city of wakefield metropolitan · pdf filecity of wakefield metropolitan district unitary...

City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Unitary Development Plan Review 2001-2006

Inspector’s Report

Volume 3, Northern Area Proposals

March 2002

CITY OF WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICTDOCUMENT 3 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWNORTHERN AREA PROPOSALS

INSPECTOR’S REPORT – VOLUME 3 PAGE 2

CONTENTS

INSPECTOR’S NOTE ON HOUSING NEED 1. CASTLEFORD COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSALS 1.1 EMPLOYMENT SITES 1.2 HOUSING SITES 1.3 POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SITES 1.4 SPECIAL POLICY AREAS 2. NORMANTON COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSALS 2.1 HOUSING SITES 3. FEATHERSTONE COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSALS 3.1 EMPLOYMENT SITES 3.2 HOUSING SITES 3.3 GREEN BELT BOUNDARY 3.4 GREEN BELT SETTLEMENTS 4. PONTEFRACT COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSALS 4.1 EMPLOYMENT SITES 4.2 HOUSING SITES 4.3 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 5. KNOTTINGLEY COMMUNITY AREA PROPOSALS 5.1 EMPLOYMENT SITES 5.2 HOUSING SITES



INSPECTOR’S NOTE ON HOUSING NEED In selecting sites that I consider should contribute to the District’s housing needs, I have identified a search sequence (Volume 2, Section 9.1). That search sequence is based on the advice in PPG 3; on Policy H2 of Regional Planning Guidance; and on (unchanged) Policy OL4/Paragraph 10.5.27 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. In the light of the above, and in relation to the many objection sites, the main elements of the search sequence that I have identified are: 1. Previously developed land within urban areas. 2. Other infill within urban areas (with priority to previously allocated sites). 3. Extensions to the urban area of Wakefield using previously developed land. 4. Extensions to the urban area of Wakefield using greenfield land (including Protected

Areas of Search of this nature). 5. Extensions to market and coalfield towns using previously developed land. 6. Extensions to market and coalfield towns using greenfield land (including Protected

Areas of Search of this nature). 7. Sites where development would support the regional spatial strategy and which would

have good public transport and non-car links to a wide range of employment and services (including Protected Areas of Search in this category).

8. Any other Protected Areas of Search. 9. Green Belt land. In rural areas, the provision of housing should be to meet local needs and/or support local services. I have had regard to other factors referred to in PPG 3 (such as the criteria in Paragraph 31) and in Policy H2 (such as achieving appropriate standards of urban greenspace). I have also taken into account any potentially overriding considerations that might lead to the “promotion” of a particular site or exceptional circumstances that might warrant the release of Green Belt land. In accordance with the advice in Paragraph 30 of PPG 3, I have not extended the search further than required to provide sufficient capacity to meet the housing requirement. As a consequence of the above, and notwithstanding the absence of an urban capacity study, I have concluded that the housing needs of the District can be met by previously developed land (Category 1) and reconfirmed allocations falling within Category 2. Having paid regard to any potentially overriding factors, I find that there is no need for the allocation of any Protected



Area of Search or Green Belt land for housing purposes.



1. castleford community area proposals

1.1 employment sites - paragraph 2.1.4: CAS 11 tuscany park

The Objection 416/N00319/Castleford/EP1 - Warmfield Group Summary of Objection

• Land south of Pope Street should be allocated for residential development rather than for industrial purposes.

Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions

• There is no evidence to support the assertion that the objection site would not be developed for “industrial” use. Even if the employment land were not taken up, I would expect the land to revert to a Protected Area of Search for Long Term Development. In addition, I find that there is no justification for allocating the site for residential development. The housing needs of the District can be met by urban brownfield sites and reconfirmed allocations.

RECOMMENDATION 3/1.1/1 That no modification be made in response to the objection.

1.2 housing sites – paragraph 2.2.2: CAS H32 holywell lane; land at cutsyke road; land at holywell lane

The Objections 790/N00087/Castleford/HP1 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 758/G00153/Castleford/HP3 - Taywood Projects 758/G00154/Castleford/HP3 - Taywood Projects 427/G00059/Castleford/HP4 - B Stringer Summary of Objections

• There are doubts about whether land at Holywell Lane would be available within the Plan period.

• Land at Cutsyke Road should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for housing purposes or as a Protected Area of Search.

• Land at Holywell Lane should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for housing purposes or as a Protected Area of Search.




• The first objection regarding land at Holywell Lane relates to the site known as CAS H32. The objection was submitted at the initial deposit stage. In the Revised Deposit Alterations, the Council deleted the site allocation because it believed the site would not be developable within the Plan period. As such, I consider that the objection has been met.

• With regard to the land at Cutsyke Road, the objector argues that, as a result of the Coalfields Link Road, circumstances have changed. The objection site would be severed and would be the last remaining piece of agricultural land to the west of the link. Encroachment into the countryside would be limited.

• For my part, I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances. In my opinion, the site would not be severed. It would continue to be bounded on its eastern side by a highway whether Cutsyke Road or part of the new link road. In addition, the land would still function as an open area of countryside and would be viewed in conjunction with agricultural land to the east.

• Further, I consider that sufficient land has been identified to meet the District’s on-going housing requirements without the need to identify further land either as housing allocations or as Protected Areas of Search. I recognise that the objection site could be regarded as a natural extension of the Ackton Pastures development; also that infrastructure could be maximised. However, in the sequential approach that I have adopted, other types of location would have preference.

• With regard to the second objection site in Holywell Lane, north of Holywell Farm, I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances that would warrant excluding the land from the Green Belt. Sufficient land has been identified, in a variety of locations, to meet the District’s on-going housing needs. It is not necessary to make additional allocations irrespective of whether the objection site is in a location that is sustainable or attractive to the private sector. In any event, having regard to the sequential approach, other types of location would be preferred.

• I acknowledge that the site adjoins existing housing. However, to my mind, the existing boundary is clearly defined. As noted by the Council, the Green Belt in this area checks unrestricted sprawl, assists in safeguarding the countryside and assists urban regeneration.

RECOMMENDATION 3/1.2/1 That no modification be made in response to the objections.

1.3 possible development sites - paragraph 2.7.8(A): cas pds1 albion street / powell street

The Objections 1240/RN00002/Castleford/TC1 - English Heritage 1554/RN00006/Castleford/TC1 - Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC 1701/RN00013/Castleford/TC1 - Force Developments Ltd



Summary of Objections

• The text should alert potential developers to the presence of archaeological remains.

