METHODOLOGY PAPER - Wakefield

WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

METHODOLOGY PAPER

SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT Andrew Wallhead Corporate Director, Regeneration, Culture & Sport Wakefield Metropolitan District Council May 2009

Methodology Paper, May 2009

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 2 POLICY BACKGROUND 3 SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY 4 HOUSING METHODOLOGY 5 GREEN BELT METHODOLOGY 6 EMPLOYMENT METHODOLOGY 7 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY 8 SETTLEMENT METHODOLOGY

2

Wakefield Metropolitan District - Local Development Framework, May 2009


1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Purpose of this Document This document sets out the methodologies used in assessing policies and proposals during the preparation of Wakefield’s Local Development Framework (LDF). This is one of a number of technical papers that have been produced to provide evidence to support the Site Specific Proposals document. Technical papers on Settlement Appraisal, Housing and Employment have been produced for the Core Strategy and Development Policies Documents. These also provide the background for the preparation of the Site Specific Proposals document. The Site Specific Proposals document will provide the broad details of proposals for sites in terms of the nature of the land use and the location and extent of the development. The document will:

• set out the policies and proposals to achieve the spatial vision and spatial development strategy for Wakefield District which is set out in the Core Strategy;

• meet the objectives designed to achieve the vision and accommodate the anticipated need for new development, including that needed to deliver the Community Strategy;

• identify the scale, type and location of new development and transport investment, and the geographic areas within which development policies will apply; and

• include Proposals Maps showing land allocations and designations within Wakefield District with the exception of the central Wakefield area (which is covered in the Central Wakefield Area Action Plan).

1.2 Saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies Eventually, the LDF will fully replace the UDP as part of the statutory development plan for Wakefield District. However, until all the LDF documents are in place, some parts of the UDP have been ‘saved’ to ensure comprehensive planning policy coverage remains in place. Saved parts of the UDP remain in force and will be used in determining planning applications until replaced. Details of which policies and proposals in the UDP are saved after 27 September 2007 are referred to in the Local Development Scheme and are listed in the Direction issued by the Secretary of State, both these documents can be viewed and downloaded from the LDF web page [www.wakefield.gov.uk/ldf]. 1.3 Stakeholder Engagement This methodology document has been prepared alongside a number of key stakeholders. Five working groups have been set up to discuss and guide the content of this document as follows:

• Technical Stakeholder Group • Developer/Landowner Group • Wakefield MDC Internal Officer Group • Community Representative Group • Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Group

Presentations and briefings were given to the working groups between February and March 2009. A draft version of the Site Methodology was circulated to members of the working groups between 27 February 2009 and 13 March 2009 and comments have been taken into account in this final version. A summary of the comments received together with the Council’s

3



response has been produced as a separate document and available upon request. A list of the members of each working group can be found in the Appendix. 2.0 POLICY BACKGROUND 2.1 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and the Humber (May 2008) sets out the broad strategy for development, setting the priorities in terms of location and scale of development across the region. The spatial strategy sets out a sequential approach to development and aims to focus growth and development within the main urban areas of the region with smaller scale development in coalfield and market towns and more limited development within villages where it meets local needs. RSS aims to ensure that development across the whole region follows sustainable development patterns and that a consistent approach is adopted by local authorities in the region to make this happen. RSS sets out a hierarchy of settlement types within the region:

• Regional Cities • Sub Regional Cities and Towns • Principal Towns • Local Service Centres

RSS identifies Wakefield as a Sub Regional City and seeks to enhance its role as a focus for growth within the Leeds City Region. The towns of Castleford and Pontefract are identified as Principal Towns. Sub Regional Cities will be the prime focus for housing, employment, shopping, education, health and cultural facilities within the district, while Principal Towns will be the main local focus for such services. Wakefield District has been designated as a Regeneration Priority Area in RSS. The key messages for Wakefield District are as follows:

• development should be focussed within the main urban areas of the district, principally the Sub Regional City of Wakefield and the Principal Towns of Castleford and Pontefract;

• links between settlements as well as adjoining authorities such as Barnsley, Selby and Leeds should be reinforced and strengthened and other regionally significant regeneration areas;

• recognise its role in delivering growth within the Leeds City Region and reaping the benefits of the Leeds economy (the pre eminent centre within the sub region) especially in terms of inward investment, connectivity and regeneration;

• prioritise investment and regeneration on the Principal Towns in the former coalfiield areas; and

• development in smaller settlements and villages should be limited to meet local needs. West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan The Local Transport Plan for West Yorkshire 2006/07– 2010/11 contains the detailed strategy, policies, proposals and programme for investment in transport. It is structured around four shared priorities: accessibility, congestion, road safety and air quality; and an additional priority for asset management. It sets out an accessibility strategy that identifies initial priorities and actions based around access to health facilities, access to local shops/centres, access to

4



employment and rural areas. In particular, it seeks to embed accessibility issues in the LDF as a key means of reducing social exclusion. Wakefield Community Strategy The Community Strategy Developing Knowledge Communities (March 2007) sets out the long term vision for the regeneration of Wakefield District setting the overarching policy framework for all other plans and programmes. It identifies the city of Wakefield, the Five Towns (Castleford, Pontefract, Knottingley, Normanton and Featherstone) and the south east of the district as priorities for regeneration, particularly the city and town centres, whilst aiming to meet local needs in other settlements. Urban Renaissance and Regeneration Strategies Urban renaissance is a key agent of regeneration. It aims to pull together the many different plans, projects and organisations in a place, including those relating to business development, learning and inclusion, culture, the environment, housing, tourism and reducing crime. Yorkshire Forward launched a programme of urban renaissance in a number of towns across the county in 2001. An initial urban renaissance vision for Wakefield District was published in 2002 following a series of public events. A second report published in 2005 sets out how the vision might be realised1. The urban renaissance approach seeks to:

• ensure efficient and careful use of land and buildings; • remove demand for random greenfield development; • make good public transport a viable public option; • produce an attractive environment for walking and cycling.

The aim is to create a network of compact, multi-use settlements within the district which are well connected to each other and the rest of the sub-region through a strategy of intensified development, linked to a high quality public realm, and increased transport connections. A separate strategy document has been prepared for Wakefield city2 to inform preparation of the LDF. The vision is for the city to be a hub for the expanding knowledge economy, to be the natural focus of cultural life and to experience expanded retail, entertainment and leisure facilities. There is a need reconnect the centre with adjoining neighbourhoods and to make the centre more people friendly. ‘The Emerald Ring’ – a tree lined boulevard extending the existing partial ring road around rather than through the core of the city will help achieve this. The Five Towns, especially Castleford and Pontefract, are also part of the urban renaissance programme. Here the vision is to create a group of self-sustaining settlements through collaboration. Key themes and objectives were developed in the ‘Charter’ report published in 2003 following widespread public engagement, whilst the more detailed Strategic Development Framework was published in 20053. The key elements are to expand and diversify town centres to bring them back into use, make them more accessible to outlying neighbourhoods and improve public transport links between towns. The development of the Prince of Wales Colliery site will reverse the decline of the area after the collapse of mining locally. It will attract development, address transport issues and create new jobs and high quality places to live, work and invest. The Castleford Project is a landmark regeneration initiative delivering a programme of public realm improvements to be broadcast on Channel 4 that will aid renaissance in the town. The South East of the district, together with adjoining parts of Barnsley and Doncaster 1 Getting Connected: Wakefield - A Strategic Framework for the District, Koetter Kim & Associates, 2005 2 Getting Connected: Wakefield - Developing the Vision, Koetter Kim & Associates, 2005 3 Five Towns Strategic Development Framework, Yorkshire Forward, 2005

5



Districts, forms an area known as the ‘Green Corridor’. The three Councils together with Government Office, Yorkshire Forward, English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation, local housing partnerships and housing associations have formed the ‘Green Corridor Alliance’ to tackle issues of low housing demand and market vulnerability. This has broadened into a wider regeneration initiative. A strategy4has been published which establishes the broad principles for regeneration in the area focused on the main centres (Hemsworth and South Kirkby/South Elmsall), together with other priorities, as a basis for housing and other investment programmes. The LDF will play a key role in bringing about urban renaissance. The Core Strategy’s vision, objectives, strategy and policies aim to support and complement the vision and aims of urban renaissance. The land allocations to be included in the Site Specific Proposals document will help deliver specific urban renaissance proposals, where these are known in detail. The Central Wakefield Area Action Plan sets out policies and land allocations for urban renaissance activities in Wakefield city centre. Local Development Framework Core Strategy The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council on 15 April 2009. It establishes a settlement hierarchy to guide the scale and location of new development within the district over the plan period to 2026. The settlement hierarchy ranks settlements in terms of their relative size, role and function and suitability to accommodate plan led growth and development. Each settlement within the district has been subject to detailed survey and appraisal against a range of sustainability criteria (i.e. social, economic and environmental factors) to ensure rigour and consistency in terms of ranking. They include:

• accessibility to services and jobs • location in relation to public transport • size and role of settlement; and • environmental constraints and opportunities

The spatial objectives are in conformity with RSS and seek to recognise and build on Wakefield’s role as a Sub Regional City within the Leeds City Region. There is also recognition of the need to tackle deprivation in the smaller settlements, particularly in the former mining communities and embrace wider sustainability objectives. Settlements within Wakefield district have been ranked in order of preference in terms of their size and role within the context of the district and sub region, their suitability to accommodate new development, and their accessibility to jobs and services. The overall aim of the LDF Development Strategy is to create sustainable communities. Generally new development will be directed towards those settlements which rank the highest in the hierarchy while those at the lower end of the hierarchy will only see new development to meet identified local needs or where there are overriding regeneration objectives. The aim of the strategy is to ensure that new development takes place at the appropriate scale in the most sustainable locations. Most development will be concentrated within those settlements which have the largest range of shops and services, with more limited development within local service centres and villages. The Core Strategy uses the settlement appraisal alongside policy priorities such as urban renaissance, urban regeneration and housing renewal to determine the scale of growth within each settlement. Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS3 and the settlement hierarchy indicate 4 The Green Corridor Strategic Framework and Spatial plan, Green Corridor Alliance, November 2005

6



that the majority of the development will be focused in Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract and supplemented by development in Featherstone, Knottingley, Normanton, South Elmsall and South Kirkby. Leeds City Regeneration Growth Point The Leeds City Region is a dynamic functional economic area, which has experienced high levels of economic and housing growth and with the potential to expand further. However there are deficiencies in the choice and quality of housing which act as barriers to economic growth in the future. The Housing Growth Points provide an opportunity to address economic competitiveness issues associated with the housing offer, as well as introducing a choice of affordable homes and neighbourhoods of choice. It is also an opportunity to ensure that the focus of development and investment supports the regeneration priorities of the city region. This programme of development supports the delivery of 5000 additional new homes above regional housing targets focussed within three Housing Growth Point locations in the districts of Wakefield, Calderdale and Barnsley. Over the period 2008 – 2016/17 Wakefield will provide an additional 20% of dwellings above the regional target for the district, which will mean land for around 1900 new homes will be required annually. Local Authority % Uplift at Local

Authority Level RSS Housing Target Per Annum (net)

Additional Housing Per Annum

Barnsley + 20% 1015 + 100* Calderdale + 19% 670 + 130 Wakefield + 20% 1600 + 320 Source New Growth Points The Programme of Development For The Leeds City Region, GVA Grimley, 2008. * Barnsley actuals will be 50% of the total agreed additional growth for the district (total equals 200) with the other 50% counted in the South Yorkshire Growth Point total. In order to support the Housing Growth Points a significant investment in essential infrastructure and preparatory works will be required. The programme therefore also makes provision for additional revenue funding to be delivered to the three Growth Point authorities. Within Wakefield District the Five Towns area has been identified for the focus of Housing Growth Point development in order to support regeneration within the Principal Towns of Castleford and Pontefract, and the urban areas of Featherstone, Knottingley and Normanton. Additional development will also be located around the Sub Regional City of Wakefield which will continue to be the location for major growth.

