Haigh Wood Site – Housing Proposal – Update

There is still plenty of time to comment on the detailed planning application 21/07156/RM for 289 houses either side of Haigh Wood.  The submitted documents and objections already sent can be seen on the planning portal:

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QYALDSJB0C000

Through Councillor Foster, WAAG put a series of questions to the Leeds planning case officer who replied setting out the current position:

            I write in relation to the above planning application and comments that I have received regarding the contents of the submission of the application and potential missing documents relating to a consultation exercise that has been carried out by the developer to date. I have looked through the application and cannot find the information referred to and, therefore, I have contacted the applicant’s agent to request this further information.

            I understand from conversations with some of you that there are significant concerns that there is insufficient time to comment on the proposal and, therefore, I would stress that whilst we are waiting for the further information to be received, the application cannot be taken to a Plans Panel meeting for determination. 

            Through looking at the information we have received, at this stage I have also requested further information regarding the ecology of the site and the sustainability measures proposed for the dwellings. The application is still being assessed and further information may be requested once I have received comments from all our consultees (both internal and external consultees). 

            Once the information requested today has been received, I shall renotify the community and a further 21 days will then be allowed for further consultation. At this stage, although the current round of public consultation will formerly end this Friday (22nd), whilst I wait for the further information to be received the application is still live and people can still comment on the application in general. 

            I hope the above is of assistance and provides some clarity with regards to the public consultation of the application. 

Kind regards,   Mark Jackson.

 

The “RM” in the reference number means Reserved Matters.  These relate to the approved outline application (17/08262/OT) so the principle of house building within the red line and the access points cannot be contested.  And there’s no point in repeating the wider issues such as traffic levels, school places and health services; the outline plans were passed despite all that was said about these.   WAAG does, however, encourage everybody to look at the application details online for themselves, so that they can make comments individually about any aspects of the proposals which affect them personally.  For example, the comments which have already been made about the absence of satisfactory boundary treatment in a particular location, and the placing of a block of housing right next to an existing house.  Detailed proposals still have to follow policies such as the Council’s Street Design Guide – and the western parcel for one does not!

(Some backup documents are confusingly named.  Parcel A is the western parcel off Upper Green Way. B is the northern parcel off Westerton Road. C is the eastern parcel off Sandringham Drive. D is the big southern parcel off Hill Top Drive and Haigh moor Road.)

WAAG has made clear that the local community wants to contribute positively to achieve as good a standard of development as possible, having had to accept that development is going to happen.  But WAAG also wants to ensure that it represents local people’s opinions about the important issues that remain, for example:

  1. Haigh Wood. Leave largely undisturbed or manage it to enable more public access?
  2. Other areas to remain open. Should these aim to deflect pressures away from Haigh Wood? Are the submitted plans appropriate?
  3. Water features. Balancing ponds to prevent excessive run off during storms are only diagrammatic so far. Good wildlife opportunity?
  4. The mix of house types. Enough affordable homes? In the right places?
  5. Impact on adjacent residents, as mentioned above.

This is not meant as an alternative to directly made objections – do get these sent in via the portal link – but WAAG believes it is listened to and will be reinforcing a community based response to what is wanted.

 

Written by WAAG