAMENTAL TO ALL LOCAL

RESIDENTS.LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY FULL AND COULD NOT CATER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHILDREN. LOCAL SERVICES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE DECADES OLD PLAN TO KEEP A GREEN CORRIDOR BETWEEN LEEDS

AND BRADFORD? PUDSEY IS ALREADY SEEING MASSIVE OVERBUILD AND THIS IS CAUSING MANY ISSUES TO LOCAL RESIDENTS ALREADY LIVING HERE.

H4Question Ref:

1073A OWLCOTES FARM BATS ARE CURRENTLY AND HAVE BEEN NESTING ON THIS SITE FOR YEARS AND CAN BE SEEN ON A NIGHTLY BASIS. THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES AND PART OF THE LOCAL WILDLIFE WHICH IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP. DEER ARE NOW ALSO ON ADJOINING LAND, THIS WILDLIFE WOULD BE SCARED AWAY BY BUILDING NOISE AND THEN PERMANENT INCREASE IN POLLUTION AND NOISE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, NOISE AND POLLUTION THAT A DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE WOULD BE

DETRAMENTAL TO ALL LOCAL RESIDENTS.LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY FULL AND COULD NOT CATER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHILDREN. LOCAL SERVICES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE DECADES OLD PLAN TO KEEP A

GREEN CORRIDOR BETWEEN LEEDS AND BRADFORD? PUDSEY IS ALREADY SEEING MASSIVE OVERBUILD AND THIS IS CAUSING MANY ISSUES TO LOCAL RESIDENTS ALREADY LIVING HERE.

H5Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

1073B OWLCOTES FARM, PUDSEYSITE ACCESS, ALREADY OVER BUILD IN PUDSEY. SHORTAGE OF SCHOOL PLACES. CUREENT TRAFFIC ISSUES AND ADDITIONAL POLLUTION AND NOISE.

H7Question Ref:

1073B OWLCOTES FARM, PUDSEYBATS ARE CURRENTLY LIVING IN BUILDING ON THIS SITE AND HAVE BEEN NESTING ON THIS SITE FOR YEARS AND CAN BE SEEM ON A NIGHTLY BASIS. THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES AND PART OF THE LOCAL WILDLIFE WHICH IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP. THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, NOISE AND POLLUTION THAT A DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE

WOULD BE DETRAMENTAL TO ALL LOCAL RESIDENTS.LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY FULL AND COULD NOT CATER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHILDREN. LOCAL SERVICES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE DECADES OLD PLAN TO

KEEP A GREEN CORRIDOR BETWEEN LEEDS AND BRADFORD? PUDSEY IS ALREADY SEEING MASSIVE OVERBUILD AND THIS IS CAUSING MANY ISSUES TO LOCAL RESIDENTS ALREADY LIVING HERE.

H8Question Ref:

There are a lot of brownfield sites in south leeds and stourton with much better road access that are more suitable.

H10Question Ref:

ALL SITE IN THE PUDSEY AREA NEED TO BE RE-THOUGHT CAREFULLY AS PUDSEY IS GETTING OVER BUILD AND THE TRAFFIC CoNGESTION IS BECOMING A REAL ISSUE. LOCAL SCHOOLS ARE ALL FULL AND CURRENT RESIDENTS CANNOT GET THEIR CHILDREN INTO NEARBY SCHOOLS.

H11Question Ref:

518 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04708

Julie Varley

Representor No:

Name:


NONE. there is already a site in Mary Street, Bradford in the locality.

H12Question Ref:

GYPSIES MAKE THEIR OWN ILLEGAL SITES TO AVOID PAYING RENT, THERE ARE PLENTY OF OFFICIAL SPACES.

H13Question Ref:

NONE, ALREADY OVERCROWDED

H14Question Ref:

BUILDINBG OF ANY KIND BRINGS INCREASED TRAFFIC AND NOISE AND STRECHES FURTHER LOCAL SERVICES.