7



3.0 Site Selection Methodology 3.1 Site Assessment Process Certain allocations to protect resources can only be made where those resources are situated. For example Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Ancient Woodland and Wakefield Nature Areas fall into this category. Otherwise site allocations will be considered as follows: Stage 1 The first stage of the process is to eliminate sites which can not or should not be developed. Sites that are considered to be subject to one or more ‘insurmountable’ major constraint on development will be rejected. Site access, impact on the local highway network, impact on the Strategic Road Network, Health and Safety Executive Major Hazard Consultation Zones, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ancient Woodland, severe ground conditions and high flood risk are types of major constraint. Sites located in flood zones 2 and 3 will be rejected at this stage (in accordance with the sequential approach in Planning Policy Statement 25) except those in flood zone 2 and 3a which have a strong regeneration case in favour of the proposal, or where development proposals could be excluded from parts of sites affected by high risk flood zones. Proposed housing and employment sites located in functional flood plain (zone 3b) will be rejected without exception. There will be rare exceptions to the flood zones rejection approach for very sustainable regeneration projects where the Council is satisfied that there will be a reasonable prospect of the sequential test and exception test being satisfied (PPS25 Annex D9 and Practice Guide paragraphs 4.33 – 4.35).The proposal will only be considered if it performs well in relation to all of the following criteria: PPS25 Sequential Approach

• Does the development need to be located on this site in flood zone 3 - a high risk flood zone?

Regeneration

• Does the proposal deliver major regeneration benefits? • Is it in accordance with Urban Renaissance proposals for the District? • Does it enable contaminated land to be reclaimed?

Sustainability

• Is the proposal sufficiently sustainable to be supported - how well does the proposal perform in a sustainability appraisal relative to other development proposals?

• Is the proposal within, adjoining or in close proximity to a town centre with its associated facilities?

• Is it a brownfield site? • How accessible is the proposal?

Adopted Core Strategy Development Strategy

• How well does the proposal relate to the development strategy? • Is it located in the sub-regional city or the principal towns?

Generally regeneration proposals can not be located elsewhere because they are specific to those locations. They will be subject to the ‘exception test’ required by PPS25. Developers

8



are required to provide the test reports in accordance with PPS25. Flood zone 2 often affects only parts of sites so that ‘developability’ may not be affected. A severe adverse effect (xx) identified in the sustainability appraisal findings will generally be taken to mean that the site should be rejected. However, in some cases where a severe adverse environmental effect is recorded, and the impact could be avoided or mitigated, for example, by excluding the affected part of the site from the developable area, the site could be retained for further assessment. If the site is being considered for housing the results of the SHLAA will be taken into account to ensure that it is deliverable and developable. Stage 2 The remaining site options will then be assessed according to their conformity with the strategy and approach to identifying sites set out in RSS and the LDF Core Strategy under Policy CS1 and CS3. Consequently, a sequential approach will be used to assess conformity. A site’s priority depends on whether it is defined as ‘brownfield’ or ‘greenfield’ and whether it is ‘within the settlement’ or an ‘extension to the settlement’ or ‘outside the settlement accessible by public transport’. Sites will be categorised according to their position in relation to settlement boundaries which will be identified in the Site Specific Proposals Document. The order of priority is: 1. previously developed land and buildings within the settlement; 2. suitable infill sites within the relevant settlement; 3. sustainable extensions to the relevant settlement. The scale of the development which could be accommodated on a particular site will also be considered in relation to the settlement’s size, the settlement type (e.g. urban area, local service centre, village) and the maximum scale of development proposed for that settlement type in the Core Strategy. The regeneration benefits accruing from development of the site will also be considered, based on advice from officers in the Council’s Regeneration Service. For housing sites where the scale of the proposed development is not known from another source, the site capacity will be estimated using a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, 40 dwellings per hectare in Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract urban areas and 50 dwellings per hectare in Wakefield City centre and Castleford and Pontefract town centres. The impact of development on ecology, the historic environment and landscape will be considered following advice from Council officers and technical consultations. Proposals that would have a detrimental impact on Designated Sites for ecological or geological conservation (Sites of Scientific Interest, Local Nature Reserves, Regionally Important Geological Sites, and Wakefield Nature Areas), or Conservation Areas, Class II archaeological sites, Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes will be rejected. Only in exceptional circumstances where the public interest outweighs any damage that may be caused and where acceptable mitigation measures can be put in place, will sites be considered for allocation. As a consequence of the housing requirement arising from RSS and the Wakefield Housing Growth Point, the Green Belt will need to be reviewed (see section 5 of this document). Sites located in the Green Belt will therefore not be discarded but will generally fall in the lower priority categories of potential sustainable urban extensions unless it can be shown that it represents a more sustainable option than others. In addition to other considerations, ‘exceptional circumstances’ need to be demonstrated to justify release of Green Belt land as required by national policy guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. The

9



need to accommodate additional housing to meet local need could justify exceptional circumstances if more suitable options are not available. Stage 3 A further refinement will be undertaken to choose between or rank sites of equal status according to the priorities identified above. Factors taken into account will be:

a. The sustainability appraisal findings – options with fewer beneficial or more adverse sustainability effects are given a lower rank, though the opportunity for development to improve the site’s performance and the regeneration benefits to be gained should be taken into account.

b. Development constraints – options with one or more significant constraints which might affect the timing of development or the viability of the site are given a lower ranking.

c. Accessibility – options which have a high accessibility rating are ranked highest. d. Flood risk – the sequential approach to flood risk in Planning Policy Statement 25 will

again be considered. Options with lower flood risk are given a higher rank. The tables in the Site Specific Proposals Options Assessment Tables Technical Paper shows how strategy/policy considerations will be brought together with information on constraints, sustainability appraisal, accessibility and flood risk to provide an overall assessment of the suitability of each site option. Sites are grouped by settlement as set out in the Core Strategy Settlement Hierarchy. This process has been revised and new sites included for the draft submission stage of the Site Specific Proposals document. 3.2 Accessibility Accession modelling software will be used to consider and quantify the accessibility of proposed housing, special policy areas and employment sites via public transport and to help identify sites to be allocated for the Site Specific Proposals document. Results will be made by first designating sites as either an ‘origin’ or a ‘destination’. Potential housing and special policy area sites are classed as an origin, and employment sites as destinations. The sites could also be run as both an origin and destination if necessary, if, for example, where their final use is unclear. Site data is captured from GIS and saved as ‘points’ to capture the centre of the site. The criteria used to assess accessibility are been based on adopted RSS criteria and have been modified to reflect local circumstances on accessibility issues and to enable implementation within the Site Specific Proposals document. As an Origin Accessibility to 11 types of essential facilities from the housing sites and special policy areas will be measured using criteria specific to each type of facility within the district. The criteria are based on assumptions about how long people are willing to spend travelling from home to their destination. These are as follow:

• Located within 400m of a bus stop (straight line distance - 286m) • Located within 400m of the core bus network (straight line distance - 286m) • Located within 600m of a rail station (straight line distance - 429m) • Employment sites (with over 300 employees) within 40 minutes from 7 am to 9 am • Primary health sites (GPs) within 40 minutes from 9 am to 5 pm • Primary education sites by public transport within 20 minutes from 7 am to 9 am • Primary education sites walking within 20 minutes from 7 am to 9 am

10



• Secondary health sites (hospitals) within 60 minutes from 9 am to 5 pm • Secondary education sites within 60 minutes from 7 am to 9 am • Tertiary education sites within 60 minutes from 7 am to 9 am • Retail sites (RSS defined settlements) within 40 minutes from 9 am to 5 pm

Results will be made according to public transport modes (bus/rail and walking) based on one chosen day of the week (Monday) and include waiting, journey and interchange times for such transport and walking times to the final destination. Calculations will be made assuming:

• A walking speed of 4.8 km an hour. • Within 0.4 km walking distance of a bus stop. • A straight line walk distance factor of 1.45. • A maximum connection distance of 0.2 km

The ‘core bus network’ is based on bus corridors where bus services are running at least at 15 minute intervals. These corridors should be used along side the accessibility measures using Accession to reflect the frequency the journey can be made. The employment sites are based on data supplied by the DfT in 2005 (for Wakefield only). This has been cleaned and brought up to date in order to validate the data and is not yet available from neighbouring authorities in this format. Other sources for this data have been explored but were found to be unsuitable. Primary schools will be measured for their accessibility both on a public transport basis (bus/rail and walking) and on a walking only basis. This was because it was recognised that due to their catchments many primary schools are within walking distance without the need for public transport, and so walking only would be a viable mode of transport here. Results will be recorded on a spreadsheet and each housing and special policy area (origin) site weighted to receive a mark for each facility (destination) it was accessible to. Sites are then rated for accessibility by how many marks out of 11 they received. As a Destination Accession will also be used to consider accessibility of proposed employment sites within the Wakefield District. Accessibility will be measured by calculating how many people in the district could reach each site:

• Within 40 minutes by public transport (bus/rail and walking) from 7 am to 9 am on Monday

• Within 0.4 km walking distance of a bus stop • A walking speed of 4.8 km an hour • A straight line walk distance factor of 1.45 • A maximum connection distance of 0.2 km

The criteria are based on assumptions about how long people are willing to spend travelling to and from the proposed employment sites to and from their home. Population data in the district is calculated by using the census output area (COA) information from the 2001 census and including people aged 16 to 74 when creating the spreadsheet. Results will be given both in

5 1.4 is a factor applied to take account of the fact that a person walking to a bus stop would probably have to walk along twisting roads, so if it takes 5 minutes to walk in a straight line it is multiplied by 1.4 to give a ‘stagger factor’ time of 7 minutes.

11



numbers of people and percentage of people accessible to the sites and these results will be recorded on a spreadsheet and employment sites ranked in terms of their accessibility. 3.3 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) The Landscape Character Assessment of Wakefield District (published October 2004) is a background document to the LDF. Landscape is an important and highly valued environmental resource of the district. The LCA sets out the qualities of the landscape which make Wakefield District distinctive. The impact of development proposals and potential LDF site allocations on the landscape will be considered as part of the sustainability appraisal of all sites whether they are on the edge of settlements or within the open countryside. The cumulative impact of site allocations on the landscape will also be examined as part of sustainability appraisal.

12



4.0 Housing Methodology 4.1 Regional Housing Methodology A methodology has been developed to assign the overall regional housing requirement, derived from household projections produced by the Government, the impact of future economic growth as envisaged in the Northern Way and the Barker Review6, to individual authorities. The methodology is strategy driven and is based on applying scores to policy variables relating to urban renaissance, economic change, transport accessibility, environmental capacity and access to affordable housing. Scores are assigned to each policy variable and weighted to reflect a combination of the proposed sub-area strategies in RSS and other relevant strategies such as the Regional Economic Strategy and the Regional Housing Strategy. Different weightings can be used to generate different scenarios for consultation with local authorities. Past rates of house-building, household projections for local authority areas and urban potential have been used to check the soundness of the emerging distribution. Results from Wakefield’s urban potential study indicate that potential exists for approximately 10,100 dwellings within the urban areas of the district to 2016 (including land with planning permission or allocated for housing in the UDP). The housing requirements for Wakefield District set out in RSS. The method for calculating the requirement is explained in RSS supporting documents. The figures have been accepted by Wakefield as appropriate for inclusion in the Core Strategy Submission Document. District Housing Requirement 2004-2026 Period Number

of years

Indicative Gross Build Rate

Total Gross for Period

Annual Net Total Net for Period

2004-2008 4 1320 5280 1170 46802008-2026 18 1750 31,500 1600 28,800Total 2004-2026 22 36780 33480Source: RSS (2008) Table 12.1 & 12.3.

4.2 Leeds City Region Housing Growth Point The Housing Growth Point in Wakefield will provide an additional 20% of dwellings above the regional target for the district, which will mean 1920 new homes will be required annually for the period 2008 – 2017. Housing Growth Point Requirement Period Dwellings Years Total 2008-2017 320

(20% extra 1,600 x 0.2) 9 2,880

6 The Review of Housing Supply (March 2004) (‘The Barker Review’) recommends a substantial increase in house-building nationally to improve affordability and create a more stable housing market.