• The text should state that the site would not be suitable for a large-scale retail user such as a food store.

• The text should indicate a willingness on the part of the Council to use Compulsory Purchase Order powers.

• Land at Wheldon Road should be identified as a potential food store site.

• The Church Street area would be a better location for any further retail and leisure development.


• Bearing in mind the comments in the unaltered Paragraph 2.7.2 of the UDP, adopted Policies E13 to E19, the monitoring by the West Yorkshire Archaeological Service and the general nature of the objector’s concern, I am satisfied that adequate safeguards are in place regarding archaeology. Specific reference to archaeology in the context of the possible development site at Albion Street/Powell Street would be an unnecessary elaboration.

• In terms of the suitability or otherwise of the site for a large-scale retail user such as a food store, I note that it would be necessary to incorporate a transport interchange. However, there would be no requirement to incorporate the other developments suggested in the Revised Deposit Alterations. As such, and taking into account the size and nature of the site, it does not appear to me that the site would be unsuitable for a large-scale store or that such a development should be specifically excluded. I also consider that it would be premature and inappropriate to refer to the possible use of CPO powers.

• With regard to the site at Wheldon Road, there is no evidence to indicate that the site has been fully considered in the light of PPG 6 and relevant ministerial statements. In the circumstances, I consider that it would be inappropriate to identify the suggested site in the Plan.

• Turning to land in the Church Street area, I consider that the Council’s proposals would help consolidate the adjacent retail park and strengthen its integration with the town centre core. In addition, relocation of the bus station would be provided for as an integral part of a new transport interchange based on the railway station. On the other hand, I do not consider that the Church Street area would be a natural extension of the core area. I acknowledge that the car park to the east is the focus of many trips to the town centre. However, by and large, pedestrians using the car park do not follow Church Street. I have concluded that the Albion Street/Powell Street site would be a better location for retail and leisure development.

• A further objection to this part of the Plan was lodged by London and Associated Properties. As head leaseholders of several properties in the area, the company was concerned that the text, as originally proposed, could have had blighting consequences. A revision was agreed with the Council (proposed change Castleford PC/1) and the objection was withdrawn. I agree that the Plan should be modified in accordance with the proposed change.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3/1.3/1 That the Plan be modified in accordance with the Council’s proposed change Castleford PC/1.



3/1.3/2 That no other modification be made in response to the objections.

1.4 special policy areas - paragraph 2.8.2 all: cas 63 former glasshoughton colliery; cas d39 wheldale; cas d41 wIllowbridge lane

The Objections 831/N00271/Castleford/SPA1 - Wilson Bowden Developments Ltd 758/N00244/Castleford/SPA2 - Taywood Projects 823/N00247/Castleford/SPA2 - Sport England (Yorkshire) 415/N00039/Castleford/SPA2 - Mr G Womersley 1102/N00299/Castleford/SPA2 - Andy Dalton 1086/G00322/All/SPAS - GOYH 1086/RN00021/Castleford/SPA2 - GOYH 1086/RN00022/Castleford/SPA3 - GOYH Summary of Objections

• The policy for the former Glasshoughton Colliery site should acknowledge the potential for a wider variety of uses including retail, leisure, hotels/hostels and employment.

• Land west of Well Wood should remain as a Protected Area of Search and should not form part of the Special Policy Area.

• Sports pitches south of Well Wood could be lost to development.

• Industrial activity should be included as an acceptable use at Wheldale-Fryston.

• More detail on the location and extent of uses at Wheldale-Fryston is required.

• Valuable wildlife habitats and recreational open space at Wheldale-Fryston could be destroyed.

• Designation of Wheldale-Fryston and Willowbridge Lane, Whitwood as Special Policy Areas is not appropriate.


• It appears to me that the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the former Glasshoughton Colliery site, as well as the outline planning permission, already indicate a wide range of appropriate uses. In addition, and in respect of shopping development, Paragraph 2.7.4 refers to the necessity to draw up a wide area where new retail outlets would be permitted in Castleford. To my mind, there is inadequate justification for further specific reference to appropriate uses. In particular, existing and proposed UDP shopping policies together with the advice in PPG 6 and relevant ministerial statements would provide the context for any further retail and leisure provision.

• Turning to the land west of Well Wood, I note that the site could be brought forward for development as part of the Special Policy Area. I see no particular reason why the site should remain as a Protected Area of Search.



• As to the sports pitches south of Well Wood, the area would continue to be a Protected Area of Search. The text specifically refers to the intention to retain the existing sports pitches. I consider that additional safeguards would be unnecessary.

• With regard to activities that would be acceptable within Wheldale-Fryston, I note that the Revised Deposit Alterations now make reference to industrial uses. In terms of housing, the Council has indicated that there is no change to the proposal for housing in the area identified as CAS 17 on the Proposals Map to the adopted UDP. To my mind, this is not clear from the text now proposed. I am recommending a modification in this regard.

• In respect of wildlife habitats and recreational open space, I am aware that the text has been strengthened in the Revised Deposit Alterations. Further, the Council is promoting proposed change Castleford PC/2 under which an environmental buffer zone would be created. All in all, valuable wildlife habitats would be protected; and the mixed development would incorporate open space. In addition, the extent of the Green Belt in this area would be unchanged and no inappropriate development is envisaged. To my mind, no additional modifications would be necessary.

• The Government Office is concerned that the designation of Special Policy Areas is not appropriate. Greater certainty is needed together with more specific and robust proposals. For my part, I feel that making further reference to the need to pay regard to Government guidance would strengthen the text. However, I appreciate the appropriateness of a mix of land uses and an element of flexibility. Bearing in mind that details would be set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance, I have concluded that the Special Policy Area approach would be a satisfactory mechanism for encouraging related development proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3/1.4/1 That in the second paragraph under the heading CAS D39 WHELDALE-FRYSTON under Paragraph 2.8.2, the following text should be inserted as the penultimate sentence: “Much of the land within the adopted UDP CAS 17 housing allocation area has been reclaimed and compacted with subsequent housing development in mind and there is no change to this proposal.” 3/1.4/2 That the Plan be modified in accordance with the Council’s proposed change Castleford PC/2.

3/1.4/3 That in the third paragraph under the heading CAS D39 WHELDALE-FRYSTON under Paragraph 2.8.2, the following text should be substituted for the second sentence: “These are likely to include a mix of housing, including affordable housing, community, local centre, leisure and industrial uses that would be progressed in accordance with prevailing Government guidance.”