H15Question Ref:

This website is not the easiest to find on the council's website , is this deliberate?


519 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01826

C Waites

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

520 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05632

Jeanette & Geoff Walker

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121I am writing in respect of the proposals for a residential development for the land oppositeKirklees Knoll.We object strongly to having any development of this land and would like this to return tothe green belt. We have had enough development in the area and the open land isdisappearing fast.The local traffic system will not be able to cope with extra houses being built in the area. Thelocal Ring Road is extremely busy now at all times and will be even busier when the housesare built on the old Sandoz site at nearby Horsforth. Our Town Street is now very busy andyou often have to wait to get up or down when a bus is coming through or a truck.The local schools will not be able to cope with the extra pupils that would need places iffurther houses are built in the area and the local Doctors surgeries will be pressed to copewith extra patients.

H4Question Ref:

521 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05990

John Walls

Representor No:

Name:


11142121I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed housing developments on both the above sites. Farsley is already creaking at the seams due to more than enough housing developments over the past years. Further house building on these two sites would place unacceptable strains on the infrastructure of Farsley--schools/parks/medical facilities etc; as well as significantly increasing the volume of traffic on the already crowded village roads and adjacent ring road. Once the housing development on the old Clariant/Sandoz site is completed, the additional traffic that it will bring to the ring road, coupled with what would be many hundreds of further vehicles if these two additional housing developments were to proceed; would be a recipe for a log jam of traffic on this already overburdened section of the ring road--together with associated increased levels of air pollution, which may well then exceed acceptable limits.

Why does it seem to be a “given” that Leeds must continue to grow inexorably towards becoming a Megatropolis ? Has this rate of growth ever been put to a citizen’s vote? Big is not necessarily beautiful! The fields on the sites 1114 and 2121 should form part of the Green Belt “lung” of the city of Leeds, and these precious, dwindling acres, should be protected against the ravages of “development.”

H4Question Ref:

522 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05990

John Walls

Representor No:

Name:


SITE 1114 AND SITE 2121.I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed housing developments on both the above sites.Farsley is already creaking at the seams due to more than enough housing developments over the past years. Further house building on these two sites would place unacceptable strains on the infrastructure of Farsley--schools/parks/medical facilities etc; as well as significantly increasing the volume of traffic on the already crowded village roads and adjacent ring road.Once the housing development on the old Clariant/Sandoz site is completed, the additional traffic that it will bring to the ring road, coupled with what would be many hundreds of further vehicles if these two additional housing developments were to proceed; would be a recipe for a log jam of traffic on this already overburdened section of the ring road--together with associated increased levels of air pollution, which may well then exceed acceptable limits.Why does it seem to be a “given” that Leeds must continue to grow inexorably towards becoming a Megatropolis ? Has this rate of growth ever been put to a citizen’s vote? Big is not necessarily beautiful!The fields on the sites 1114 and 2121 should form part of the Green Belt “lung” of the city of Leeds, and these precious, dwindling acres, should be protected against the ravages of “development.”

H4Question Ref:

523 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01780

J Walton

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

524 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00020

Joe & M Catherine Welsh

Representor No:

Name:


2121, 1110 & 1114 - I would like to object to the proposed housing developments at Kirkless Knoll and Calverley Lane which will be on green belt land. As a resident of Farsley I greatly value these green fields as an essential part of our locality. I enjoy seeing horses in these fields and would

miss their absence greatly.The traffic congestion these developments would cause would be horrendous. Local schools would be put under extreme pressure by the increase in the number of local children. I know that my views are shared by most of my neighbours.Yours sincerely

H4Question Ref:

525 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01796

S Welsh

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

526 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05647

Martin Westman

Representor No:

Name:


Objecting to 1110, 1114, 2121I write today to object to the planning application for KirkleesKnoll.Kirklees Knoll is currently valuable farmland and forms part of the important greenspace between Leeds and Bradford. Its loss would significantly decrease the green spacebetween the two cities. Changing the ecology of the area would affect the viability of theexisting farm. Social facilities such as the schools in Farsley are already overstretchedand traffic congestion is causing major problems. Another 500 + houses in this locationwould clearly exacerbate the existing problems.