13



Total Housing Requirement Including Growth Point Period Total Net Requirement Total Gross Requirement 2004-2021 28,360 30,9102004-2026 36,360 39,660

4.3 LDF Core Strategy Methodology The Council has prepared a Housing Technical Paper to support the Core Strategy. It sets out the approach to identifying and assessing sites for housing in the LDF. The following sections are taken from the technical paper and summarise the overall approach to be taken in preparing the Site Specific Proposals document. The LDF Core Strategy includes policy which establishes and makes provision for the annual requirement for additional housing in the district. The Core Strategy covers the period to 2026, 22 years from the base date of 1st April 2004 and 17 years from the date of adoption in 2009. PPS3 requires LDFs to plan housing provision for 15 years from adoption, to identify sufficient, specific, deliverable sites to meet the requirement for the first five years and to identify developable sites for the next five years. Where possible, land should be allocated for the subsequent five years, otherwise broad areas of growth should be indicated. As a minimum land should be allocated for 10 years. In previous plans the housing requirement has been expressed as a gross figure i.e. the total number of houses to be built. New regulations and guidance7 state that the requirement should now be set out as a net figure, i.e. the change in the size of the dwelling stock, taking account of any dwellings lost. However, when assessing the amount of land needed to accommodate the total number of houses to be built, a gross figure is still needed. The gross figures for 2004 to 2026 include provision to replace an average of 150 dwellings lost from the stock each year. As stated previously, the development strategy in the Core Strategy is based on a settlement hierarchy. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy seeks to translate the overall district housing requirement into a figure for each urban area and local service centre in the hierarchy. The figures refer to net additional housing for the period 2004-2026 and are indicative for monitoring purposes to ensure that the scale of housing development in each settlement reflects the proposed development strategy. The requirement for individual settlements was estimated by distributing the annual requirement pro rata to the size of the population in each settlement in 2001, then adjusting the figure to reflect priorities for regeneration. The Core Strategy sets out the broad distribution of housing across the district for the plan period up to 2026. The following table shows these proportions. As can be seen, these percentage splits set a minimum level of housing for Wakefield, Castleford, and Pontefract, however they does not provide an indicative level of housing for all the settlements in the district, such as the remaining urban areas and local service centres. As confirmed in the Core Strategy, specific housing allocations will not be made in village locations.

2 The Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations, 2004: Regulation 48. Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks, DCLG.

14



Proportion of Housing to be Distributed within Wakefield District’s Settlements Urban Areas Wakefield (Sub-Regional City) At least 30%. Castleford (Principal Town) At least 20%. Pontefract (Principal Town) At least 10%. Normanton Featherstone Knottingley South Elmsall/South Kirkby Ossett Stanley/Outwood Horbury Hemsworth

At least 25% combined.

Local Service Centres Ackworth(Moor Top) Crofton Fitzwilliam/Kinsley Ryhill/Havercroft Upton

Upto 10% combined.

Housing Need One of the LDF objectives in the Core Strategy is to provide sufficient good quality housing of the appropriate sizes, types, tenures and affordability to meet the identified needs of the district. The Council’s has carried out a Strategic Housing Market Assessment which assesses the scale of need at the district and sub-district level. The results of the assessment have been taken into account in determining the requirement for affordable housing and this provides the context for the affordable housing element of Core Strategy Policy CS6. The development strategy and housing policies in the Core Strategy state that in the smaller settlements the scale of new housing should be limited to that which is necessary to meet local need (i.e. the need for additional housing originating within the settlement, for both affordable and market housing). It is, however, extremely difficult to determine accurately small scale local housing need. A method has been devised to estimate need within individual settlements using information from the 2001 Census and the Government’s 2004-based household projections. It aims to calculate the need for additional housing originating from the 2001 population in each settlement as a result of the projected fall in average household size. The method employed is as follows:

a) calculate settlement average household size in 2001 – divide settlement population by number of households, using data from the 2001 Census.

b) calculate settlement average household size from 2006 onwards using 5 year periods, and apply the projected rate of change in the district average household size for the same periods using data from the 2004-based household projections, to the average household size in each settlement in 2001. (This assumes that the average household size in each settlement changes at the same rate as in the district as a whole but that the differences between settlements remain.)

c) calculate number of households in each settlement from 2006 onwards using 5 year periods, apply calculated settlement average household size for same periods and to settlement population in 2001.

15



d) calculate change in number of households by settlement from 2001 onwards using 5 year periods – subtract number of households in each settlement in 2001 from calculated numbers in each 5 year period.

The change in the number of households is assumed to be an indication of the housing need arising in the settlement. The method does not include housing need resulting from future changes in the size of the population caused by births, deaths and migration. Most of the population figures for individual settlements are those for urban areas, as defined in the Census, or parishes. Where a settlement figure is not readily available, estimates have been derived by combining appropriate Census Output Areas. The results of the above methodology are set out in Table 10 of the Housing Technical Paper. Using the described method, a total need for 15936 additional dwellings within the district is identified for the period 2001-2021. Despite the limitations of the methodology, it is considered that the figures are robust enough to be used as estimates of housing need in individual settlements, to be taken into account along with other strategy aims. Housing Mix Key to ensuring that new homes meet local needs is to construct homes of the appropriate type, size and affordability. The trend in Wakefield district for some years has been for most new homes to be detached or semi-detached with three or four bedrooms. The 2001 Census shows that more than 46% of all dwellings in the district are semi-detached, well above the national average of 33%, with correspondingly fewer of other types, particularly flats. This imbalance has been redressed somewhat in recent years with the move towards higher densities and building smaller dwellings. However in places, particularly the former Council estates, the housing mix does not reflect the pattern of demand.

According to Planning Policy Statement 3, LDFs should determine the overall balance between different housing types to be provided across the plan area having regard to RSS, Regional Housing Strategy and the local housing strategy. RSS Policy H5 confirms the need to encourage a better housing mix, particularly in the former coalfields areas. PPS3 states that the mix of housing on large strategic sites should reflect the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and achieves a mix of housing, tenure and price. For smaller sites, the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities, having regard to the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and the existing mix of housing in the locality. It is important that, as the population ages and the trend towards smaller households continues, the types of dwelling being built reflect these changes. Latest information on population change in the district will be available in the Council's Annual Monitoring Report.

In the 2001 Census 64.6% of the dwellings in the district were owner-occupied, 25.7% were rented from the Council, 2.2% were rented from a registered social landlord and 5% were rented privately. The position changed with the transfer of the former local authority housing stock to Wakefield and District Housing Ltd, and the rate of private renting and owner occupation have grown, although the overall rate of social renting remains very high by national standards. Moreover, rented properties tend to be concentrated in large housing estates and there is a need to create a greater mix of tenures in new development. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment states that the delivery of market housing should be influenced by household aspirations and mismatches in supply and demand at the local level. However, data was not available at the time to inform this element of the market assessment. Some preparatory work has been carried out on household aspirations for households intending to move in the general market based on property size which is set out in

16



Table 11 of the Housing Technical Paper. The results of this provide the context for the housing mix elements to Core Strategy Policy CS6. 4.4 Meeting the Housing and Growth Point Requirement Meeting the Housing Requirement The overall requirement and its distribution will be met through the following sources of supply: • dwellings completed since March 2004; • existing commitments – sites with planning permission; • windfall development on non-allocated sites, including conversions (i.e. sub-divisions of

existing dwellings) and changes to the use of other buildings; • new building on housing land allocations – new allocations and those carried forward from

the UDP.

A significant proportion of the requirement can be met from the first two. The remainder will be provided through housing allocations, no allowance will be made for future brownfield windfall housing on unallocated sites, although they will contribute to the supply. When calculating the need for land allocations an allowance has also to be made for dwellings which are demolished in future and need to be replaced.

Dwellings Completed since April 2004 The number of dwellings completed in the district between April 2004 and March 2008 was 5,220(gross) and 4,569 (net).

Existing Commitments

Planning Policy Statement 3 states that: “In determining how much land is required, Local Planning Authorities should not include sites for which they have granted planning permission unless they can demonstrate, based upon robust evidence, that the sites are developable and are likely to contribute to housing delivery at the point envisaged.”

At the end of March 2008, commitments in the form of land with an existing planning permission or land allocated for housing in the UDP which has not yet been developed, could accommodate 8,553 dwellings. Sites allocated for housing in the UDP where there is no current planning permission have been re-assessed as part of the exercise to identify allocations in the LDF described later. Suitable allocations will be carried forward into the LDF. Excluding current allocations without planning permission, commitments at the end of March 2008 amounted to 7,894 dwellings. Losses

Losses arise when dwellings are demolished or a change to a non-residential use occurs. The current rate of losses allowed for in the gross housing requirement is 150 per annum. This is based on best available information but it will need to be re-assessed through monitoring to make sure it reflects known and likely future rates of housing clearance and change of use.

Housing Allocations

The remainder of the requirement will be met through future building on land allocated for housing through the LDF, comprising sites carried forward from the UDP and new allocations

17



identified in the Site Specific Proposals document. The process of identifying suitable sites is discussed below but firstly the scale of land allocations needed across the district and in individual settlements and the time period for which provision is needed, are considered.

Planning Policy Statement 3 states that Local Development Documents should:

• Set out policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including

identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption, taking account of the level of housing provision set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy.

• Drawing on information from the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and or other relevant evidence, Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. To be considered deliverable, sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document:

- Be Available – the site is available now. - Be Suitable – the site offers a suitable location for development now and would

contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. - Be Achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on

the site within five years. • Identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible,

for years 11-15. Where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11-15, broad locations for future growth should be indicated.

• Linked to the above, identify those strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.

• Show broad locations on a key diagram and locations of specific sites on a proposals map. • Illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan

period.

The LDF Core Strategy covers the period to 2026, 22 years from the base in April 2004 and 17 years from its adoption date of 15 April 2009. It will be necessary to at least identify sufficient housing land for ten years following adoption of a site specific housing allocation document. The Site Specific Proposals document is currently programmed to be adopted in 2010. Due to the nature of housing projection figures which are set out in 5 yearly intervals and to fall closer in line with RSS, the Council has determined that housing allocations will be set out to 2021, 11 years from the expected date of adoption. This is confirmed in the adopted Core Strategy. For the remainder of the period to 2026 land broad areas for future growth have been identified in the Core Strategy. This approach is consistent with PPS3 and this approach has also been confirmed in the adopted Core Strategy.

Housing provision also has to accord with RSS. RSS identifies three periods for managing growth over time ‘Early Years’, ‘Mid Years and ‘Later Years’. Different policy approaches may be introduced and outcomes achieved at different times over the plan period. In terms of housing, the ‘Early Years’ need to make the best use of existing allocations and already identified urban potential in cities and towns. During the ‘Mid Years’ the focus should be remodelling existing urban areas and changing the role of former industrial/commercial areas, and the ‘Later Years’ should exploit the continued supply of urban brownfield and if necessary, urban extensions. The approaches and outcomes identified for the early years may be appropriate for mid and late years. It may be possible or necessary to introduce some approaches indicated for the later years, or policies put in place, to allow delivery later (e.g. urban extension). Monitoring will show whether the RSS strategy needs to be amended through an early selective review. The LDF Core Strategy sets out a policy on the release of housing land in Policy CS3.

18



It is proposed that the LDF should accommodate the requirement for new housing and make the necessary land allocations for the period to 2021. Housing allocations for the longer period to 2026 will be identified in future reviews of the Site Specific Proposals document. The phasing of sites will reflect the evidence contained in the SHLAA together with the Housing Growth Point programme of development.

Table 12 of the Housing Technical Paper showed how the requirement for land to be allocated for housing in the LDF across the whole District for the period 2004-2021 would be arrived at taking account of the sources of supply and losses identified in paragraphs 13-19 of the Technical Paper. This information has been revised to remove the allowance for windfall housing, as referred to above, and updated to 31 March 2008 and has been incorporated into the table below. Meeting the Housing Requirement and Housing Need by Settlement

Table 13 of the Housing Technical Paper showed how the housing requirement could be met

when the Core Strategy development plan document was submitted and included an allowance for brownfield windfall housing. Table 14 showed housing allocations needed to meet estimated housing needs. Further to the Core Strategy examination these tables have been revised and combined to remove the windfall allowance, to factor in assumptions on the housing requirement to meet the aspirations of the Leeds City Region Growth Point, together with a further 10% allowance to build flexibility into these figures. The figures have also been updated to 31 March 2008 as the base date for establishing the amount of additional housing that we need to allocate land for. See table below.

The proposed distribution allocates more housing, pro rata, to the three largest settlements,

Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract, where regeneration needs are greatest, and fewer houses to those where significant growth has occurred in recent years, and to the smaller settlements and rural areas. This is in line with the Core Strategy development strategy and consistent with the development strategy set out in RSS.

It is clear from the table that the level of existing commitments varies considerably between settlements. It appears that in the villages and smaller rural settlements (classified as ‘Other’ in the following table), commitments are already sufficient to meet both estimated housing need and the indicative requirement. In Stanley/Outwood and Ossett, estimated need exceeds the indicative requirement so that all need cannot be met locally if the proposed development strategy is adhered to. In other settlements, the scale of allocations needed to meet the indicative requirement will accommodate estimated need as well. The figures in the table are indicative and provide a framework to allocate land and for considering the distribution between settlement categories set out in policy CS3. If higher housing numbers are identified in the higher order settlements, it may mean that less land will need to be identified in lower order settlements.