3/1.4/4 That in the first paragraph under the heading CAS D41 WILLOWBRIDGE LANE, WHITWOOD under Paragraph 2.8.2, the following text should be substituted for the second sentence: “It is proposed that these should include a community stadium complex, open space/sports uses and associated development that would be progressed in accordance with prevailing Government guidance. Development appropriate to a town centre or edge-of-centre location would not be included.”




2. normanton community area proposals

2.1 housing sites – paragraph 3.2.2: land at woodhouse common; land at lock lane; hill top farm, altofts; nor h8 & h35 north & east of ashfield; normanton south yard (part of nor 26 altofts hall farm)

The Objections 421/G00142/Normanton/HP2 - Mr C Birdsall 897/G00275/Normanton/HP3 - Wild Bennett Homes 897/G00276/Normanton/HP3 - Wild Bennett Homes 890/G00287/Normanton/HP4 - Messrs C & T B Hough 249/N00008/Normanton/HP5 - Vincent Gaughan 250/N00011/Normanton/HP5 - Sylvia Hartley 790/N00088/Normanton/HP5 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 758/N00238/Normanton/HP5 - Taywood Projects 758/RN00001/Normanton/HP5 - Taywood Projects 855/N00262/Normanton/HP5 - L Harrison 812/RN00009/Normanton/HP5 - B W Barkley 250/N00013/Normanton/HP6 - Sylvia Hartley 790/N00086/Normanton/HP6 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 790/N00089/Normanton/HP6 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 758/N00239/Normanton/HP6 - Taywood Projects 758/G00148/Normanton/HP6 - Taywood Projects 892/N00274/Normanton/HP6 - TPS Properties 892/N00275/Normanton/HP6 - TPS Properties 892/G00196/Normanton/HP6 - TPS Properties 1139/N00474/Normanton/HP6 - Ann and Lawrence Edwards 812/RN00010/Normanton/HP6 - B W Barkley 1700/RN00011/Normanton/HP6 - Hogg the Builder 892/G00196/Housing/HSG1 - TPS Properties Summary of Objections

• Land at Woodhouse Common should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for housing purposes.

• Land at Lock Lane, Altofts should be taken out of the Green Belt and allocated as a new housing site (Annex B2) or as a Protected Area of Search.

• Land at Hill Top Farm, Altofts should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for residential purposes.

• Land north and east of Ashfield should be given Green Belt status.

• Land north and east of Ashfield should not be allocated for housing.

• Land north and east of Ashfield should be allocated for housing (Annex B1).



• The text regarding access to land north and east of Ashfield should be changed.

• Development of land north and east of Ashfield is not necessary. There is not enough open space and no amenities.

• Land at Altofts Hall Farm including the site NOR H9 should be given Green Belt status.

• Land off Church Road, Altofts should be allocated for housing development.

• NOR H9 should only be developed as part of a larger development of land south and east of Altofts.

• Land at Altofts Hall Farm should be allocated as an “Annex B1” housing site; alternatively as a site in Annex B2.

• The site of Normanton South Yard should be allocated for housing.

• The amenity value of Normanton South Yard and its surroundings should be recognised. Proposals should not prejudice later development of the Altofts Hall Farm site.

• NOR H9 should be reinstated as a housing site.


• With regard to the land at Woodhouse Common, I appreciate that the construction of the bypass is an event that changes the context of the site. However, in my opinion, there is no need to take the site out of the Green Belt. The boundary at this point is clearly defined; and, as recognised by the Council, the site checks the sprawl of the Normanton built-up area, assists in safeguarding the countryside and, in a general sense, encourages the recycling of derelict and other urban land. More particularly, there is no need for additional housing land. Whilst I recognise that the bypass would be a recognisable and logical boundary, and that there are stated to be no constraints to development, I have concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the release of this site.

• Turning to the land at Lock Lane, Altofts, it is argued by the objector that this is a site that is visually related to the settlement and a logical extension of the urban area. The incursion into the countryside would be limited and the purposes of the Green Belt would not be undermined. In addition, planting associated with the development would be used to help soften the appearance of the settlement edge. The long-term permanence of the Green Belt would be strengthened.

• For my part, I appreciate that, with residential development to the south and a drainage feature extending into the Green Belt, there has been a change in circumstances. However, I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances. Irrespective of whether the site is within walking and cycling distance of Altofts and its facilities or whether housing could be delivered within the Plan period, there is no need for additional residential land. In addition, I do not consider that “lack of harm” would justify exclusion from the Green Belt whether for short-term development or for possible development in the longer term.

• With regard to the land at Hill Top Farm, and notwithstanding any locational advantages associated with the site, there is no need to use Green Belt land to help meet the housing need of the District including the provision of a wide range of house types. I appreciate that redundant buildings on the fringe of the Altofts built-up area could be redeveloped for a beneficial use. However, I would not expect this type of situation to be in any way exceptional. In addition, I consider that the Green Belt in this location is well defined and is important in checking



unrestricted sprawl, safeguarding the countryside and assisting in urban regeneration. To my mind, irrespective of any access constraints, allocation for residential purposes would not be justified.

• In terms of the land north and east of Ashfield, several objectors would wish this area to be designated as Green Belt and kept free of building. Attention is drawn to this “beautiful countryside”, used for walking, in an area where there is not enough open space. Other amenities are either absent or lacking. Traffic queuing and problems of flooding would be exacerbated if development took place. No green amenity areas would be left.

• For my part, I appreciate that many local residents would wish to see a natural boundary between Altofts and Normanton with the land kept for wildlife and the people. However, I note that the boundaries of the Green Belt were considered as part of the adoption of the current Unitary Development Plan. At that stage it was determined that the objection site should not be Green Belt but should be a “Protected Area of Search for Long Term Development”. Development would be restricted to that necessary for the operation of existing uses together with such temporary uses as would not prejudice the possibility of long term development.

• To my mind, there are no exceptional circumstances that should lead to a change in the present position. In order to protect areas that need to be kept permanently open and that are designated as Green Belt, it is necessary to safeguard land that may be required to meet longer-term development needs. Whilst I would not envisage any significant development on this land within the period of the Review Plan, the needs of the District beyond that time frame need to be safeguarded. The current limited review is intended to roll forward the development plan to 2006. I would envisage that the overall situation would be examined again at the time of the comprehensive review that would cover the period beyond 2006.