H4Question Ref:

527 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01785

K Whale

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

528 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04731

Fiona Wharton

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

Well spread around the area with direct access to major roads in general .

H1Question Ref:

No

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

1202 - reasons - large development with access through residential family area. Already hugely congested area around tnewlaithes primary school with dangerous traffic congestion at school drop off pick up times . Terraced and semi housing on Victoria's and newlaithes roads have limited drive space so most houses have at least 1 car parked on road making these streets often impassible for residents and access is very poor . The horsforh roundabout A65 route is grid locked around rush hour - a situation which will only get worse when the green allocations of kirkstall forge and calverley lane developments take place . Adding even more housing to filter onto this already congested route will cripple the roads . The doctors surgery on new roadside cannot cope with the number of residents in this area and the local primary schools have already expanded so can't take more children . Furthermore the area is highly valued as recreational land which is well used by families . It has a vast diversity of plant and animal life and its destruction would takeaway this area of natural beauty. Lastly, we fear for the safety of our children by having a greater volume of traffic condensed into a small compact network of streets which are on hills. The hills cause cars to generate more speed!

H4Question Ref:

Non

H6Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

626 - kirkstall short term should be developed with a train station as large site close to town with station would be ideal for commute and not add to traffic congestion in horsforth

H11Question Ref:

No!

H12Question Ref:

4094

H13Question Ref:

No


529 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04446

Katrina Whitbread

Representor No:

Name:


n

H1Question Ref:

The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing

impact.The site access would not be in accordance with acceptable standards and would lead to potential safety hazards.

H1Question Ref:

1200A please see above, in addition the ground in the area is severely waterlogged during prolonged wet times and building on the land behind would make the situation considerably worse

H2Question Ref:

3387,1112,343 & 3007 would it seem have minimal impact on residents and most of it is set in an industrial area

H3Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

3387,1112,343 & 3007/3039 would it seem have minimal impact on residents and most of it is set in an industrial area

H6Question Ref:

n

H7Question Ref:

3387,1112,343 & 3007/3039 would it seem have minimal impact on residents and most of it is set in an industrial area

H7Question Ref:

1200AThe proposal by reason of the overall floor area created and in the absence of any very special circumstances would lead to an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt, detrimental to its open, rural and undeveloped character.

H8Question Ref:

1200AThe proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt and in the absence of any special circumstances would by its inappropriateness have a harmful impact on the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.

H9Question Ref:

please see response in H6

H10Question Ref:

medium/long 3039

H11Question Ref:

3007/3039

H12Question Ref:

I think the council have been totally inadequate in their duty to ensure that every one that is effected by this has been informed. I myself found out via a 3rd party and when I rang to enquire the person I spoke to was not only unhelpful but obstructive. This is obviously a very sensitive issue and every effort should be made to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to register their views.


530 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04446

Katrina Whitbread

Representor No:

Name:


The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt and in the absence of any special circumstances would by its inappropriateness have a harmful impact on the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.

G1Question Ref:

n

G2Question Ref:

y

G3Question Ref:

3039,3007 &343

G3Question Ref:

y

G4Question Ref:

y

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:


G12Question Ref:

The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt and in the absence of any special circumstances would by its inappropriateness have a harmful impact on the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.I do not understand why this land was

not classed as open green space as to my knowledge is and always has been.

G12Question Ref:

531 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00671

Helen Widdas

Representor No:

Name:


No to building. Green land should remain. Traffic issue on existing roads. Local schools and services cannot cope. No No No No to Building.

H1Question Ref:

Green fields esential to urban area. Building takes land between Bradford and Leeds. Roads cannot cope with extra traffic from existing housing developments at Cemetery Road nad Waterloo Road. Schools, doctors etc under pressure.