19


PPS 12 and PPS 3 require LDFs to set out a housing trajectory to show the scale of the housing requirement and how it will be met year by year over the plan period. Table 15 and Chart 1 of the Housing Technical Paper show the housing trajectory for Wakefield District for the period 2004-2021 before specific housing allocations have been identified. Assumptions have to be made in the trajectory about the rate at which sites with planning permission will come forward for development, as shown in Table 16 of the Housing Technical Paper. Where development is spread across two or more years it is assumed that development will occur evenly throughout the period. 4.5 Identifying Land for Housing Allocations Planning Policy Statement 12 and Planning Policy Statement 3 require LDFs to set out a housing trajectory to show the scale of the housing requirement and how it will be met year by year over the plan period. Table 15 and Chart 1 of the Housing Technical Paper show the housing trajectory for Wakefield District for the period 2004-2021 before specific housing allocations have been identified. Assumptions have to be made in the trajectory about the rate at which sites with planning permission will come forward for development, as shown in Table 16 Housing Technical Paper. Where development is spread across two or more years it is assumed that development will occur evenly throughout the period. There are a number of sources from which to identify options for potential housing allocations in the Site Specific Proposals document:

a. allocations carried forward from the UDP; b. the Urban Potential Study 2004; c. sites identified through urban renaissance and regeneration proposals; d. sites put forward by developers and land owners identified in the Strategic Housing

Land Availability Assessment 2008 (SHLAA 2008) and sites proposed as a result of public engagement.

Unitary Development Plan First Alteration Allocations Most of the housing allocations in the UDP have either been developed and will not be shown on the LDF Proposals Maps, or have the benefit of a planning permission and are counted as commitments. Those housing allocations which remain undeveloped and have no extant planning permission have been re-assessed alongside all other potential housing sites to make sure that they are still likely to be developed, fit with the spatial development strategy and meet current criteria for sustainable development. Suitable allocations have been carried forward as proposals in the Site Specific Proposals document. Table 17 of the Housing Technical Paper shows progress in implementing individual allocations in the UDP since adoption and identifies which needed to be reviewed to establish their continuing suitability for housing. Urban Potential Study In accordance with the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) Housing, the Council undertook an Urban Potential Study in 2001 to assess the capacity of individual urban areas in the district to accommodate additional housing. This was subsequently updated to 31st March 2004.


Results indicate that potential exists for approximately 10,100 dwellings within the urban areas of the district to 2016 (including land with capacity for approximately 4,000 dwellings which already has planning permission or is allocated for housing in the UDP). Sites identified in the study will be considered as options for potential housing allocations, where appropriate, as part of the preparation of the Site Specific Proposals document. The methodology and conclusions of the study are set out in the Urban Potential Study report. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) is a key component of the evidence to support the delivery of sufficient land for housing to meet the district’s need for more dwellings. Sites contained in the SHLAA will be a primary source of evidence for sites in the document and evidence on how deliverable and developable sites are. Urban Renaissance and Regeneration The Core Strategy refers to various strategies and priorities for promoting urban renaissance and regeneration across the district. New housing can be an important element in development programmes to support renaissance and encourage regeneration. Proposals for regeneration are being drawn up on sites in most of the urban areas of the district. Some of these are being progressed through master-planning exercises. Where proposals are specifically for housing or include an element of housing as part of a mixed use development, they will be considered as options for potential new housing allocations or Special Policy (mixed use) Areas. Stakeholder and Public Consultation In accordance with the Regulations and advice in Planning Policy Statement 12, land owners and developers were asked at both the Site Specific Proposals Issues & Options stage of consultation and again during engagement on the Core Strategy Preferred Options, to inform the Council about land which they wish to be considered for future development, so that all possible options were known about early in the process. Developers and their agents were also invited to join the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment working group which has been established to consider sites for future housing development. A number of sites have been identified and are being considered as options for potential allocations for inclusion in the Site Specific Proposals document. Sites put forward which were too late to be considered at the preferred options stage will be assessed during preparation of the submission Site Specific Proposals document. Assessing Options for Housing Allocations Options identified from the sources described above have been considered as potential new housing allocations in the Site Specific Proposals document. A process has been devised for assessing alternatives in a comprehensive, consistent way. The object is to arrive at a preferred list of sites which meet the requirements of the LDF Core Strategy in terms of the proposed scale and location of housing development year by year. The Core Strategy describes the factors to consider when identifying suitable housing allocations:

a) the spatial development strategy and the principles determining the location of development in the Core Strategy;

b) the annual housing requirement;

22



c) the distribution of additional housing proposed in the Core Strategy, including indicative figures for individual settlements;

d) ensuring the site is deliverable for housing and developable, assessed in terms of national and regional planning policy and the need to take sustainability appraisal and appropriate assessment into account;

e) the need to achieve a high proportion of new housing built on brownfield land as set out in RSS.

It has been necessary to assemble baseline information on the characteristics of individual sites to enable to the assessment process to be undertaken. This has come from a number of sources. Technical Consultations All potential housing sites have been subject to detailed consultation with technical advisors to gain up to date information on the nature and extent of constraints, notably highway access, surface water and foul drainage, water and power supply and ground conditions, to help assess their suitability for residential development. Where an over-riding physical constraint has been identified the site is excluded from further consideration. Sustainability Appraisal Waterman Environmental were appointed to undertake an initial sustainability appraisal of all potential housing sites using the Sustainability Appraisal Framework developed to appraise all the Council’s Local Development Documents. Sustainability has been appraised under four headings to ensure that the site contributes to the achievement of the Council's sustainability objectives:

• Economic • Social • Environment (Transport) • Environment (Other)

The results have been published in the Initial Sustainability Appraisal Report and the Sustainability Appraisal Report which are available on the Council’s web-site. Section 7 in this document sets out the Sustainability Appraisal Methodology. Accessibility Accession modelling software has been used to consider and quantify the accessibility of proposed housing sites via public transport and to help identify sites to be allocated for the LDF. Details are set out in section 3 of this document.

23



Flood Risk The Environment Agency publishes Flood Zone maps, which are updated regularly, showing areas at high (1 in 100 year), medium (1 in 1,000 year) and low (< 1 in 1,000 year) risk of flooding. The Council, together with Calderdale and Kirklees Councils, the Environment Agency and the YHA, has completed a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of the three districts (SFRA 2008) which identifies in more detail the degree of flood risk in different locations. The SFRA 2008 has been used to assess the flood risk at each potential housing site. National planning policy guidance8 requires a sequential approach to identifying sites for development in plans to take account of flood risk and this has been applied to potential sites. Meeting the Target for Brownfield Land RSS includes a target for 65% of new housing in the District to be accommodated on previously developed (brownfield) land which the LDF has adopted to ensure conformity. The target will help to achieve sustainable development and will encourage the efficient use of land and buildings in urban areas and other settlements. Potential sites on brownfield land will have priority over proposals foe development of Greenfield land. 4.6 Site Assessment Process Table 18 of the Housing Technical Paper shows how strategy/policy considerations will be brought together with information on constraints, sustainability appraisal, accessibility and flood risk to provide an overall assessment of the suitability of each site option. (The table, completed for all proposed sites, is also in the Site Specific Proposals - Preferred Options Report). Sites are grouped by settlement as set out in the Core Strategy Settlement Hierarchy. This process has been revised and new sites included for the draft submission stage of the Site Specific Proposals document. Sites will be assessed under the three stage process set out in section 3 of this document. Once the assessment process is complete, housing allocations in each settlement will be chosen. In doing so, the following targets will need to be met: a. the annual housing requirement for the district and the annual shortfall identified in the

housing trajectory each year in the plan period; b. the indicative net additional requirement figure for individual settlements for each year; To meet point (b) in each settlement sites will be chosen in descending order of priority until the total requirement for the settlement is achieved. To ensure an adequate supply of land each year across the district to meet point (a) assumptions will need to be made about phasing i.e. when individual sites can come forward for development and the rate at which houses could be built on these sites. The Council’s Major Projects section has been and will be consulted about the likely timing of development on known regeneration schemes. Choosing site allocation options is an iterative process involving bringing sites forward or delaying them to ensure that housing delivery can be met. The process results in lower priority sites being chosen in settlements with a high housing requirement but low availability, whereas in settlements with a low requirement and high availability relatively sustainable sites might be rejected or

8 Planning Policy Statement Note 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25), DCLG.

24



postponed in order to meet the overriding development strategy. In a limited number of cases, the settlement target figures may need to be adjusted to accommodate important regeneration proposals whilst ensuring that the spatial development strategy is not undermined. Housing allocations will be identified on a settlement by settlement basis and show the overall scale and timing of development on each site. 4.7 Meeting accommodation needs for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Need for Accommodation The West Yorkshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) states that between 2008 to 2015 there will be a need across the district for 32 permanent pitches, 8 transit pitches and 8 Travelling Showpeople’s pitches. However, the latest analysis of need for the next 10 years from 2008 to 2018 indicates an approximate need for 36 permanent pitches, 5 transit pitches, and 8 travelling showpeople pitches across the district. In addition, further work on accommodation needs of individual districts will be set out as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) update, so a degree of flexibility is needed to ensure sufficient provision to accord with RSS in due course. As such, we propose to meet the minimum level of identified accommodation and if possible further pitches to provide some flexibility. The exact number of pitches may be determined by the sites identified in the Sites Specific Proposals Development Plan Document and the number of pitches that they may accommodate. Gypsy and Traveller Site Requirements • Average pitch size – 0.02 hectares, which would encompass site roads and incidental open

space (Government Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). • Additional 15% site area for vehicular access, facilities and public open space • Maximum site size – 10 pitches • However consider smaller family sites of 4 pitches Areas of Search • Easy access to M1 and M62 corridor • Preference for Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract for access to employment and services. • Preference for previously developed land, or untidy, or derelict land within or on the edge of

urban areas, thus achieving sustainability and social inclusion objectives by providing access to employment, facilities and services and accessibility to the transport network etc.

Site Composition • A need for both socially rented and privately owned provision • Smaller private family sites can be self managing • Definite need for RSL or Council managed sites

25



Transit Sites • A degree of separation between permanent and transit provision. Travelling Showpeople Site Requirements • Average yard size – 0.13 hectares (encompasses site roads and incidental open space)

(Showmen’s Guild Guidance) • Additional 15% for access road, facilities and public open space. • No preference for smaller sites Areas of Search • Easy access to M62 and M1 corridor • Preference for previously developed land, or untidy, or derelict land within or on the edge of

urban areas • Site should afford a reasonable degree of residential amenity i.e. no environmental health

issues. • Site should respect amenities of surrounding residential properties (Showmen’s Guild

Guidance) • Meets sustainability and social inclusion objectives by access to employment, facilities and

services and accessibility to transport network etc. • Good vehicular access, suitable for ingress and egress of heavy good vehicles. Site Composition • Provision of both socially rented and privately owned sites • Possibility of joint working with Showmen’s Guild in terms of management of sites. 5.0 Green Belt Methodology 5.1 Policy Background Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts sets out the Government’s policy on planning and development in the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Green Belt helps to protect the countryside and helps in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development. The purposes of including land in the Green Belt are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns from 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.

26



The Green Belt is defined in adopted local plans and should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. The established boundaries should not be altered and inappropriate development should not be allowed in the Green Belt merely because land has become derelict. Where local plans are being revised and updated, such as the Wakefield Local Development Framework, the Green Belt should only be changed where exceptional circumstances exist which necessitate any revision. The Wakefield District Green Belt boundary was established in the Local Plans (adopted 1987). These were replaced by the UDP (adopted 1994) where a number of changes were made mainly to meet an unexpected demand for employment land. Further minor alterations were made through the UDP First Alteration (adopted 2003), to meet regeneration objectives and to clarify difficulties in interpreting the boundary. RSS indicates that localised reviews of Green Belt may be necessary in some parts of the Region to deliver the Core Approach of the strategy. In West Yorkshire a strategic review may be required to deliver longer term housing growth in some areas. Any strategic review of the Green Belt in West Yorkshire will inform options for delivering longer term housing growth. Its timing and conclusions will need to be taken into account in circumstances where a review of the Green Belt is carried out when a relevant LDF document is prepared or reviewed. The main purpose of the Wakefield District Green Belt is to keep land open and free from inappropriate development to maintain the character and identity of individual settlements and to make a clear distinction between town and country in support of Core Strategy Objective 9. The spatial development strategy aims to create sustainable communities by concentrating new development in urban areas and local service centres. The Green Belt’s role is to help reinforce this strategy by strictly controlling development in the open countryside. All Green Belt land in Wakefield District serves this purpose and consequently there is no need for a general review of the boundary. A review of the Green Belt will only be carried out in exceptional circumstances when a relevant LDF document is prepared or reviewed. Such circumstances could be an over-riding need to accommodate development of the following types which cannot be met elsewhere and where Green Belt land offers the most sustainable option:

• regeneration schemes which bring community benefits; • housing sites within the Wakefield Housing Growth Point; • strategic employment sites; • longer term housing sites to meet any increased requirement from any review of RSS.

Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) The Landscape Character Assessment of Wakefield District (published October 2004) is a background document to the LDF. Landscape is an important and highly valued environmental resource of the district. The LCA sets out the qualities of the landscape which make Wakefield District distinctive. The impact of development proposals and potential LDF site allocations on the landscape will be considered as part of the sustainability appraisal of all sites whether they are on the edge of settlements or within the open countryside.

27



5.2 Wakefield Housing Growth Point and Green Belt review The following factors provide the basis for a review of the Green Belt as part of preparing the Site Specific Proposals document. The current RSS target for new houses within Wakefield District is 1600 per year until 2026. As a result of the Council’s declared intent to accommodate growth beyond this number and the Government’s designation of Wakefield as a Growth Point the target is 20% higher (e.g. 1920 homes) per year between 2008 and 2017. As part of the public examination of the Core Strategy it was recognised that the boundaries of the Green Belt in Wakefield District need to be examined and in part re-designated. The Core Strategy indicates that most housing growth will take place in and around Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract, with lower levels of growth in other urban areas, notably Normanton, Featherstone, Knottingley, Hemsworth and South Elmsall/South Kirkby. Elsewhere, growth will be significantly less and limited to meeting local needs. The Five Towns (Castleford, Pontefract, Featherstone, Knottingley and Normanton) have been identified as settlements within the Growth Point where most development will be concentrated for regeneration purposes. Within these settlements there are a number of large brownfield sites which will be redeveloped, however some expansion of the urban areas into the Green Belt may also be required. It will also be necessary to consider some expansion of the city of Wakefield which is also within the Housing Growth Point. The review will also include the urban areas of Hemsworth, South Elmsall and South Kirkby which are within the Green Corridor regeneration area. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2008 (SHLAA) forms part of the evidence base supporting the Core Strategy and Site Specific Proposals documents. It identifies many sites in the district with potential for housing. All the sites will be assessed through the formal Local Development Framework process, including sustainability appraisal, to see if they should be allocated for housing. The SHLAA will be continually updated and reviewed on an annual basis. The mechanism for taking land out of the Green Belt will be through the preparation and examination of the Local Development Framework Site Specific Proposals document. The Preferred Options Report was published in July 2008 for consultation and proposals will be revised to identify additional land to meet the regional housing requirement, the increased requirement for the Housing Growth Point and employment land provision set out in the Core Strategy to 2021. It is necessary to establish Green Belt boundaries that will remain in place for the plan period of the Local Development Framework to 2026. Additional safeguarded land may also be needed for long term development in order to secure the permanence of the Green Belt. 5.3 Methodology At the Site Specific Proposals - Preferred Options stage the Green Belt boundary was checked on a district wide basis to ensure that it follows suitable recognised features on the ground such as a road, track, footpath, stream or hedgerow using the latest Ordnance Survey base map. The Green Belt is shown on the Proposals Maps. Within the LDF are areas of safeguarded open land. These Protected Areas of Search for Long Term Development (PAS) are identified on the periphery of urban areas which were not allocated for development in the plan but are also not considered appropriate for inclusion within the Green Belt. These safeguarded areas will be reconsidered with the Green Belt review. PAS sites may be

28



allocated for development, retained as safeguarded land or incorporated into the Green Belt following sustainability appraisal of all potential development sites. It is likely that some new areas of safeguarded land will also be identified as part of the Green Belt review, to assist with the permanence of the Green Belt to 2026. A sequential approach will be adopted to the identification of suitable sites for development in the following order of priority set out in the Core Strategy:

• previously developed land and buildings within the settlement; • suitable infill sites within the relevant settlement; • sustainable extensions to the relevant settlement.

The Green Belt review will be focussed on the Housing Growth Point where most new development will be located, and on the identified urban areas in the Green Corridor where a smaller amount of growth may be required, in accordance with the spatial development strategy set out in the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy identifies some areas of constraint in the urban areas of Horbury, Ossett, Stanley and Outwood. The Green Belt review will not be carried out for these settlements except where major development has already occurred and consequently the settlement boundary may need to be realigned. Potential sites will be considered on the edge of the following settlements:

• Castleford • Featherstone • Knottingley • Normanton • Pontefract • Wakefield • Hemsworth • South Elmsall • South Kirkby

The following principles will apply to the review:

• Green Belt land will only be considered for allocation when sites within the urban areas have been considered and where additional land is needed to meet the identified requirements for housing, employment or safeguarded land.

• Potential sites must adjoin the settlement boundaries which are shown on the Proposals Maps. Isolated sites away from the identified settlements will not be considered. All sites will be subject to sustainability appraisal and this will determine which sites are selected for allocation.

• Potential sites will be assessed against the purposes of Green Belt set out in paragraph 5.1, particularly the prevention of settlements from merging, and the protection of the special character and setting of historic settlements (Conservation Areas, listed buildings, historic landscapes and archaeological sites for example). The cumulative impact of potential sites on the Green Belt and landscape character will also be examined as part of this site assessment process.

29



It is not proposed to consider releasing land for development in other settlements such as Local Service Centres and Villages. If sites come forward to meet identified local needs these will be considered under the special circumstances test in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts. 6.0 Employment Land Methodology 6.1 Employment Land Review The Council’s Employment Land Availability System monitors the employment land supply and take-up at the end of March and September each year. Information on all sites either allocated for employment use in the UDP First Alteration or with planning permission for employment use is recorded in a database and sites are captured on Geographic Information System. Each half year it is updated according to information from various sources including planning applications determined, Building Control records and site visits. The database is updated according to:

• new planning permissions for employment uses • planning permissions which result in losses of employment land • information on sites where construction has started.

Summary tables are produced each half year, showing land supply and take-up. These, and the data in the database, have been used to compile the Employment Land Review. Government has issued guidance9 on how to carry out an Employment Land Review of the current supply and how to assess future requirements. The Employment Land Review guidance notes that there is no definitive method for assessing future employment land requirements but two of the most commonly used are based on:

• sectoral economic and employment forecasts; • past take-up of employment land.

Both have drawbacks and rely on significant assumptions which reduce their usefulness. The sectoral analysis involves translating employment forecasts, which are in themselves uncertain, particularly when dealing with new employment sectors, into land requirements using a range of assumptions. On the other hand past take-up rates may mask latent demand and, in a changing economic environment, may not be a good guide to future requirements. The Council has prepared an Employment Land Technical Paper to support the Core Strategy. It sets out the approach to identifying and assessing sites for employment uses in the LDF. The following sections are taken from the technical paper and summarise the overall approach to be taken in preparing the Site Specific Proposals document. Method 1: Economic and Employment Forecasts for Regional Spatial Strategy In preparing RSS an assessment of the different types of employment land in each local authority area was carried out, using forecasts of employment change derived from the Regional Econometric Model. These are then translated into land requirements using various assumptions. The steps involved are:

9 Employment Land Reviews: Guidance Note, ODPM, December 2004 (ELR).

30



• forecasting employment change by sector and local authority area; • assigning each employment sector to a land use type; • determining which land uses will require additional land; • determining an average employment density for each land use type; • determining the average site coverage for each land use type.

The econometric model attempts to take account of the recent upturn in regional job creation and to reflect the aims of the Northern Way for future economic growth. Figures for Wakefield for the period 2004-2016 show a maximum need for an additional:

• 14 hectares for light industry/offices (B1 use class) and • 21 hectares for warehousing (B8) and general industry (B2).

Because the model forecasts changes in employment, the land requirements are net figures, i.e. they take account of the expected loss of existing employment land to other uses when employment in a particular sector is forecast to fall. The detailed methodology used is set out in technical papers available from the Yorkshire & Humber Assembly. The work carried out using the econometric model was updated in a report produced in June 2007 for Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber by Arup10 Figures from this report are set out in RSS, published May 2008. Table 11.1 of RSS shows that Wakefield has a potential Annual Job Growth of 1,140 full time equivalents. Table 11.2 analyses this by sector. Table 11.3 sets out guidance on land for industrial and storage/distribution uses 2006-2021. It indicates that an additional 20 hectares will be required in Wakefield District for B2/B8 uses in the period 2006-2021. Method 2: Past Take–Up of Employment Land The second method uses average rates of past land take-up to determine future land requirements. In the period covered by the UDP First Alteration, July 1996-March 2007, the amount of land developed for different types of employment use has been as follows:

Land Use Type Area (hectares)

B1 (Offices and Light Industry) 30.08

B2 (General Industry) 73.2

B8 (Warehousing) 145.95

B2/B8 26.1

Total 275.33

Table 3 EMPLOYMENT LAND TAKE-UP JULY 1996 –MARCH 2007 BY USE

Source: Council records

10 Update of the Job Growth and Employment Land Figures in the Draft RSS for Yorkshire and the Humber Arup for Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, June 2007

31



In addition, since June 1996, 63.37 hectares have been lost to non-employment uses. The two methods give widely differing results neither of which is in itself considered to be an adequate basis for establishing future needs. A number of other factors need to be considered which, whilst not adding to the quantitative analysis, help to determine which of the two methods provides the more reliable assessment. Market Demand The Wakefield District Development Agency, first, has provided information on two issues:

• the marketability of the remaining sites allocated for employment use • the types of enquiries received.

Amongst the remaining sites allocated for employment in the UDP, those located in the motorway corridors matched the requirements of enquirers most frequently in the last few years, notably Calder Park, Silkwood Park and Paragon Park along the M1 and sites at Featherstone, Normanton and Knottingley along the M62. Sites not marketed or with no interest include Sheepwalk Lane, Upton; Wheldale Colliery, Castleford; and Common Lane and Weeland Road, both in Knottingley. A summary of comments on each site is shown on the spreadsheet at Appendix 4 of the Employment Land Technical Paper. First responds to an average of over 400 enquiries per year made directly to the agency, requesting information on available sites and premises within the district. An analysis of 463 enquiries received in 2006/07 shows that 79 (17%) were specifically about offices, while 130 (28%) were specifically about industrial premises. The majority of enquiries (56%) came from within Wakefield District, with 24% coming from Yorkshire and the Humber. The two main stated reasons for the enquiry were new business start-up (28%) and relocation within the district (17%). 33% of enquiries came from the service sector and only 10% from manufacturing firms. 10% came from retail and only 6% from distribution/logistics. Information from first shows that there is still a demand for land and premises, particularly in the M1/M62 motorway corridors. Demand originates from within the district and beyond, from both business start ups and relocation and from the service and manufacturing sectors. Enquiries from a number of new categories were recorded from 2006. These included advanced engineering, digital/media, food & drink, and public sector. Recent Employment Changes Recently published figures show that between 2001 and 2006 employment in the district increased by 8.4%, the highest rate in West Yorkshire and above regional (5.5%) and national (3.3%) growth rates. According to the May 2007 Regional Economic Trends Survey for Yorkshire & the Humber, carried out by Experian Business Strategies on behalf of Yorkshire Forward and the CBI, over the past twelve months, employment has increased in Wakefield (balance of 14 per cent) marginally more than across the region (balance of 13 per cent). Over the coming year further increases are expected as a balance of 17 per cent of companies in Wakefield expect employment to increase compared to a regional balance of 13 per cent. Latest available forecasts predict that employment growth will be weaker than in the recent past but skewed towards the private services. Data from the Yorkshire and Humber Experian

32



Business Strategies Economic Database (Spring 2007 model) provided by Yorkshire Forward's Chief Economist Unit to the Yorkshire Futures Network suggest that between 2006 and 2016 employment growth in the district is set to grow by 6.8% against 5.2% for the region and 4.9% for the UK as a whole. These figures indicate the need for a higher land supply in the LDF than suggested by the outputs from the econometric model and the Arup report. All the above factors suggest that the future land supply should be of a scale closer to that indicated by past take-up rates than that suggested by the assessment based on forecasts of employment change. 6.2 Meeting the Requirement Sources of Potential Sites The requirement for employment land until 2021 can be met from the following sources:

• undeveloped land allocated for employment use in the UDP First Alteration (in both employment allocations and Special Policy Areas);

• undeveloped land in Employment Zones in the UDP First Alteration; • other land with planning permission; • potential new sites to be allocated in the LDF (in both employment allocations and Special

Policy Areas). Reviewing the Existing Employment Land Supply The supply figure in Table 1 and the average rate of take-up figure in Table 4 of the Employment Land Technical Paper suggest that there is sufficient land available in overall terms to meet requirement for employment land for more than 15 years (391.09 / 25.62 = 15.26) i.e. until 2022. The LDF will only seek to allocate land to meet needs until 2021 and on this basis there would be no need to allocate any further land. However, this crude estimate takes no account of the factors noted in the previous section and it is necessary to review the current supply of employment sites to determine the extent to which it matches, in terms of quantity, quality, type and location, the patterns of likely future requirements. Employment Land Review guidance, referred to above, and guidance in RSS are being followed in undertaking a review to make sure that existing land allocations in the UDP are:

• still suitable for employment use and are likely to be developed; • comply with the LDF spatial development strategy and RSS; and • meet current requirements for sustainable development.