• The objection from Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd to the effect that the site north and east of Ashfield should not be allocated for housing was made at the initial deposit stage. There was stated to be no proven means of access; also problems of noise, air quality, ground contamination and stability. In addition, the site was stated to be in a less desirable location than the land south and east of Altofts. Having seen the site and its surroundings, and having heard evidence regarding the land at the inquiry, I am satisfied that there are no overriding constraints in this regard. I make no comments about the comparative merits of the objection site and the land south and east of Altofts. Suffice it to say that, in terms of the District’s housing needs, neither site would be required within the Plan period.

• The main protagonists of the site north and east of Ashfield are Taywood Projects (Taywood Homes Ltd and Warmfield Properties Ltd). It was accepted, however, that if no further residential allocations were required, there would be no need to allocate this site. For the Council, it was argued that there was no need for the site; that the site has a lower priority for housing in terms of the sequential test in PPG 3 than other sites identified in the Revised Deposit Alterations; and that there are serious highway constraints.

• For my part, I can conceive of a roundabout solution that would enable access to the site to be gained from Castleford Road. I appreciate that particular care would be needed in the vicinity of Normanton Common First School but I can see no overriding problem in this regard. If the site were to be allocated, modification of the supporting text along the lines of the objector’s recommendation would be appropriate.

• My overall conclusion, however, is that the housing needs of the District would be met by other sites. Irrespective of whether the objection site could be regarded as “strategic” in nature, there is no need to allocate greenfield urban extension sites.



• Turning to the land at Altofts Hall Farm, including the site of NOR H9, it has been argued that this area should also have Green Belt status. For reasons similar to those given in Paragraphs 2.1.5 to 2.1.7 above, I consider that the designation of this area as Green Belt would not be justified.

• With regard to Redrow’s objection site at Church Road, Altofts, I was invited to conclude that this was an infill site within the urban area and the built-up framework of Altofts that should be selected instead of, or ahead of, other allocated residential sites. For my part, I appreciate that the objection site occupies an “enclosed situation” in that the open land is contained by the motorway embankment, by housing fronting Church Road and by residential development served by Wharfedale Drive. Nevertheless, the objection site is open flat agricultural land that forms part of an extensive area of open space extending between Altofts and Normanton. I am in no doubt that development of the site would be an urban extension on the periphery of Altofts and not infill development. Given that land of sufficient capacity has been identified in sites of a higher order of preference, there is no need to allocate this site for residential purposes.

• In reaching my conclusions on the land at Church Road, Altofts, I have considered matters that include the site’s proximity to Europort and the perceived imbalance between housing and employment opportunities. However, in my opinion, there are no overriding considerations.

• I now turn to land at the end of Wharfedale Drive (NOR H9). At the initial deposit stage, this land was identified as a potential housing site. Under the Revised Deposit Alterations, it would revert to a Protected Area of Search. Its reinstatement as a housing site is supported by Hogg the Builder whilst Redrow state that it should only be developed as part of a larger development of land to the south and east of Altofts. Again, I have concluded that, within the Plan period, the District’s housing requirement can be met by other more suitable sites.

• In any event, I saw that NOR H9 forms part of an area of open flat agricultural land extending to the south. To my mind, its development would represent an uncontained and prominent encroachment into the open land between Altofts and Normanton for which there is no adequate justification.

• There remains the question of what should happen to the remaining parts of NOR 26, the largest part of which is in the ownership of Taywood Homes, including the site of Normanton South Yard (TPS Properties).

• On behalf of Taywood Projects, it is argued that insufficient housing land to meet the needs of the District has been identified. The objection site should be allocated for residential purposes (Annex B1). Alternatively, the site should be included in Annex B2. In addition, particular attention is drawn to the proximity of Normanton Station and to the services at Normanton and Altofts. On the other hand, the Council states that the site is not needed. In addition, there are serious highway constraints.

• For my part, I recognise that, with a large-scale development in this location, links for pedestrians and cyclists to Normanton would need to be improved without prejudicing the safety and free flow of traffic notably over the railway bridge on Station Road. However, I do not consider that such problems are insoluble. The main stumbling block is that land of sufficient capacity has been identified in sites of a higher order of preference. As such, there is no need to allocate this site for residential purposes.

• The situation in respect of the Normanton South Yard is different in that this is previously developed land. Although residential development would be an urban extension, it would rank above the development of greenfield sites.



• As well as saying that the development of the Normanton South Yard is not required to meet the housing need, the Council is again concerned about highway matters including pedestrian links towards Normanton. For my part, I am satisfied that a safe vehicular access could be provided within land under the control of the objector. With regard to pedestrian links, towards both Normanton and Altofts, I would not expect the number of movements generated by some 120 dwellings to justify comprehensive improvements. However, I would envisage that appropriate enhancement of pedestrian links could be funded by the development.

• Notwithstanding the above comments on the Normanton South Yard, I am concerned that isolated development on this site would be a significant encroachment into a wider area of open land. Although there are some vestiges of previous structures and hardstandings on the objection site, the site itself, and its wider setting, are open in nature. Housing on the fringe of Altofts is somewhat in the distance. I appreciate that there is a ribbon of housing fronting Station Road, just beyond the objection site. However, there is a substantial tree screen between this housing and Normanton South Yard. The northeastern frontage to Station Road is also well treed.

• I was told that the site was formerly occupied by sidings and would have had a hard urban feeling; also that future housing on the site would be well related to existing built development. There would be no impact on visual amenities such as to justify non-allocation. However, I do not share this conclusion. To my mind, development would represent an unacceptable intrusion into the open nature and setting of the objection site. Bearing in mind that the housing needs of the District would be met by other sites, the Normanton South Yard is not a site that I would recommend for isolated residential development.

• On behalf of TPS Properties, it was also recommended that a new policy should be added to the UDP. This would recognise the amenity value of the Normanton South Yard and the need to avoid prejudicing the possible later development of the nearby Altofts Hall Farm PAS site. However, taking into account my conclusions on the objection site, I do not consider that an additional policy would be necessary or appropriate.

• My overall conclusions are that no part of the area of land known as NOR 26 should be allocated for housing, whether in Annex B1 or Annex B2. No amendment to the annexes in this regard would be necessary. The land should continue to be designated as a Protected Area of Search.




3. featherstone community area proposals

3.1 employment sites – paragraph 4.1.3: fth 4 & d35 normanton industrial estate extension

The Objections 249/N00010/Featherstone/EP1 - Vincent Gaughan 250/N00012/Featherstone/EP1 - Sylvia Hartley 1088/N00303/Featherstone/EP1 - Mrs Anne Guiry 812/N00471/Featherstone/EP1 - B W Barkley Summary of Objections

• The Normanton Industrial Estate should not be expanded.