H1Question Ref:

Keep the Green Belt. We need fields and trees. Who are these houses being built for? Pudsey, Leeds, Yorksire and Britain under pressure from excessive immigration - where are the jobs, schools, hospitals for extra population?

H4Question Ref:

Keep the Green Belt. We need fields and trees. Who are these houses being built for? Pudsey, Leeds, Yorksire and Britain under pressure from excessive immigration - where are the jobs, schools, hospitals for extra population?

H7Question Ref:

532 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS00391

Susan Wiggins

Representor No:

Name:


2123 – 1.This land was mined several years agoand there are underground mines / spings at the back of our house and especially near 636 Whitehall

Road. These were made aware to us when we bought our house. Building and disruption would cause land movement affecting our rear gardens / houses? A response is required personally to me.

2.2. Due to the drainage of the fields, it becomes very waterlogged at the bottom of the fields leading on to the rear of Castle Ings Gardens. 3.The roads throughout the village - Low Moor Side, Lawns Lane leading to Old Farnley, Low Moor side to Walsh Lane and leading to Back

Lane cannot cope now with the volume of traffic. If the lights stop working at Woodcock, the road in front of my house leading onto Walsh Lane is used as a quick option to get onto Back Lane now.

4.Recent speed limit changes on Whitehall Road, to 40 mph have not made any difference to speeds of motorists. 5.The schools (Primary / High Schools) have been extended already and are oversubscribed. The bus service is very poor serving New Farnley

to Gildersome, Morley and the volume of cars by these house proposals would make the roads more dangerous. Are more schools proposed too?! 6.The amenities i.e. shops and doctors are limited and would not be sufficient to cater for the increase in residents. 7.The increase in burglaries due to the build up of large housing estates 8.The time taken and the large vehicles using our small roads whilst building work may be in progress.

H4Question Ref:

533 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01685

Wilby

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

534 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01714

Deidre Williams

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

535 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01775

Kathleen Williams

Representor No:

Name:


1124 -Leeds Local Development Plan- CalverleyTo whom it may concernI am in receipt of the consultation advice and area map showing areas of possible/potential future developments in Calverley, and I am writing to record my opposition to anyfuture development of our precious "green areas".I have lived in Calverley for over 40 years and enjoy and am fiercely protective of ourunspoilt village with its many thriving community facilities. Over the years there have beensmall pockets of developments which,in the main,have been absorbed within the village.However, any future major development or sprawl would have a negative and detrimentaleffect. Local schools are already full to capacity. Doctors and dentists have long waitingtimes for appointments. Traffic is at saturation point, especially at "rush hours", when it is adaily event for traffic to be at a standstill on major routes causing the village roads tobecome dangerous rat runs.I am passionate about our village and want to do all within my power to retain thecharacter and charm for our community and not see our green spaces further disappearingby being covered by any future new build.We are already facing a knock on effect from the extensive development of the formerSandoz site, which will inevitably add to the traffic problems.In summary I strongly oppose the development plan in all of the coloured areas.On a personal note, I live at No. 5 Foxholes Crescent, which is situated directly oppositethe only feasible entry to Areas 1123A and 1123B.Should these areas be developed therewould be great concern on many related issues, not least the drainage of the land andremoval of sewage from this sloping site.My neighbours and myself already have issues in heavy rainfall with water pouring out ofthe land and into our gardens. Imagine what would happen to sewage from some 200+homes on the same land!.