Assessment of Existing Employment Sites at 31 March 2007 The Employment Land Review guidance paragraph 4.2 states: ‘The main objective is a simple assessment of the ‘fitness for purpose’ of the existing employment land portfolio, principally in order to identify the ‘best’ employment sites to be retained and protected and identifying sites that should clearly be released for other uses’.

33



The process of reviewing sites uses criteria derived from the Employment Land Review guidance to:

• assess whether sites are no longer appropriate for employment use and should be released;

• identify ‘high quality’ employment sites. The assessment is in two parts:

• a classification of current employment allocations to assess whether the supply of allocated employment land is suitable for different types of use;

• a further assessment of allocated land to see which sites are suitable to be carried forward in the LDF, and which should be released for non employment uses or to remain unallocated.

Assessment Part 1 Here, employment sites are classified according to the types identified in box 5.2 of the Employment Land Review guidance. Table 7 in the Employment Land Technical Paper shows the employment land supply at March 2007 distributed according to this classification. Main points are:

• 33% of the total is suitable for general industrial/business use; • 38% is suitable for warehouse / distribution parks; • All the land considered suitable for the High Quality Business Parks is within 2 Special

Policy Areas – Calder Park (SEW50) and Paragon Park (NWS65) both in Wakefield. • There are three categories for which no land is specifically identified:

- Research & Technology/Science Parks, - Incubator/SME Cluster Sites and - Specialist Freight Terminals

However, land within other categories might be suitable for these uses. Assessment Part 2 This second part of the assessment uses criteria from boxes 4.5 and 4.6 in the Employment Land Review guidance to assess whether sites should be released for a non-employment use and also to identify sites which should be retained as ‘High Quality’ employment allocations. A pro-forma has been devised for this stage of the assessment on which to record information about individual sites, see Appendix 3 of the Employment Land Technical Paper. A summary of the assessment of individual site allocations is shown in Appendix 4 of the Employment Land Technical Paper. The assessment shows that some sites have been fully, or almost fully, developed whilst on others development has only just begun, particularly in the case of a number of Special Policy Areas. It is proposed that those in the former group are re-designated as Employment Zones in the LDF, where the Council will support the continued existence of employment uses and where new industrial expansion or redevelopment proposals will generally be acceptable.

34



Where an allocated site has a valid planning permission it is proposed that it be retained automatically in the existing supply. In addition, where an allocation still has some undeveloped land without planning permission it should also be retained. The continuing suitability of all other sites, i.e. those with no planning permission, has been assessed. Employment is the preferred use for all these sites. Table 8 of the Employment Land Technical Paper provides a summary of the employment land following the site assessment. It shows how each UDP employment allocation would fit into the categories currently proposed for employment land in the Site Specific Proposals document. 346 hectares of the total land available at 31 March 2007 would be carried forward and 43 hectares (mainly comprising Special Policy Area EMS59, 27 hectares) would be re-allocated as safeguarded land (PAS). During the initial review of employment sites a number of prime sites were identified. These are referred to in the Core Strategy, Section 8 - Supporting a Dynamic and Efficient Local Economy. The figures in Table 9, along with the past take-up rates shown in Table 6, show that Wakefield has a five-year supply of prime employment sites for all types of employment land in accordance with the requirement in RSS policy E3. It also shows that the supply of land is sufficient to meet a requirement for a longer period, with the exception of B8 uses. However, should the rate of growth of B8 uses continue on the basis of past rates a requirement for additional land would need to be identified in the Core Strategy for it to fully set out guidance for the Sites Specific Proposals Development Plan Document until 2021. Given the continuing role that Wakefield should perform in providing land for B8 use consideration should be given recognising that this may require additional B8 land to that already available, despite the potential to redevelop/upgrade provision for B8 uses from within the substantial amount of land already in industrial and storage/distribution envisaged in the Regional Spatial Strategy. LDF Core Strategy The Core Strategy sets out a sequential approach in selecting appropriate employment sites for allocation within urban areas where identified need is to be met. The basis for identifying suitable allocations is:

• the overall need for different types of employment land (taking account of the key messages in RSS and proposals for the Leeds City Region);

• the spatial development strategy and the principles determining the location of development in the Core Strategy;

• the suitability of the site, assessed in terms of national and regional planning policy guidance;

• the opportunities to provide new employment development close to housing areas giving people the opportunity to work close to where they live.

In total a gross supply of 350 hectares of prime employment land is proposed in the district up to 2021. 255 hectares of this land is available:

• 75 hectares will be primarily for commercial office development; • 85 hectares will be primarily for light and general industry; • 95 hectares will be primarily for wholesale and freight distribution.

35



An additional 95 hectares of new land will be identified for wholesale freight distribution. Beyond 2021 employment land will come forward in accordance with the requirements of RRS, the spatial development strategy and in accordance with policy CS8 of the Core Strategy. The take up and supply of employment land will be monitored closely and reported on through the Annual Monitoring Report. Results of this monitoring may trigger a review of the employment allocations. Employment land allocations will be set out in the Site Specific Proposals document and in the Central Wakefield Area Action Plan. The prime employment land identified above will be distributed amongst a number of key locations, after taking into account the amount of land which already has planning permission at each location: 1. Commercial Offices:

• Wakefield city centre • Paragon Business Village, Snowhill, Wakefield • Calder Park, Denby Dale Road, Wakefield • Former Prince of Wales Colliery Site, Park Road, Pontefract.

2. Light and General Industry:

• Silkwood Park, Dewsbury Road, Wakefield • Green Lane, Featherstone • South Kirkby Business Park, South Kirkby • Glasshoughton, Castleford.

3. Wholesale and Freight Distribution:

• Normanton Industrial Estate Extension, Havertop Lane, Normanton • Additional locations in accordance with Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS8.

Identifying and Selecting Sites for the LDF In addition to existing UDP sites identified in Appendix 4 of the Employment Land Technical Paper, sites proposed to the Council during consultation on the LDF and other known sites are being considered as potential employment land allocations in the Site Specific Proposals document. The Core Strategy states that the basis for identifying suitable allocations will be:

• the overall need for different types of employment land identified in policy CS8 of the Core Strategy (including any specific land requirements in RSS for the district or Leeds City Region);

• the development strategy and the principles determining the location of development in Core Strategy policy CS1;

• the broad locations for different types of employment use identified in Core Strategy policy CS8;

• the suitability of the site, assessed in terms of national and regional planning policy guidance;

• the opportunities to provide new employment development close to housing areas giving people the opportunity to work close to where they live.

36



All potential sites, both those carried forward from the existing UDP and potential new sites, will be subject to:

• consultation with technical consultees to determine the type and extent of constraints affecting each site;

• sustainability appraisal; • assessing consistency with national planning policy, RSS and the emerging LDF Core

Strategy and Development Policies; • determining accessibility using new accessibility modelling techniques; • market demand assessment.

Accessibility Accession modelling software has been used to consider and quantify the accessibility of proposed employment sites via public transport and to help identify sites to be allocated in the LDF. Details are set out in section 3 of this document.

37



7.0 Sustainability Appraisal Methodology 7.1 Sustainability Appraisal The sustainability appraisal (SA) process used for all Wakefield LDF documents is summarised below. The assessment comprises of the following stages:

• Determining the key issues upon which the SA should focus and setting and agreeing sustainability objectives, a process known as ‘Scoping’

• Appraisal of the Issues and Options, referred to as the ‘Initial SA’; • Appraisal of the Preferred Options chosen, referred to as the ‘SA Report’; an • Appraisal of the changes made between the Preferred Options and Submission stages,

referred to as the ‘Final SA Report’. Scoping The aim of the scoping stage is to determine the key environmental, social and economic issues arising in the district and the framework for assessing the plans. The SEA Regulations require that the following topics are investigated in order to determine whether the introduction of the policies will have significant effects on these topic areas:

- Population - Climatic factors - Human health - Material Assets - Biodiversity, flora and fauna - Cultural heritage - Soil - Landscape - Water - And the interrelationship between these factors - Air

In addition to these “SEA topics”, other social and economic factors are also taken into account. After documenting the sustainability characteristics of the area, and identifying any trends (i.e. is the situation getting better or worse?), other planning documents and policies were reviewed to see how these would influence the SA and the LDF. From the outputs of these two initial stages, the key environmental, social and economic issues and opportunities that relate to the area, and on which the assessment should focus, were established. These issues are described below. 7.2 Key Sustainability Issues and Baseline Key sustainability issues have been identified from the review of planning documentation, information on the existing sustainability characteristics of the district and following discussions with the Council. These are described below. Economic Issues High unemployment exists in some areas of the district, particularly in the south east and north east of the district and parts of the city of Wakefield, due to the decline in traditional industries. Many new jobs are temporary, part time and lower paid. Good quality job opportunities need to be provided in all areas of the district to reduce the levels of hardship experienced by some people.

38



Economic growth in the district is below the national average. Investment and new business activities in the district need to be encouraged, and conditions that enable economic growth developed. Shops, manufacturing work and health and social work are the largest employers in the district but jobs in the financial and other business services, leisure and recreation, hotels and catering and other professional services are increasing. However, Wakefield has the smallest number of offices in West Yorkshire, with most located in Wakefield City centre. Demand for office accommodation is growing outside established town centres in the district. There is a continuing demand for sites of 2-8 hectares for distribution warehouses, mainly at the industrial estates in the motorway and A1 corridors and on open greenfield land. Social Issues The impact of the decline of the traditional industries in areas of the south-east and north of the district has resulted in higher than the national average levels of social and economic hardship. The number of adults with qualifications in the Wakefield District is relatively low although the number of pupils achieving GCSE grades A to C has increased, so that it is now in line with the regional average. Wakefield has a relatively high level of burglary and theft from motor vehicles compared with the national average and car crime has been increasing. There is a need for affordable housing throughout the district and the number of new homes built on previously developed land should to be maintained at current levels. The proportion of residents with limiting long-term illness is relatively high and has risen from 15.3% in 1991 to 22.4% in 2001. Almost half of these are of working age. Environmental Issues Protected ecological sites cover only 2% of Wakefield District’s land area. Woodland cover in the District is just 3.8%, compared with the national figure of 10.5%. There is 1 Special Area of Conservation, 6 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and a range of local ecological and geological designations within the district. There are 22 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 27 Conservation Areas and a considerable number of listed buildings, archaeological and historic sites in Wakefield District. It is important that designated ecological, geological, archaeological and historic sites are not damaged by development. The impact of development on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes will also be considered. Due to the decline of coal mining and other traditional industries, the district has suffered significant environmental degradation, dereliction and (in part) potential for suspected ground contamination. Future development should increasingly be on previously developed land, and, where possible, enable the clean-up of contaminated land. Improvement and enhancement of the quality of the district’s landscape should be promoted and maintained. Air quality along the M1 motorway and the A1 near Darrington, is worse than the national average, and in these specific areas Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been declared. Traffic is the main source of the pollutants in these locations, and therefore it is

39



important that development decisions take air quality into account and put forward the appropriate mitigation measures. The water quality of the rivers Aire, Calder and Dearne has improved over recent years largely as a result of improvements to sewage treatment and industrial waste discharges. Rates of improvement have slowed in the last few years however. A clean environment should be promoted and maintained, including the quality of rivers. The district has a lower level of carbon dioxide emissions per head than the Region as a whole. Ferrybridge Power Station has also begun using renewable energy sources, as well as coal, as an energy source and so the amount of energy from renewable sources is increasing but still remains relatively low. The amount of household waste recycled in recent years has increased significantly to 21% which is more than the Regional average. 7.3 SA Objectives Based on these key issues, fifteen SA Objectives were developed as shown below. These were then agreed with environmental bodies and others and uses as the basis for the appraisal. SA1 Good quality employment opportunities available to all; SA2 Conditions which enable business success, economic growth and investment;

SA3 Education and training opportunities to build skills and capacities;

SA4 Conditions and services to engender good health;

SA5 Safety and security for people and property;

SA6 Vibrant communities to participate in decision making;

SA7 Create, enhance and provide accessibility to culture, leisure and recreation activities;

SA8 Local needs met locally;

SA9 Quality housing available to everyone;

SA10 To provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts;

SA11 A quality built environment that protects and enhances its historic assets, and efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict sites, minimise travel and promote balanced development;

SA12 A bio-diverse and attractive natural environment;

SA13 Minimal pollution levels;

SA14 Minimal greenhouse gas emissions and a managed response to the effects of climate change; and

40



SA15 Prudent and efficient use of energy and natural resources with minimal production of waste.

