Bye bye countryside

Wool · Post by **Wool** » Fri 10 Dec, 2010 9:06 pm

The issues here are the same as those in my thread about land off Church lane, Adel. The idiotic planning legislation ( "Regional Spatial Strategy") introduced by the last government forced cities such as Leeds to designate huge areas of land for future housebuilding, irrespective of whether there was any proven demand for it or what local people thought.These planning rules appear to allow developers to gain planning consent for greenfield sites designated for eventual housebuilding even where there is ample available brownfield land. Leeds City Council has turned down planning applications for several greenfield sites arguing that available brownfield should be developed first. There have been about a dozen appeals by developers, all of which have succeeded to date. The appeal in relation to Adel is not yet finished and there are 2 other outstanding appeals in relation ( I think) to Allerton Bywater and Boston Spa.The current local government minister attempted to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategy in June but the High Court, on an application by a developer, ruled last month that the attempted abolition was unlawful as it could only be achieved by an Act of Parliamant. The RSS is therefore still with us until the government changes the law and these appeals are all about developers securing lucrative planning consents on greenfield sites while the going is good. These sites will then be the first to be developed when the economy eventually improves and brownfield sites will be left to rot for even longer.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 03 Apr, 2011 9:45 pm

It's gone all quiet on this story, so it's unclear if planning has been granted, or if things are still outstanding.However, we do now have an idea of the traffic congestion this scheme would cause, thanks to "Bridge Maintenance Work" being carried out in the dip where the A64 crosses Grimes Dyke.Temporary traffic lights have seen traffic tailing back virtually onto the Windmill Roundabout at peak periods, with similar queues in the other direction - no doubt accompanied by additional vehicles rat running through Scholes and Whinmoor in an attempt to avoid the holdups.This seems at direct odds with the would be developers own traffic survey which contested that there would be no significant impact on traffic with the planned new traffic light controlled junction into the development in virtually the same place....add this into the the queues into the Tesco store car park at the other side of the roundabout and and the queues along the Ring Road through the lights at Coal Road and we're rapidly approaching gridlock at one of the cities main arterial routes.

Post by **chameleon** » Mon 04 Apr, 2011 9:07 pm

raveydavey wrote: It's gone all quiet on this story, so it's unclear if planning has been granted, or if things are still outstanding.However, we do now have an idea of the traffic congestion this scheme would cause, thanks to "Bridge Maintenance Work" being carried out in the dip where the A64 crosses Grimes Dyke.Temporary traffic lights have seen traffic tailing back virtually onto the Windmill Roundabout at peak periods, with similar queues in the other direction - no doubt accompanied by additional vehicles rat running through Scholes and Whinmoor in an attempt to avoid the holdups.This seems at direct odds with the would be developers own traffic survey which contested that there would be no significant impact on traffic with the planned new traffic light controlled junction into the development in virtually the same place....add this into the the queues into the Tesco store car park at the other side of the roundabout and and the queues along the Ring Road through the lights at Coal Road and we're rapidly approaching gridlock at one of the cities main arterial routes. A quick look at this a couple of times this last week doesn't show much to conclude from.Much of the work seemed to involve adding road side rainwater gullies, perhaps strange given that the Cock Beck, somewhat lower than the bridge and road going over it is the topwater sewer. Such works often preceed other activities, creating an access and roadway for instance but then, that dip does make a wonderful lake during times of rain-aplenty doesn't it?Today however, work has increased leaving a massive pile of stone blocks at the road side, perhaps the walls being rebuilt?So, whether it is simply maintenance/improvement or works in readiness for something else remains unclear.Probably unrelated but there have been periods of strong effluent odours which concentrate in the vicinity. As I Stated above, the beck is a topwater sewer but I have no idea where the foul counterpart taking waste from the developments to the north is situated - perhaps our wellplaced friend Cardie could answer that one for me?

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Tue 05 Apr, 2011 12:09 am

I'm in foreign parts up in Northumberland this week but the principle for new development is thta surface water is drained to water course. Local smells could be due to many reasons: blockage, cross connections, collapse, too small, inadequate fall.... call the helpline, say you think there may be pollution and someone will be out double quicktime.Bizarrely the inadequate capacity of the sewers or treatment capacity is not a reason for planning permission to be refused and YW can not object.