• I note that the Glass Houghton Coalfields Link Road, a road that now has planning permission and is programmed in the Local Transport Plan, would sever the objection site from other agricultural land to the southeast of the proposed link. However, the site lies in the Green Belt. To my mind, when the link road has been constructed, the site would still have a Green Belt function. Notwithstanding its severance, it would continue to be seen as part of the open countryside generally lying between Normanton/Castleford and Featherstone/Pontefract. I see no reason why, as a “rationalisation of land use proposals”, the site should become part of the industrial estate. Land north, south and east of the link road would be open countryside. The industrial land would lie to the west.

• I appreciate that, in order to help offset infrastructure costs, there could be some benefit in extending the area of the industrial estate. Nevertheless, I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances that would warrant taking this land out of the Green Belt. In this regard, I am aware that sufficient land remains allocated for employment to meets the needs of the District for the foreseeable future. In any event, bearing in mind progress on the industrial estate to the west, I would be surprised if there was pressure to develop the objection site for industrial purposes within the Plan period. Further, it may well be that retention of the site as Green Belt would not preclude its use for bunding and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION 3/3.1/1 That references to the Normanton Industrial Estate extension site FTH D35 be omitted from the Plan.



3.2 housing sites - paragraph 4.2.2: land to rear of 15 whinney lane, streethouse; land off pontefract road; featherstone rugby football ground; green lane (including fth 5 kimberley street / pretoria street); fth 23 land north of pontefract road, purston

The Objections 305/N00024/Featherstone/HP2 - Robert Clarkson 1050/N00419/Featherstone/HP3 - K Jackson 1050/N00279/Featherstone/HP4 - K Jackson 791/N00094/Featherstone/HP5 - P Wilks 791/N00095/Featherstone/HP5 - P Wilks 791/N00096/Featherstone/HP5 - P Wilks 791/N00097/Featherstone/HP5 - P Wilks 758/G00149/Featherstone/HP6 - Taywood Projects 758/N00241/Featherstone/HP6 - Taywood Projects Summary of Objections

• Land to the rear of 15 Whinney Lane, Streethouse should be excluded from the Green Belt.

• Land off Pontefract Road, Featherstone should be excluded from the Green Belt.

• The Featherstone Rugby League Football Ground, and adjoining land in the Green Belt, should be allocated for residential development.

• Land off Kimberley Street/Pretoria Street, Featherstone should be allocated for residential development.

• Land at Pontefract Road, Purston should be allocated for residential development.


• I saw that the land to the rear of 15 Whinney Lane lies outside what I would regard as being the built-up limits of Streethouse. The boundary of the Green Belt at this point is clearly defined by the rear garden boundaries of houses in Whinney Lane and Lynwood Close. To my mind, development of the site, even by one dwelling, would represent an encroachment into the countryside. The safeguarding of the countryside and other Green Belt purposes would be prejudiced if development such as that proposed was repeated too often.

• I appreciate that the boundary suggested by the objector would follow a logical permanent feature. However, I do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a change in the Green Belt boundary. In particular, I do not consider that there would be any material regeneration effect. Irrespective of matters of highway safety, a change of boundary would not be justified.

• With regard to the land off Pontefract Road, Featherstone, the objector indicates that the site is adjacent to existing frontage development and would round off development to the east of Featherstone without resulting in the coalescence of two adjoining built-up areas. For my part, I recognise that there is a ribbon of development stretching out along part of the site’s frontage to Pontefract Road. However, the objection site is essentially a large tract of open agricultural land lying entirely within the Green Belt. Development of the site would represent significant urban



sprawl. Featherstone and Pontefract would be close to merger. Only a small gap would remain between the two settlements.

• I am satisfied that sufficient housing land would be available, including land in this particular area, without encroaching into the Green Belt. I find that there is no justification for excluding the objection site from the Green Belt.

• Turning to the Featherstone Rugby League Football Ground and adjacent land in the Green Belt, this site can be considered in two parts. In my opinion, the western part of the site, including the enclosed ground, the car park and the related built facilities, could be regarded as part of the urban area of Featherstone and, as a brownfield site, a candidate for residential redevelopment. However, the matter of potential access difficulties remains to be resolved. In addition, there are no details regarding the proposed relocation of the club including the time scale for the same. In all the circumstances, I consider that there is inadequate justification for allocating this part of the site for residential development.

• The eastern part of the site lies within the Green Belt. In my opinion, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a residential allocation. In particular, I do not consider that residential development of this part of the site is necessary in the interests of regeneration initiatives in the wider area. In addition, I see no need to change the Green Belt boundary even if land to the south (FTH 23) was to be developed at some stage in the future.

• In terms of the land at Kimberley Street/Pretoria Street, this also divides into parts. I saw that the “FTH 5” site is an area of cleared housing with the roadways still in place. However, the area is now something of an open wasteland with roadside fly tipping and several overgrown unkempt areas. The other part of the objection site, at the head of Pretoria Street, lies within the Green Belt. It comprises some 0.4 ha of land and is used as a “scrap yard”. I would expect the use to be a “bad neighbour”.

• The Council states that development of the FTH 5 site cannot take place until a design that identifies a separate vehicular access to the industrial site in the Green Belt has been agreed. On the basis of past experience, the Council is not satisfied that this could be achieved by 2006. For my part, I appreciate the problems that would be involved in identifying and implementing a separate access. The concern about achieving these within the Plan period emphasises the likely difficulties. Indeed, to my mind, there is no guarantee that a satisfactory and economical solution could be achieved. However, whilst the FTH 5 site remains undeveloped, I consider that it is something of a wasted asset and, to an extent, a continuing eyesore irrespective of whether or not the site is strictly “needed” as a contribution towards the District’s housing provision.

• To my mind, the allocation of the scrap yard for housing purposes would be a significant step forward. I appreciate that the boundary of the Green Belt should be changed only in exceptional circumstances. However, in this case, such a move would mean that sterilisation of the FTH 5 land could be avoided. In addition, the early development of a brownfield site would be facilitated and important environmental improvements would be secured. As such, I consider that exceptional circumstances exist in this particular case.

• The Council indicates that a number of existing highways would have to be closed or substantially upgraded. It is not clear why this should be the case; but, in any event, I consider that such matters could be resolved during the normal development process. In my opinion, a housing development could be completed within the Plan period.