Testing the Objectives In order to ensure that the LDF objectives don’t conflict with the sustainability objectives, they were tested against each other. No significant conflicts were found. Increases in development proposed by the LDF objectives will affect the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and level of waste produced within the district, however, this needs to be balanced against the need to provide economic growth, employment and housing for local residents, visitors and workers. Consultations on the Scope of the SA Consultations on the key issues and SA objectives were undertaken with the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, and the Environment Agency to confirm that they were in agreement with the findings of the initial stages, and to provide an opportunity to suggest changes to the assessment. Consultation with these bodies is a legal requirement however in addition, a wider group of local stakeholders were also included in the consultation exercises so that input could be provided on the approach to assessing the social and economic factors covered by the assessment, as well as the more local environmental issues. Initial Sustainability Appraisal One of the requirements of SA is to consider alternative approaches to achieving the objectives of the plan, so that the effects of these alternatives can be assessed. For the Site Specific Proposals DPD, this comprised of assessing a number of different sites that could be allocated in order to achieve the growth proposed within the Core Strategy. These allocations were appraised against a series of questions designed to incorporate the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives. The purpose of this appraisal, known as an ‘Initial Sustainability Appraisal’, was to help inform and guide the selection of site allocations to be taken forward into the Preferred Options Report. Initial SA reports were prepared in 2006 and 2007 as new sites have been identified. These were issued to a number of key consultees for comment and ware made available on the Council’s website, and consultation responses were taken into account in the preparation of each of the reports. The Initial Sustainability Appraisal Review was undertaken in February – May 2006. A second Initial Sustainability Appraisal Review (Volume 2) was undertaken in January – August 2007. Sustainability Appraisal of Preferred Options Following the initial appraisal of potential sites the SA of Preferred Options sites was undertaken and the Sustainability Appraisal Report was published in June 2008. This stage of the SA involved predicting the environmental, social and economic effects that were likely to result from the individual site allocations and the combined effects of all the allocations. Where adverse effects were identified, recommendations were made as to how these could be mitigated.

41



Sustainability Appraisal of Submission Proposals (January 2009 – March 2009) The site allocations chosen by the Council for inclusion in the Submission document have been appraised against the agreed SA Objectives. The appraisal has focused on identifying the significant environmental, social, and economic effects which may result from the allocation of sites. The sites were assessed for their likely impact against the 15 SA objectives, and the findings of the assessment are set out in the Final Sustainability Appraisal Report that accompanies the Site Specific Proposals Submission Document. Mitigation Measures SA Guidance requires measures to be considered to prevent, reduce or offset any significant negative effects that have been identified during the assessment process. In many cases where significant negative effects and other less significant effects have been identified the Site Specific Proposals document has put forward the mitigation measures required to prevent or reduce the severity of this effect. For example, requiring planning applications for sensitive development within an area of high air pollution to submit air quality assessments and proposals for management of this problem. How the assessment has influenced the LDF The process of undertaking sustainability appraisal on the emerging policy options for the LDF documents is not a ‘rubber stamping operation’ that is carried out once the policies have been determined, but instead is an interactive process which informs the option development process. This has resulted in:

• revisions to the LDF objectives as a result of the initial SA stages; • guiding the selection and wording of the preferred policies and the supporting documents;

and • recommending mitigation measures to include into the preferred policies and planning

documents. Monitoring Proposals Once the plans are implemented, their effects on the environment, society and economy are to be monitored to allow action to be taken to reduce and/or offset any significant effects. The monitoring programme will be finalised for inclusion in the SA Statement which will accompany the adopted plans. Where possible the monitoring will make use of existing arrangements, such as those reported in the Wakefield LDF Annual Monitoring Report. The results of the sustainability appraisals of the Core Strategy, Development Policies and Site Specific Proposals documents are set out in the respective reports produced at each stage of the process of preparing each document. 7.4 Appropriate Assessment Screening Under Habitats Regulations Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive require Appropriate Assessment to be carried out for plans and projects that are likely to affect a Natura 2000 site such as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Special Protection Area (SPA) or a Ramsar Site. Appropriate Assessment (AA) is a process which assesses the implications and potential affects of individual and combined

42



LDF policies and site allocations on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site, and determines whether or not policies or proposals will significantly affect the integrity of these objectives. Within Wakefield District there is one SAC, Denby Grange Colliery Ponds. Links to the Sustainability Appraisal of the LDF Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) involves the systematic identification and evaluation of the impacts of a plan or programme on the environment. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) broadens the SEA to also address economic and social impacts to encompass the three dimensions of sustainable development. There are clear parallels between AA, SA and SEA since all three are processes for assessing and minimising the environmental and sustainability impacts of plans. It is generally accepted that AA and SA/SEA should be undertaken in parallel, however AA requires a clear, separate statement for each LDF document. AA is carried out at each stage of the process of preparing each LDF document. The results are set out in the respective reports which accompany the Core Strategy, Development Policies, Site Specific Proposals and Central Wakefield Area Action Plan documents. The process or stages of AA are outlined below: 1. Screening. Determines whether the LDF is likely to have a significant affect on any European

sites and whether a full AA is needed. Screening focuses on avoidance and mitigation of impacts.

2. Appropriate Assessment. Determines whether, in view of the site’s conservation objectives,

the plan would have a significant affect on the integrity of the site. The emerging LDF should be developed to ensure that significant affects on European sites are avoided. This will render Stages 3 and 4 unnecessary.

3. Assessment of Alternative Solutions. Where the LDF is assessed as having an adverse affect

on the integrity of a site, alternatives should be examined. Alternatives that avoid adverse affects on European sites should be developed and considered from the earliest stages.

4. Assessment where no alternative solutions remain and where adverse impacts remain.

Compensation measures are required for any adverse affects, and are permitted only where the plan would be necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

How AA has influenced the LDF The process of undertaking AA is an interactive process which informs the development of options, policies and site allocations. This has resulted in:

• choosing LDF objectives which have positive or neutral rather than negative impacts on the SAC;

• guiding the selection of the preferred policies and the supporting documents; and • ensuring that policies and site allocations will have positive or neutral impacts on the SAC.

43



8.0 SETTLEMENT APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

The Settlement Technical Paper was considered as evidence supporting the Core Strategy in 2008. The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy are set out in the Core Strategy and have been confirmed through public examination. Consequently, the Settlement Hierarchy is fixed and cannot be amended in the context of the Site Specific Proposals document. The Settlement Appraisal Methodology is included in this document for information. Limited changes to some settlement boundaries are open to consultation for the Site Specific Proposals document in light of the Housing Growth Point and subsequent Green Belt Review around identified settlements (see the Green Belt Methodology section of this document). 8.1 Approach to Methodology The settlement appraisal involved the following stages:

Box 1: Stages of Settlement Assessment Process Stage 1: Literature and policy review A review of relevant documentation and sources of information including national, regional and local plans and programmes, such as the regional settlement study, city and town centre master plans and neighbourhood renewal strategies. This informed the development of the settlement hierarchy and the identification of sustainable settlements. Stage 2: Settlement identification This involved identifying settlements and areas suitable to accommodate growth using the results of the urban capacity work and baseline review as a starting point. The appraisal sought to classify/define settlements in terms of role, function and importance. Stage 3: Sustainability indicators A core set of sustainability indicators were developed to assess the sustainability of each settlement and their potential to accommodate plan led growth. This involved analysing 2001 census data, including relative population sizes, workplace to population ratios, economic activity and health related statistics. A summary of how each settlement performed against the sustainability indicators is set out in the settlement profiles in Section 4 of the Settlement Technical Paper. The factors considered included: • the ability of plan led growth to contribute towards maintaining or improving sustainability of the

settlement and economic regeneration; • the accessibility of the settlement to shops and services; • physical and environmental constraints that limit settlement expansion; and • opportunities for promoting growth within the settlement. Stage 4: Developing the settlement hierarchy This explains how the results of the appraisal have informed the development of the spatial development strategy including spatial options. Stage 5: Conclusions and recommendations This summarises the results and outlines the way forward.

The overall approach to ranking and classifying settlements reflects wider Government objectives (as reflected in the Core Strategy) that aim to minimise the loss of the countryside, protect natural

44



resources, reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and promote a high quality built environment. 8.2 Settlement Identification The purpose of this stage was to identify/ classify settlements and determine which settlements should be included within the scope of appraisal. A simple classification system has been developed to determine the broad level and scale of development and growth for each settlement. It is based on the settlement classification system set out in the RSS and government definitions of sustainable development. The challenge is to deliver sustainable growth and meet local needs regeneration objectives within the city of Wakefield and towns within the wider coalfield area including city and town centres. Based on the evidence set out in this document, Wakefield’s settlements vary in terms of size, composition and function, ranging from sub regional cities and medium to large towns through to small rural market towns and villages. In part, these differences reflect the fact that Wakefield is a large metropolitan area with former coalfield areas and large tracts of open land (over 70% of the district lies within the Green Belt) and a closely linked network of settlements. However, due to resource and time constraints, it has not been possible to assess all of Wakefield’s settlements as part of the settlement work. The settlement appraisal focuses on:

• settlements with potential to be a focus for growth under the terms of the RSS; • other coalfield and market towns; and • a limited number of further smaller settlements south and east of the M1 and M62

motorways which are likely to face development pressures during the LDF period. Wakefield’s settlements have been classified into different categories of urban form based on the following order of priority:

• Urban Areas • Local Service Centres • Villages • Other Settlements

Definitions of these different types of settlement and centres are contained in RSS, PPS6 and the regional settlement study - prepared by North Yorkshire County Council for the revised draft RSS in 2004. The settlement appraisal aims to broaden the scope of the regional settlement hierarchy to encompass social, economic and environmental factors that relate to local sustainability criteria. These are set out in Box 2. Broadly, the Urban Areas are defined as:

• the largest settlements within the district which offer the highest level of services, facilities and employment opportunities;

• the most accessible locations within the district in terms of proximity to public transport and the strategic road network; and

45



• settlements with a population of 10,000 and above and a population density of more than 30 dwellings per hectare. The exception is Hemsworth in the south east of the district, which has a population of 9,100. It should be recognised that Hemsworth performs the role of a district centre and is significantly larger than some other urban settlements. This is based on the Government’s definition of urban areas set out in the Review of Urban and Rural Area Definitions, report to the ODPM (December 2002).

It should be noted that the urban potential study defines the physical boundary of the settlement as that which forms part of the urban envelope and excludes the Green Belt. However, it means that settlement boundaries do not equate with the boundaries of the Super Output Areas from the 2001 census on which the demographic and socio economic statistics for each settlement are based. The majority of the published socio-economic information is only available for wards, Super Output Areas and parishes or post codes. Nevertheless, the contextual data provides a useful measure for comparing and assessing settlements in terms of their suitability to accommodate growth, and their relative sustainability. Using the above definition as a guide, we have classified the following settlements as ‘Urban Areas’

• Sub Regional City of Wakefield • Principal Towns (Castleford and Pontefract) • Featherstone • Hemsworth • Horbury • Knottingely (including Ferrybridge) • Normanton (including Altofts) • Ossett • South Elmsall/ South Kirkby • Stanley/Outwood.