H1Question Ref:

1123A / 4049 / 1193ALeeds Local Development Plan- CalverleyTo whom it may concernI am in receipt of the consultation advice and area map showing areas of possible/potential future developments in Calverley, and I am writing to record my opposition to anyfuture development of our precious "green areas".I have lived in Calverley for over 40 years and enjoy and am fiercely protective of ourunspoilt village with its many thriving community facilities. Over the years there have beensmall pockets of developments which,in the main,have been absorbed within the village.However, any future major development or sprawl would have a negative and detrimentaleffect. Local schools are already full to capacity. Doctors and dentists have long waitingtimes for appointments. Traffic is at saturation point, especially at "rush hours", when it is adaily event for traffic to be at a standstill on major routes causing the village roads tobecome dangerous rat runs.I am passionate about our village and want to do all within my power to retain thecharacter and charm for our community and not see our green spaces further disappearingby being covered by any future new build.We are already facing a knock on effect from the extensive development of the formerSandoz site, which will inevitably add to the traffic problems.In summary I strongly oppose the development plan in all of the coloured areas.On a personal note, I live at No. 5 Foxholes Crescent, which is situated directly oppositethe only feasible entry to Areas 1123A and 1123B.Should these areas be developed therewould be great concern on many related issues, not least the drainage of the land andremoval of sewage from this sloping site.My neighbours and myself already have issues in heavy rainfall with water pouring out ofthe land and into our gardens. Imagine what would happen to sewage from some 200+homes on the same land!.

H4Question Ref:

536 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01775

Kathleen Williams

Representor No:

Name:


1117 / 1123B / 4050 -Leeds Local Development Plan- CalverleyTo whom it may concernI am in receipt of the consultation advice and area map showing areas of possible/potential future developments in Calverley, and I am writing to record my opposition to anyfuture development of our precious "green areas".I have lived in Calverley for over 40 years and enjoy and am fiercely protective of ourunspoilt village with its many thriving community facilities. Over the years there have beensmall pockets of developments which,in the main,have been absorbed within the village.However, any future major development or sprawl would have a negative and detrimentaleffect. Local schools are already full to capacity. Doctors and dentists have long waitingtimes for appointments. Traffic is at saturation point, especially at "rush hours", when it is adaily event for traffic to be at a standstill on major routes causing the village roads tobecome dangerous rat runs.I am passionate about our village and want to do all within my power to retain thecharacter and charm for our community and not see our green spaces further disappearingby being covered by any future new build.We are already facing a knock on effect from the extensive development of the formerSandoz site, which will inevitably add to the traffic problems.In summary I strongly oppose the development plan in all of the coloured areas.On a personal note, I live at No. 5 Foxholes Crescent, which is situated directly oppositethe only feasible entry to Areas 1123A and 1123B.Should these areas be developed therewould be great concern on many related issues, not least the drainage of the land andremoval of sewage from this sloping site.My neighbours and myself already have issues in heavy rainfall with water pouring out ofthe land and into our gardens. Imagine what would happen to sewage from some 200+homes on the same land!.

H7Question Ref:

537 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03249

David Wilson

Representor No:

Name:


n

G2Question Ref:

n

G3Question Ref:

2120

G3Question Ref:

n

G4Question Ref:

This site in paricular has been allowed to deteriorate by the owner in order to apple for housing use and 'make a killing' on the land value if changed of use to housing.This is the only green area left this side of the main Bradford Road.It has main electricity pylon running

across the land, and most people are very apprehensive of the living beneath the wires.

G4Question Ref:

n

G5Question Ref:

As previously stated this land has deliberately allowed to deteriorate for reasons of land value

G5Question Ref:

y

G6Question Ref:

As the area is very built up with 2 very major developments and 3 other smaller house building units the pressure on local schools in particular is extreme, also the local doctors are not accepting futher patients to their roll.We need to keep all greenspace for the benefit of future

generations.