• As to the number of houses that the site could yield, I note that an earlier planning permission for the FTH 5 site showed 66 houses. With the addition of a further 0.4 ha of land, developed at a density of 30 dph, I can envisage a scheme totalling a minimum of some 78 units.

• Turning to the land at Pontefract Road, Purston, I recognise that this is in a location where residential development could help to balance employment growth and continue regeneration. The development would also assist in underpinning retail and community facilities. In addition, many of the considerations identified in Paragraph 31 of PPG 3 would be satisfied. However, development of this 10 ha greenfield site, with an estimated capacity of some 270 dwellings, would represent a significant extension of the built-up area of Featherstone and a major encroachment into the countryside.

• I have already determined that sufficient land has been identified to meet the on-going housing requirements of the District without the need to consider urban extensions and protected areas of search. In all the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to allocate this site for housing purposes or to identify the site as a candidate for release under Policy H2/Annex B2.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3/3.2/1 That land at Kimberley Street/Pretoria Street, Featherstone, as shown as the “Reference area” on the plan attached to the Council’s statement WMDC/Featherstone/HP5, be allocated as housing land with a potential capacity of a minimum of 78 dwellings; and the parcel of land within the Green Belt/Green Corridor be excluded from the Green Belt/Green Corridor. Consequential modifications be made as appropriate.


3.3 green belt boundary - paragraph 4.5.3: land at 21 ackton lane The Objection 537/G00084/Featherstone/GBA1 - Mr & Mrs Whellans Summary of Objection

• Land at 21 Ackton Lane should be removed from the Green Belt.


• The objection site is an area of Green Belt land at 21 Ackton Lane lying to the west of No 11b. The objectors say that it is not very clear where the Green Belt boundary lies. However, from my examination of the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map, it is clear to me that the objection site lies within the adopted Green Belt.

• The objectors would wish the site to be removed from the Green Belt and hence pave the way for planning permission for a dormer bungalow. However, Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless exceptional circumstances exist. To my mind, the objectors’ circumstances are by no means exceptional. Indeed, I would expect there to be many people who would wish to gain a residential planning permission on Green Belt land. I appreciate that the adjoining vicarage and church car park have been built on Green Belt land. However, to take



land out of the Green Belt, without adequate justification, would fundamentally undermine the objectives and purposes of including land in Green Belts contrary to Government policy.


3.4 green belt settlements - paragraph 4.5.3(A): land at old snydale

The Objection 430/G00056/Featherstone/GBS1 - Mr P Watson Summary of Objection

• Land in the vicinity of Snydale Hall should be included within the Green Belt settlement infill boundary for Old Snydale.


• I appreciate that land in the vicinity of Snydale Hall forms part of the village of Old Snydale. However, to my mind, the purpose of defining the infill boundary is not to identify the extent of the village but to establish where limited infilling could be appropriate. In this regard, I agree that the boundary identified by the Council encompasses an area where infill could take place without affecting the character of the village or the wider Green Belt.

• I perceived the area around Snydale Hall to be very different in character. Many houses are set within large gardens or paddocks; and there are sizeable open areas within the objection site. To my mind, the opportunities for infilling are such that, if implemented, the existing loose character of the area could be changed and the openness of the Green Belt significantly diminished. I have concluded that the part of the village near Snydale Hall should not be included within the infill boundary.




4. pontefract community area proposals

4.1 employment sites - paragraph 5.1.4: land at park road (adjacent to pnt 4 park road)

The Objections 896/N00322/Pontefract/EP1 - Langtree Group PLC 896/G00274/Pontefract/EP1 - Langtree Group PLC Summary of Objections

• Land at Park Road, Pontefract should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for employment purposes.


• I appreciate that the objection site comprises a relatively small parcel of flat agricultural land contained by The Parkside Hotel and its car park, a railway embankment, the large industrial premises of CHEP Equipment Pooling Systems and a well treed length of Park Road. To this extent, its contribution to the openness of the Green Belt is limited. Nevertheless, I consider that the site contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt by checking the unrestricted sprawl of Pontefract, helping to prevent Pontefract and Castleford from merging, assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. To my mind, “lack of harm to the purposes of including land within it” is not an exceptional circumstance that would justify the deletion of the site from the Green Belt.

• I note that some industrial land has been lost to other uses; also that the unemployment rate in North Pontefract stands at 5.4% (January 2001). However, with 535 ha of employment land available at the end of 2000, and with an annual rate of consumption of about 24 ha, I find that there is inadequate justification for the allocation of this site on the grounds of need.


4.2 housing sites - paragraph 5.2.2: PNt h11 south of willowdene lane; pnt h63 schofield’s factory, north baileygate; pnt h72 knottingley road; land at norwood, carleton; land at fairleigh farm; land off carleton road; land at the chesnuts, pontefract road, myson chair; pnt 40 ackworth road / hardwick road; pnt h14 north of moor lane, carleton



The Objections 837/N00259/Pontefract/HP1 - Haslam Homes 1521/N00335/Pontefract/HP1 - John O E Holmes 435/N00041/Pontefract/HP2 - A Schofield (Pontefract) Ltd 435/N00042/Pontefract/HP2 - A Schofield (Pontefract) Ltd 799/N00235/Pontefract/HP2 - Pontefract Civic Society 837/N00261/Pontefract/HP2 - Haslam Homes 1521/N00334/Pontefract/HP2 - John O E Holmes 790/N00091/Pontefract/HP3 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 837/N00260/Pontefract/HP3 - Haslam Homes 837/RN00014/Pontefract/HP3 - Haslam Homes 523/RN00016/Pontefract/HP3 - Hallam Land Management Ltd 523/RN00017/Pontefract/HP3 - Hallam Land Management Ltd 837/RN00023/Pontefract/HP3 - Haslam Homes 837/G00168/Pontefract/HP3 - Haslam Homes Yorkshire 752/G00140/Pontefract/HP4 - P K Fieldhouse & Son Ltd 894/N00316/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/N00317/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/N00318/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/G00265/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/G00266/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/G00269/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/G00270/Pontefract/HP5 - Beazer Homes Ltd 431/G00055/Pontefract/HP6 - Mrs Teale 426/G00060/Pontefract/HP7 - D Noble Ltd 893/N00277/Pontefract/HP8 - David Wilson Homes Northern 1521/N00336/Pontefract/HP8 - J Holmes 277/N00014/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr E Finnigan 279/N00016/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs B Cockcroft 303/N00022/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs Moreton 304/N00023/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr A R Ashton 309/N00027/Pontefract/HP13 - K R & B L Smith 311/N00030/Pontefract/HP13 - N F Oldfield 316/N00035/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs P Duffy 317/N00036/Pontefract/HP13 - L A Vitta 318/N00037/Pontefract/HP13 - Rhona Smith 547/N00053/Pontefract/HP13 - P G Gordon 548/N00054/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs P Youel 550/N00056/Pontefract/HP13 - Ivy Sedgwick 552/N00057/Pontefract/HP13 - D F Carlyle 553/N00058/Pontefract/HP13 - Frank Buffel 555/N00060/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs M Tindale 556/N00061/Pontefract/HP13 - R & K White 562/N00069/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs F Wilkinson 564/N00070/Pontefract/HP13 - P Kettle 568/N00071/Pontefract/HP13 - Barbara Scatchard 571/N00072/Pontefract/HP13 - N C Brown 574/N00073/Pontefract/HP13 - J R Waring