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 21 Jun, 2011 6:34 pm

The planning appeal for the residential building upon the site of Grimes Dyke Farm has been allowed. Design proposals now have to conform with appropriate regulations for building to commence; the report states that such applications have to be made within the usual time limits.The enquiry in 2004 over the UDP proposal for this site stated that it should not commence sooner than 2011. It seems unlikely that the Council will continue to fight this one purely to delay the start - they are relenting on other appeals where there is unlikely to be a success on the (reasonable) grounds of saving the costs which could finally be awarded against them where counter-appeals fail.For anyone wishing to spend an hour going through the legal terms in the decission document, it is here:http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents ... 913741.pdf

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:28 pm

Thanks for the update - sadly the inevitable has happened, the developers will make a small fortune and traffic in the area will be blighted forever.Lets hope no-one dies as a result of the new traffic lights to be installed in an unsighted dip....

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 21 Jun, 2011 9:08 pm

raveydavey wrote: Thanks for the update - sadly the inevitable has happened, the developers will make a small fortune and traffic in the area will be blighted forever.Lets hope no-one dies as a result of the new traffic lights to be installed in an unsighted dip.... Amongst the measures buried in the document are a reduction in the A64 speed limit to 40mph, improvements to (non specific) access to the A64- hopefully taking the opportunity to remove the right turns onto and off the road at the Red Lion and between the adjacent road narrowing islands and alterations to the junctions of A64/A6120 at the Seacroft and Barwick Road junctions.The inpector concludes that pedestrian and cycle links to York Road, existing public transport links and amenities are adequate. It is as we know, demonstrabley evident that many parents living more than 5 mins walk away from schools do deliver their offspring there (or to bus stops for those further efield) by car and, few will struggle on a bus or walk with any quantity of shopping!The Estate has to be constructed to current environmental standards for transport which means discouraging vehicular traffic. Laudable as this may be, you won't change the nature of the beast and [edited for content] we already see so frequently, the narrower and restricted roads will doubtless be narrowed further by parked cars, oh! not forgetting of course the universally carparks of convenience (or not) - the public footways.Couple this with the required concentration of the dwellings and this may turn out to be a very uncomfortable place in which to reside, the antipathy of the original proposals some 15 years ago.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Wed 22 Jun, 2011 9:16 pm

chameleon wrote: raveydavey wrote: Thanks for the update - sadly the inevitable has happened, the developers will make a small fortune and traffic in the area will be blighted forever.Lets hope no-one dies as a result of the new traffic lights to be installed in an unsighted dip.... Amongst the measures buried in the document are a reduction in the A64 speed limit to 40mph, improvements to (non specific) access to the A64- hopefully taking the opportunity to remove the right turns onto and off the road at the Red Lion and between the adjacent road narrowing islands and alterations to the junctions of A64/A6120 at the Seacroft and Barwick Road junctions.The inpector concludes that pedestrian and cycle links to York Road, existing public transport links and amenities are adequate. It is as we know, demonstrabley evident that many parents living more than 5 mins walk away from schools do deliver their offspring there (or to bus stops for those further efield) by car and, few will struggle on a bus or walk with any quantity of shopping!The Estate has to be constructed to current environmental standards for transport which means discouraging vehicular traffic. Laudable as this may be, you won't change the nature of the beast and [edited for content] we already see so frequently, the narrower and restricted roads will doubtless be narrowed further by parked cars, oh! not forgetting of course the universally carparks of convenience (or not) - the public footways.Couple this with the required concentration of the dwellings and this may turn out to be a very uncomfortable place in which to reside, the antipathy of the original proposals some 15 years ago. And then we'll wait for the first time the site / road junction floods due to the massively increase run off....

Post by **chameleon** » Wed 22 Jun, 2011 10:07 pm

When the Birchfields site was extended during the later years of the development, a requirement was the inclusion of a balancing lake ( the unsightly waste land bhind the railings you will find there), to stem the surface water run-off rate because the sewer - the Cock Beck - would not cope with the extra charge delivered from the estate. Things must have changed if a further development of 400 houses can now be accommodated by the self sme facility

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Nov, 2011 8:52 pm

Did anyone hear about this meeting regarding the Grimes Dyke proposals?? First I heard was this evening, too late to go, but then we are at least a half mile away so I supose we wouldn't be interested