Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of City Development setting out the implications for Leeds of Bradford’s Core Strategy inspectors report.

The Director of City Development submitted a report on the implications for Leeds of Bradford’s Core Strategy (BCS) Inspector’s report which was released in August 2016. The Inspector concluded that the Bradford Core Strategy with the proposed modifications was sound.

A copy of the non-technical summary produced by the Inspector on all the issues covered in the examination of the Plan was included as Appendix 1 to the report. Appendix 2 contained Bradford’s Duty to Co-operate schedule which showed a range of cross boundary planning matters identified as affecting Leeds.

The Head of Strategic Planning reported that some of these matters would be non-contentious, however he highlighted the key issues which had been raised by the Council as concerns during the preparation of the BCS through the Duty to Co-operate arrangements. These issues had been considered in the Inspector’s examination of the Plan:

a)  Increased traffic on Leeds’ roads

b)  Incursion into the Green Belt gap between Leeds and Bradford

c)  Planning for the combination of growth in Bradford and Leeds

It was reported that further engagement between Bradford and Leeds Councils will be necessary to deal with site specific proposals (in relation to the Leeds Site Allocations Plan and the future Bradford Site Allocations Plan) and would seek to ensure that Green Belt, traffic and any other impacts are appropriately mitigated. The Panel noted that Bradford anticipated 66% increase in urban growth with 6,000 homes suggested on the south east Bradford Boundary.

The Head of Strategic Planning set out the reasoning behind the re-designation of Menston and Burley-in-Wharfedale as “Local Growth Areas” and the subsequent increase in the number of dwellings proposed

Members considered the following matters during discussions:

-  Gypsy & Traveller sites – The need for cross-authority discussions on provision, including the approach taken to permissions for public and privately owned sites. It was noted that a regular item on the Duty to Co-operate agenda for the West Yorkshire authorities was “taking a common approach”.

-  Wharfe Valley development proposals – The need for early sight of detailed proposed housing development figures,  noting the total figures provided (Ilkley – 1000, Menston – 600, Burley-in-Wharfedale – 700). This would allow consideration of transport implications, particularly in terms of the A65/A660 which were identified as being under pressure already. Members queried how Leeds, through the Duty to Co-operate group, could influence what infrastructure Bradford might provide. Members noted the overall housing target had reduced by 13%.

-  Transport infrastructure – Members noted a comment that the proposed housing figures for the Wharfe Valley could generate 3,500 to 4000 additional vehicle movements. Members noted the response that the cumulative effect of development in other authorities was being factored into re-modelling the Leeds Transport Strategy. A request for the completed revised Transport modelling to be reported to the Panel was noted. 

-  Member involvement – Assurance was sought that the relevant Executive Members were involved in discussions with their colleagues from neighbouring authorities, and that regular ward member briefings would be held.

-  The role of the newly constituted West Yorkshire Combined Authority

-  The development proposals for the Holmewood area

Additionally, Members voiced concern over the following matters:

-  Loss of green areas through infill development

-  Loss of natural boundary between authorities

-  Impact on Leeds schools

-  Impact on Leeds city centre, noting that as Bradford sought to develop eastwards to the Leeds Boundary, Leeds also proposed development at its western boundary

Finally, a request for future similar reports to include a map showing authority boundaries was noted

RESOLVED – To note the contents of the report and the comments made