G7Question Ref:

n

CCG1Question Ref:

n

CCG2Question Ref:

0

G9Question Ref:

0

G10Question Ref:


G8Question Ref:


G9Question Ref:


G10Question Ref:


G11Question Ref:


G12Question Ref:

538 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS03249

David Wilson

Representor No:

Name:



G13Question Ref:


G14Question Ref:


G15Question Ref:

We feel it essential that the green spaces, particularly in otherwise heavily populated areas, are kept as green spaces


539 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05100

Ian Wilson

Representor No:

Name:


1193A Land at Rodley Lane/Calverley Lane - Amber to RedIn some respects I am pleased to see that 1193b has the status "Sites not consideredsuitable to allocate housing", but believe 1193a should have the same status.To declare my interest, I am resident of Brookfield Gardens and the rear of my propertyis adjacent to 1193a. As such I would prefer not to have a development replacing thecountryside we overlook.However, my concerns are not purely self centred. Both sites together form part of theonly remaining green corridor between north and south Leeds and Bradford. To theEast, Rodley, Farsley and Bramley and to the West, Calverley then Greengates and Idleare urbanised areas forming effective barriers to the movement of wild animals. Thereisn't another corridor of green space between Leeds and Bradford - very easy to see inGoogle Earth.We regularly see a wide variety of species from bats, Tawny Owls, Kestrals and Heronsthrough to Foxes, Hedgehogs and the occasional deer. I do not think the diversity ofanimal life would continue in the area from site 1193 to the A647 road unless thiscorridor remains in place.Please consider carefully the impact on the wildlife, and the objection of residents whenreviewing the planning status of both 1193a and 1193b. There are more obvious brownfield sites and sites already in urban areas which could be developed, even if at a highercost, before we lose this important area.To be clear this is an objection to the development of 1193a and 1193b. A responsestating how this can be progress and details of any processes leading to a decisionwould be appreciated.

H4Question Ref:

1193B Land at Rodley Lane/Calverley Lane - RedIn some respects I am pleased to see that 1193b has the status "Sites not consideredsuitable to allocate housing", but believe 1193a should have the same status.To declare my interest, I am resident of Brookfield Gardens and the rear of my propertyis adjacent to 1193a. As such I would prefer not to have a development replacing thecountryside we overlook.However, my concerns are not purely self centred. Both sites together form part of theonly remaining green corridor between north and south Leeds and Bradford. To theEast, Rodley, Farsley and Bramley and to the West, Calverley then Greengates and Idleare urbanised areas forming effective barriers to the movement of wild animals. Thereisn't another corridor of green space between Leeds and Bradford - very easy to see inGoogle Earth.We regularly see a wide variety of species from bats, Tawny Owls, Kestrals and Heronsthrough to Foxes, Hedgehogs and the occasional deer. I do not think the diversity ofanimal life would continue in the area from site 1193 to the A647 road unless thiscorridor remains in place.Please consider carefully the impact on the wildlife, and the objection of residents whenreviewing the planning status of both 1193a and 1193b. There are more obvious brownfield sites and sites already in urban areas which could be developed, even if at a highercost, before we lose this important area.To be clear this is an objection to the development of 1193a and 1193b. A responsestating how this can be progress and details of any processes leading to a decisionwould be appreciated.

H7Question Ref:

540 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05929

Ronald Woodhouse

Representor No:

Name:


4046Regarding the plan to allow the building of up to 89 houses on the site next to Daleside Road Pudsey. On behalf of my Wife and myself, plus the responses received from a local residents meeting and from the discussions at recent Neighbourhood Watch meetings.We would like to object to this plan. The access to the site would be exclusively through Daleside Road which is currently with the Chatsworth Estate part of the "Rat Run" for traffic trying to avoid the roundabout at the junction of Bradford Road dual carriageway with Galloway Lane. This increase in traffic volume would be very detrimental to the existing residents. Apart from the loss of the long established Green Zone definition of the land you should be aware that there are a number of areas where groundwater springs come to the surface plus the existing routing of a major Gas pipeline through the land would adversely affect the safety of the houses built over it. I believe that it would be possible to re-route the pipeline, but the alternative route seems to be down the centre of Daleside Road itself, which would be a very difficult, long and disruptive process.