576/N00075/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs G Fletcher 577/N00076/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs Valerie A Jenkins 584/N00079/Pontefract/HP13 - David Ralley 525/N00080/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs R Gillett 744/N00082/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs A R Pye 790/N00090/Pontefract/HP13 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 772/N00101/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs F Bond 671/N00106/Pontefract/HP13 - J M Park 669/N00108/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr J Cook 668/N00109/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr D J & Mrs J E R Cairns 666/N00111/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs A J Lamb 662/N00114/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs Susan Barnett 944/N00116/Pontefract/HP13 - Molly Hinchcliffe 659/N00119/Pontefract/HP13 - B Wright 654/N00126/Pontefract/HP13 - R Mathens 652/N00129/Pontefract/HP13 - A Plows 650/N00131/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs P Pearson 649/N00132/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs M Parkes 647/N00134/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr M J Stacey 646/N00135/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs A Dedicoat 644/N00137/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs C Waite 643/N00138/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs T Cairns 642/N00139/Pontefract/HP13 - K A Goodwin 640/N00141/Pontefract/HP13 - L Beevers 639/N00142/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs M Schofield 637/N00144/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs C W Chapman 634/N00147/Pontefract/HP13 - P Newbert 633/N00148/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr J W Harrison 631/N00150/Pontefract/HP13 - The Grange Club 630/N00151/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs L Sandford 628/N00153/Pontefract/HP13 - K Haigh 627/N00154/Pontefract/HP13 - Andrew Naylor 626/N00155/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs E Amery 624/N00157/Pontefract/HP13 - L Amery 619/N00162/Pontefract/HP13 - D Potter 616/N00165/Pontefract/HP13 - Miss C Stephens 614/N00167/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr R Anthony 612/N00169/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr S A Boyle 611/N00170/Pontefract/HP13 - G Brunyard 603/N00178/Pontefract/HP13 - R Liddle 601/N00180/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs J Smith 596/N00185/Pontefract/HP13 - P A Marsh 595/N00186/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs M C Jarvis 594/N00187/Pontefract/HP13 - B Baxter 593/N00188/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs E Houlder 591/N00190/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr R H Weale 590/N00191/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs Cooper 705/N00194/Pontefract/HP13 - Karen & Gary Green 709/N00198/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs Mavis Kettle & Son



710/N00199/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs O Harrison 712/N00201/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr J Stogden 713/N00202/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs D Whitcombe 723/N00212/Pontefract/HP13 - Philip Rushton 724/N00213/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs G Scott 726/N00215/Pontefract/HP13 - William Smith 729/N00218/Pontefract/HP13 - B M Hunter 731/N00220/Pontefract/HP13 - P Charlesworth 732/N00221/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs M Bannister 733/N00222/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs J B Howell 734/N00223/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr & Mrs P Skidmore 736/N00225/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr W Askew 738/N00227/Pontefract/HP13 - J Kiddie 739/N00228/Pontefract/HP13 - A Briggs 739/N00229/Pontefract/HP13 - M G Briggs 740/N00230/Pontefract/HP13 - K Swales 742/N00232/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs L Beaumont 799/N00236/Pontefract/HP13 - Peter Cookson 837/N00258/Pontefract/HP13 - Haslam Homes 837/RN00012/Pontefract/HP13 - Haslam Homes 851/N00264/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr C Gordon Shaw 846/N00265/Pontefract/HP13 - Jane Enright 1089/N00272/Pontefract/HP13 - J Kenworthy 879/N00278/Pontefract/HP13 - D M Cornwell & M A Edenborough 1073/N00282/Pontefract/HP13 - Richard Vanriel 908/N00289/Pontefract/HP13 - Diane Dale 1082/N00294/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs Kathleen Hindle 1092/N00298/Pontefract/HP13 - Brian & Davena Rose 1097/N00307/Pontefract/HP13 - Carole & John Joyce 1098/N00308/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr J Moody 894/N00315/Pontefract/HP13 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/RN00018/Pontefract/HP13 - Beazer Homes Ltd 894/G00262/Pontefract/HP13 - Beazer Homes ltd 1515/N00325/Pontefract/HP13 - A D P Dawe 1516/N00326/Pontefract/HP13 - Mrs Mary Cawthorn 1521/N00331/Pontefract/HP13 - John O E Holmes 1522/N00332/Pontefract/HP13 - Mr G P M Firth 661/N00467/Pontefract/HP13 - K Willoughby 1137/N00472/Pontefract/HP13 - Adrian Hodgson 1138/N00473/Pontefract/HP13 - H M White Summary of Objections

• Land at Willowdene Lane, Lady Balk should be deleted from the proposed housing sites.

• Land at Willowdene Lane, Lady Balk would be better used to provide jobs.

• Reference to the requirement for an element of affordable housing at the Schofield’s Factory site should be deleted from the Plan.

• Land at Fox Terrace should be included within the Schofield’s Factory site allocation.



• The Schofield’s Factory site would be more suitably designated for employment.

• The Schofield’s Factory site should be deleted from the proposed housing sites.

• Land at Knottingley Road is less preferable for development.

• Land at Knottingley Road should be deleted from both the proposed housing sites and the Protected Areas of Search.

• Land at Knottingley Road should be reinstated as a housing site.

• Land between Knottingley Road and Ferrybridge Road should be allocated for residential development.

• Land at Norwood should be taken out of the Green Belt. It would be much more suitable for development than a number of other sites.