These are the main urban areas of the district and the results of the settlement appraisal described in Section 4 of the Settlement Technical Paper show that the settlements are suitable to accommodate further growth. The villages and other settlements within the hierarchy are mostly rural in character and do not provide a sufficient range of services or population to accommodate significant growth other than associated with local needs, such as affordable housing. Principal Towns are identified in RSS and form the second category of settlement in the district under the Sub Regional City of Wakefield. Castleford and Pontefract are relatively similar in terms of connectivity, demographic profile and social mix. They both fulfil regionally significant roles as service, employment and transport hubs for their surrounding areas. They are large former mining towns with strong connections with the Sub Regional City of Wakefield and Regional City of Leeds. Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract contain the main shopping and commercial centres within the district (i.e. city and town centres) and employment areas. Reflecting their role and status as key urban areas, these settlements sit above the other settlements in the settlement hierarchy as set out in the Core Strategy Policy CS1.

46



The typology of settlements draws a distinction between urban areas and rural areas. Rural areas include the Local Service Centres, villages and other settlements. Local Service Centres are defined as towns and villages that provide services and meet the needs of, and are accessible to, people living in surrounding rural areas. Although they are not identified in the regional settlement study the RSS requires local planning authorities to identify/ allocate Local Service Centres in their LDFs. In Wakefield District Local Service Centres have a particular role to play in supporting villages and small settlements within the rural hinterland. They include small towns and large villages, and some have established commercial and employment centres, as the results of the settlement study confirm. They also display similar characteristics in terms of size, profile, and the range of facilities. Settlements classed as Local Service Centres have a population of around between 6,000 and 4,000. Usually they provide a range of local shops and services, such as convenience stores and some public facilities (e.g. library and post office), and have strong links with the main urban areas of the district. In the tier of settlement beneath the Local Service Centres identified in the settlement hierarchy, the relatively limited range of services and facilities in the Villages mean that they do not fit into the category of ‘Urban Areas’ or ‘Local Service Centres’. Villages (which are identified as the fourth category of settlement) generally serve the needs of the local community within the settlement. They are not of sufficient size to support a broader range of services and facilities. As the settlement appraisal confirms, the villages are generally not well served by public transport. Streethouse is the only village to have a railway station and none of the villages have bus stations so they generally have lower levels of accessibility to the main urban areas. There are also a number of other small villages and hamlets that are within the Green Belt which are dispersed across the district with few or minimal facilities or very limited accessibility to local facilities and employment opportunities. They do not fit into the settlement hierarchy ‘Village’ category and are considered to form part of the countryside and are classed as ‘Other Settlements’. For the purpose of the settlement appraisal, the Villages and Other Settlements have not been subject to detailed survey or analysis nor included within the scope of the Settlement Technical Paper as they are only suitable for limited small scale growth. Wakefield’s settlements have been categorised according to:

• their role and function (in terms of population size, demographic profile, location, availability of services and facilities and service role);

• accessibility by different modes of transport (i.e. rail, bus, cycle and motor vehicle) especially to other settlements within the district;

• overall suitability to accommodate development having regard to potential constraints and opportunities and the character and form of the settlement.

These typologies have formed the basis of determining which settlements should be included within the settlement appraisal.

47



Settlement Boundaries Once the list of settlements to be included in the appraisal had been decided, it was necessary to determine the extent of the settlement boundaries in terms of the urban envelope. The results were initially presented through the urban potential study and have been updated to reflect changing circumstances. Settlement boundaries are shown on the Site Specific Proposals Document maps. A full list of settlements included in the appraisal is set out in Section 5 (Settlement Profiles) of the Settlement Technical Paper. 8.3 Sustainability Indicators As previously mentioned, we carried out an initial assessment of the settlements as part of the urban capacity work during 2004. The study developed a sustainability checklist to determine the capacity of settlements to accommodate growth focussing on the level of facilities available within each settlement. This checklist has been used as a starting point for developing a more comprehensive set of indicators embracing social, economic as well as environmental considerations to assess the sustainability of settlements in terms of delivering plan led growth and sustainable communities. These indicators are listed in Box 2 below and presented in the left hand column of the settlement appraisal table in Appendix A of the Settlement Technical Paper.

Box 2: Sustainability indicators for Wakefield’s settlement hierarchy Role and function of settlement • Population size • Range and number of services and facilities available with the settlement • UDP designation (i.e. shopping and commercial centre) Socio-economic factors • Car ownership and owner occupancy levels • Health conditions • Workplace population / workplace population ratios (i.e. people who love and work in the same

settlement) • Deprivation levels (Indices of Deprivation) Accessibility • Accessibility zones (as set out in the supplementary planning guidance note on district-wide

parking standards - SPG7) • Number of public transport facilities available with the settlement (i.e. proximity to public

transport) • Accessibility to larger urban settlements Environmental constraints and opportunities • Conservation areas • Flood risk • Air quality • Nature conservation sites • Hazardous sites

48



• Landscape character area (i.e. sensitivity of the landscape to change) • Regeneration activity (master plans and renewal programmes) • New cycle and road proposals Capacity • Identified housing potential • Previous UDP growth (i.e. high, medium or low)

The criteria above have been used to justify which settlement falls into which category within the settlement hierarchy (i.e. ‘Urban Areas’, ‘Local Service Centres’, ‘Villages’ and ‘Other Settlements’). As far as possible, these indicators reflect national and regional priorities as well as local needs and have been drawn from a variety of sources, including:

• national planning guidance (including PPS3, PPS6 and PPG13) • Regional Spatial Strategy: Settlement Study (2004) • Regional Sustainable Development Framework (RSDF - 2003-2005) • local performance indicators (e.g. supplementary planning guidance/ supplementary

planning documents, master plans etc) For the purposes of the appraisal, we adopted the accessibility standards in SPG7 as a basis for determining the level of “accessibility” within each settlement by modes other than the car (i.e. public transport, cycling and walking) using a ranking scale of high, medium and low. The accessibility zones are shown diagrammatically in Appendix D of the Settlement Technical Paper (taken as an extract from SPG7: District Wide Parking Standards). Socio economic factors are recognised as critical elements in the sustainability of settlements and the habitats and human resources on which they depend. They provide a useful measure of the contribution of the settlement to social and economic well-being, especially in terms of employment status, income, economic activity and education. A constraints map showing environmental designations such as international and national nature conservation sites (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Special Scientific Interest), flood risk zones (low, medium and high risk) and Air Quality Management Areas is included in Appendix B of the Settlement Technical Paper. A separate map showing hazardous sites is also provided in Appendix C of the Settlement Technical Paper. 8.4 Settlement Appraisal Stage 3 of the settlement appraisal entailed collecting and synthesising information on key contextual data on individual settlements in the district across a range of socio-economic and environmental factors. This information was used to categorise and rank settlements in terms of their position within the hierarchy and determine the suitability for growth of each settlement. Data sources included:

• 2001 census data (demographic information in terms of population, unemployment and deprivation)

• Health and Safety Executive web site (www.hse.gov.uk) • National statistics web site (www.statistics.gov.uk) • Indicative flood plain maps (Environment Agency)

49


http://www.hse.gov.uk/

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/


• Information from statutory planning documents including the Wakefield UDP First Alteration and the West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan

• Housing and employment land requirements • Strategic Housing Market Assessment (David Cumberland Housing Regeneration Ltd,

draft version, 2007) • Wakefield Urban Potential Study (2004) • Landscape Character Assessment of Wakefield District (2004) • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) • Wakefield city centre health checks (GVA Grimley) • Index of multiple deprivation indicators (2004) • Affordable housing need statements

The index of multiple deprivation describes the distribution of deprivation across the district on a ward by ward basis. The information used to describe deprivation at ward level includes income, employment levels, skills and training, health, educational attainment and other socio-economic factors. This information has been turned into a single score for each settlement relative to one another based on their level of deprivation. The average regional rank always represents 5 on the scale. Generally, the higher a settlement scores the better it is performing in the region and the lower it scores the poorer it is performing. A substantial amount of the information originates from local sources such as the flood risk assessment and landscape character study and other non-statutory documents that underpin the LDF. However, the settlement appraisal does not include a comprehensive analysis of accessibility profiling and mapping (via accession software), public transport corridors and travel to work patterns. This is attributed to the lack of available empirical data and time limitations. Using these data sources, each settlement has been assessed against each of the sustainability indicators (as identified in Box 2 and Appendix A of the Settlement Technical Paper) to determine their suitability for growth and plan led change via a combination of desk top analysis and survey work/ site inspections. This involved undertaking a detailed survey of services and facilities in each settlement. The indicators include, among others, education establishments (e.g. nursery, primary and secondary schools), health centres (e.g. general hospitals, GPs, dentists and health clinics), convenience and comparison shops, public transport nodes (e.g. bus and railway stations) and community and leisure facilities (e.g. libraries, community centres, sports hall/swimming pools). Its main purpose is to establish the role and function of each settlement and their accessibility in terms of proximity to jobs and services. Overall, the results of the survey (as set out in Appendix A of the Settlement Technical Paper) indicate that Wakefield and Castleford contain the highest number of facilities and services within the district (33 in total) closely followed by Pontefract (32 in total). The intent of the settlement appraisal is two fold:

1. To provide an audit of settlement needs and current circumstances in terms of the number of facilities and services within each settlement and existing demographic, employment

50



and housing trends. This reflects the current situation (i.e. what is there now) and acknowledges the individual roles of settlements.

2. To highlight the potential benefits that future growth will engender in the settlement in

terms of supporting local facilities (especially where there are deficiencies in existing provision) and or consolidating their existing role.

In relation to the second bullet point, the settlement appraisal sought to identify where further growth could contribute towards improving the sustainability of the settlement and regeneration objectives. Settlement profiles are provided in Section 4 of the Settlement Technical Paper. A brief summary of the results of the settlement appraisal is included in Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy, which provides a comparison of the services and infrastructure available in each settlement. The table includes all of the settlements listed in the settlement hierarchy including small villages and other settlements. A more detailed summary of the results of the settlement appraisal (excluding the villages and small settlements) is included in Appendix A of the Settlement Technical Paper.

51



Appendix Members of the Technical Stakeholder Group Matthew Naylor Yorkshire Water Rob Masheder West Yorkshire Ecology Colin Holm Natural England - Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber Carl Banton Coal Authority Rachael Bust Coal Authority Toni Rios Highway Agency Chris Yapp Highway Agency (JMP Consultants Ltd) Michael Long Metro Ian Sanderson West Yorkshire Archaeological Service David Feeney Leeds City Council Chris McKone Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Amy Heys Environment Agency Sally Armstrong Environment Agency Members of the Developer/Landowner Group David Boulton Carter Jonas R A Gough Gough Planning Services P.L. Ellis Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust I Brodie Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust I Hessay Caddick Andrew Pepper Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust L Ramsden Barratt Homes J Hobson Signet Planning A Rose Spawforths M Sheppard Turley Associates Mark Johnson Dacres Commercial Colin Mackie Yorkcourt Properties David Reece Waystone Victoria Molton Walker Morris Andrew Piatt Halliwells Stuart Natkus The Land and Development Practice Peter Torrible The Land and Development Practice Members of the Community Representative Group Catherine Dodds Over 50’s Wakefield Group Mr Scholes Resident David Mitchell Horbury and Ossett Regeneration Group Matthew Morley Travelling Showperson James Morris Normanton Environmental Societies together Rick Hayward Wakefield Civic Society Mr Taberner Kinsley & Fitzwilliam Community Resource Centre Gill Lang Federation of Small Businesses Adrian Pope Pontefract Civic Society Peter Cookson Pontefract Civic Society

52



53


Lillian Worton Agbrigg & Bellevue Community Association Ken Barker Horbury Community Council Members of the Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Group James Paton Local Government Yorkshire and Humber Charlie Tindill Neighbourhood Patrol & ASBO Manager (WMDC) Violet Tucker Member of the Gypsy and Traveller Community Mandy Sherrard Home-School Liaison Officer – Traveller (WMDC) Heather Kopp Wakefield District Primary Care Trust David Sturrock Property Services (WMDC) James Finnie Member of the Travelling Showman Community Matthew Morley Vice Chairman of the Travelling Showman’s Guild Kairen Shearon Partnership Manager, Strategic Housing (WMDC) Anna Lewis Housing Members of the Wakefield MDC Internal Officer Group included Officers from the following Service Areas: • Transportation & Highways • Strategic Housing • Education • Skills Enterprise and Work • Planning Services • Regeneration – Major Projects • Parks and Public Realm • Environmental/Public Health • Minerals • Rights of Way • Conservation • Drainage and Environmental Engineering • Property Services • Sustainability Officer • Wakefield first