H4Question Ref:

541 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS04464

Laura Wood

Representor No:

Name:


y

H1Question Ref:

They are in the main small areas that are surrounded by existing housing and have ready road access / facilities nearby. However I think that areas which have already been given the go ahead for development (such as Kirkstall Forge) should be developed first and that brown field sites / restoration of existing derelict buildings should be completed first before consideration of losing any further green areas.

H1Question Ref:

1202 should not be built on. This is the only large open playing area with easy access for local children. It is opposite Newlaithes Primary school and is extremely well used by the children of the local area. It's loss would be a terrible blow to the area.

H2Question Ref:

n

H4Question Ref:

y

H7Question Ref:

They are open areas that are important to the character of the area and / or back onto open park land or fields. They do not have nearby infrastructure to support housing development and therefore would require disruptive new road systems and facilities.

H7Question Ref:

1202 Newlaithes Fields opposite Newlaithes Primary School should be considered unsuitable for development. This is a very important site for the character of the area and is well used by local children and families. It would also add extra strain on an already busy school and traffic dangers if developed. It should be allocated as a public park.

H9Question Ref:

There are lots of areas in North Leeds that have already been granted planning permissions and yet years later no building work has happened. These sites should be developed first and the impact on the local roads and facilities taken into account before any more sites are developed.

H11Question Ref:

Possibly 1053a / 1053b. Sites should be provided for traveller communities and be kept in good repair with decent facilities.

H12Question Ref:

542 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05945

Wortlea Estates

Representor No:

Name:


Site 3458

Whilst the Council has sieved out the Wood End Farm site (ref: 3458) and therefore no assessment of the site has been undertaken by the Council, it is maintained the site is one which has the greatest potential to be allocated (green) or at the very least it should be identified as an amber site.

This site is suitable for housing development, it would form an extension to the settlement of New Farnley and technical supporting reports have been prepared and submitted to the Council (detailed in the next section of this representation statement) which demonstrate there are no development constraints.

The NPPF, at paragraph 52, specifically supports extensions to existing villages and towns, advising the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development through such extensions. The Wood End Farm site would result in a sustainable urban extension to New Farnley. The site is well located for access to employment opportunities in Leeds, lies on an existing bus route and is within easy walking distance of shops and services within the settlement, including a co-op foodstore, post office, two primary schools and a senior school.

On the basis of the evidence set out in this statement, it is maintained this site is one which has the greatest potential to be allocated and therefore the site should be identified as a green site, or at the very least, an amber site.


H1Question Ref:

Site 3458

Whilst the Council has sieved out the Wood End Farm site (ref: 3458) and therefore no assessment of the site has been undertaken by the Council, it is maintained the site is one which has the greatest potential to be allocated (green) or at the very least it should be identified as an amber site.

This site is suitable for housing development, it would form an extension to the settlement of New Farnley and technical supporting reports have been prepared and submitted to the Council (detailed in the next section of this representation statement) which demonstrate there are no development constraints.

The NPPF, at paragraph 52, specifically supports extensions to existing villages and towns, advising the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development through such extensions. The Wood End Farm site would result in a sustainable urban extension to New Farnley. The site is well located for access to employment opportunities in Leeds, lies on an existing bus route and is within easy walking distance of shops and services within the settlement, including a co-op foodstore, post office, two primary schools and a senior school.

On the basis of the evidence set out in this statement, it is maintained this site is one which has the greatest potential to be allocated and therefore the site should be identified as a green site, or at the very least, an amber site.


H4Question Ref:

543 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS05945

Wortlea Estates

Representor No:

Name:


Site 3458

The Wood End Farm site has not been considered as a future allocation, it was sieved out of the assessment process. We consider the site should have been assessed and that the site was either removed in error as a result of the site being split between two housing market characteristic areas or as a result of the Council taking an inconsistent approach. This site should be considered as a future housing allocation.

The Council’s assessment suggests the site is not within the settlement hierarchy. We do not support the Council’s reasoning in relation to this site. The Wood End Farm site directly adjoins the settlement of New Farnley at its southern extent. The site lies to the south of Whitehall Road where there are residential dwellings to the north, east and west. It is therefore questioned how the Council can conclude the site is not within the settlement hierarchy, when the site sits adjacent to the settlement limits of New Farnley, which forms part of the Leeds Main Urban Area.

The Council’s reasoning cannot be as a result of the site sitting outside, but adjoining the settlement limits, as the vast majority of sites assessed are ones which adjoin the existing built up settlement boundaries of Leeds and its outlying towns / villages.

Similarly, the site cannot have been ruled out because of it sitting to the south of Whitehall Road, not least because there are already residential dwellings on the southern side of Whitehall Road, but principally because the Council has assessed the sites at Harpers Farm, South of Whitehall Road (Ref: 1171A) and Craven Park (Ref: 2159), which sits to the south of the Harpers Farm site. These two sites are materially no different in locational terms to the Wood End Farm site. All of these sites sit to the south of Whitehall Road and would form an extension to the existing settlement limits of New Farnley. The Council has therefore been wholly inconsistent in their approach in sieving out the Wood End Farm site when the Harpers Farm and Craven Park sites were assessed.

A further example is the land at Whitehall Road, Gildersome (Ref: 3001). This site lies to the south west of the Wood End Farm site. In viewing this site on the Outer West map, it appears to bear no relation to any settlement, yet it has been assessed. This site also sits on the edge of the Outer West area, and it would seem the site has been promoted as an extension to the settlement of Gildersome, yet it does not directly adjoin the existing settlement boundary and as such the Council could have readily concluded this site is not within the settlement hierarchy and sieved it out, but this site was assessed.

There would appear to be no logical reason for the Council having concluded the site is not within the settlement hierarchy, given it lies adjacent to the settlement limits of New Farnley and would therefore form an extension to this settlement and in this regard it is no different to the vast number of urban extension sites the Council has assessed. It is considered the site could have only been ‘sieved out’ in error, as a result of the Council first reviewing the site in the context of its position on the Outer South West map without having reassessed its location in the context of the Outer West map.

As a result of the location of the Outer South West and Outer West housing characteristic market area boundaries, the site is split into two, with the northern part of the site lying within the Outer West area and the southern part of the site lying within the Outer West area. Viewing the site only in the context of the Outer South West area map, the site would appear to bear no relation to any settlement. It is therefore considered the site was sieved out on this basis, without the Council having identified the site extended further northwards with the northern boundary of the site directly adjoining the settlement of New Farnley. It is therefore considered the site was sieved out prior to it being assessed in the context of the Outer West Housing Area, where it directly adjoins an existing settlement.

If it is not the case the site has been removed in error, then it is maintained there is no justification for sieving out this site, given it directly adjoins New Farnley and particularly when considered in the context of the sites the Council has assessed.

On the basis of the evidence set out, it is maintained the Wood End Farm site should not have been sieved out and therefore the site should be assessed prior to the next consultation stage to enable its consideration as a suitable housing allocation which would enable the extension of New Farnley.


H10Question Ref:

Site 3458

The Wood End Farm site (ref: 3458) should be developed in the short term. The site is deliverable in the short term as it is available now, it offers a suitable location for development now and is achievable, as there is a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered within five years.

H11Question Ref:

544 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01706

Jack Wright

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

545 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01767

S Wright

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

546 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01769

D Wright

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

547 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01460

Paul Young

Representor No:

Name:


2123 - Amber to Red (Assumed)The proposed housing to be built will spoil our beautiful view and the wildlife will go. The roads are too narrow for such a big development. Our house price might drop as we will be living in the middle of a housing estate instead of the countryside. And the disruption during the long time it will take to construct the new houses. This development is not a good thing for the people who already live here.

H4Question Ref:

548 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01460

Paul Young

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

549 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01770

C Young

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

550 of 551

Outer West Comments

PRS01773

M Young

Representor No:

Name:



H4Question Ref:

551 of 551