• Land at Fairleigh Farm should be excluded from the Green Belt and designated for a mix of employment, recreational and housing allocations.

• Land off Darrington Road should be excluded from the Green Belt and allocated for housing purposes or as a Protected Area of Search.

• Land at The Chestnuts, Pontefract Road, Myson Chair does not merit inclusion in the Green Belt and should be allocated for housing.

• Land at Ackworth Road/Hardwick Road should be allocated for housing.

• Land at Ackworth Road/Hardwick Road should be used for job creation.

• A new link to the Pontefract Western Relief Road should be built.

• Land north of Moor Road, Carleton should not be developed for housing.

• Land north of Moor Lane, Carleton should be allocated for housing (Annex B1); alternatively as an Annex B2 housing site or as a Protected Area of Search.


• The objection of Haslam Homes to the land at Willowdene Lane, Lady Balk is concerned with problems of sewage treatment and disposal of surface water, the adequacy of the access and the fact that the site is located within a Green Corridor. In terms of flood defence, I note that the Environment Agency is supporting the proposed allocation. On sewage disposal, it would be necessary to consult the sewerage undertaker. However, I find that there is no evidence to suggest that sewage treatment would be an overriding problem.

• Regarding access, supporting representations have been made by Taywood Homes Ltd. These indicate that access would be gained from the direction of Lake View. The supporter can either widen or upgrade the existing highway or create a parallel road within land over which there is an option agreement. I have concluded that, in principle, there is no objection on highway grounds.

• I recognise that the Lady Balk land is currently within a Green Corridor. However, from what I saw on site, I would say that the site could be removed from this designation without prejudicing the objectives of Green Corridors. I recommend accordingly.

• I do not agree with the suggestion that the site should be used for employment generating purposes. I appreciate that there is a scrap yard to the north of the site. However, there is



residential development on all or part of three sides of the site. To my mind, the setting is predominantly residential. I am also aware that, at the end of 2000, some 535 ha of employment land were available within the District. Bearing in mind a take-up rate of about 24 ha a year, and notwithstanding any local deficiencies in employment opportunities, I do not consider that the Lady Balk site would be better used to provide work.

• Turning to the Schofield’s Factory site, the size of the site, potential contamination, noise, drainage and archaeological issues are all said to be factors indicating that the site could not sustain a further requirement to provide affordable housing. However, no details are provided. For my part, I note that, under Policy H4, unusual costs are a relevant consideration. As part of any planning application, a prospective developer could argue a detailed case. With this possibility in mind, I am recommending that less categorical wording be used in the text.

• The inclusion of land at Fox Terrace as part of the Schofield’s Factory site is the subject of the Council’s proposed change Pontefract PC/2. I am recommending that the proposed change should be implemented. Related objections would be met. I am also recommending that the text should be updated to recognise the increased area and potential capacity of the site. I estimate that the area of the enlarged site is approximately 1.1 ha. At a density of 30 dph, this would yield 33 dwellings.

• I consider that those dwellings would make a useful contribution to the District’s housing requirement and bring a brownfield site in a reasonably sustainable location back into beneficial use. In this regard, I note that the premises have lain empty for many years and, despite the industrial zone designation, no occupation or redevelopment for employment purposes has taken place. In addition, and as stated in Paragraph 4.2.4 above, some 535 ha of employment land within the District is available. Even if the site was used for employment, I do not consider that there would be any material improvement in traffic conditions.

• I also note that migrating landfill gas, and noise, could be relevant considerations; and reference has been made to pressure on local schools. However, bearing in mind that outline planning permission for residential development has already been granted, I am of the opinion that any outstanding constraints could be resolved.

• With regard to land at Knottingley Road (PNT H72), this was identified as a potential housing site in the Initial Deposit Alterations. In an objection by Redrow Homes, it was indicated that development of the site would be less preferable and would be intrusive in the landscape. The site would be better used for public open space. Under the Revised Deposit Alterations, the site would remain as a Protected Area of Search. As such, the site would not be developed for housing purposes. Although there is no intention that the site would become public open space, continued agricultural use would mean that the openness of the site would be likely to be maintained.

• I see no reason, however, why the site should not continue to be a Protected Area of Search. Given that Green Belt boundaries were carefully considered at the time of the adoption of the Unitary Development Plan, I am of the opinion that land where long-term development is a possibility should continue to be safeguarded. In this regard, I do not consider that access is an overriding consideration. To my mind, it would be possible to take access off Stumpcross Lane.

• As to whether site PNT H72 or any part of the PNT 42 site should be allocated for housing purposes, I recognise that related development would constitute an urban extension on greenfield land. Notwithstanding any merits that could be attributed to the sites’ location, their deliverability or the opportunity for phasing, I have concluded that, in order to meet the housing needs of the District, no greenfield extension sites would be required.



• With regard to the land at Norwood, the objector indicates that the Green Belt boundary in this area is neither appropriate nor properly defined and this has clearly raised issues as to where the boundary runs. From my reading of the representations, it does not appear to me that there have been problems of interpretation. However, I acknowledge that an anomaly exists. The boundary at this point is not clearly defined on the ground. In particular, it passes through the middle of a property known as West Wood.

• To my mind, the boundary should follow the fence line to the east of West Wood. However, I see no exceptional reasons why the bulk of the objection site, namely the land north of Norwood and east of West Wood, should be excluded from the Green Belt. I do not agree that the nature of the objection site, which I saw to be mainly wooded, “clearly relates more strongly to the built settlement than the open countryside.” In my opinion, irrespective of whether the site is in a transport corridor or could be developed within the Plan period, the site helps check the unrestricted sprawl of Pontefract; assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and assists in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

• I appreciate that improvement of the junction of Norwood and Darrington Road would be a positive benefit. However, there is no need to draw on Green Belt sites for housing purposes. In these and all other respects, I consider that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant excluding the objection site from the Green Belt or its allocation for housing development. I accept, however, the boundary should be amended as indicated above.

• With regard to Green Belt land at Fairleigh Farm, the objector points to a need for development land of this nature, notably for housing purposes. For my part, I do not consider that an overriding need exists. In particular, the housing requirements of the District can be met on sites within urban areas; there is no evidence of a need for land for recreational/greenspace uses; and, with nearly 535 ha of employment land available at the end of 2000 and annual consumption averaging about 24 ha, I do not consider that there is an exceptional need for land for employment uses or related development.

• It is stated that a mixed-use development would bring benefits to the Pontefract community and to the District as a whole. However, I find that there is inadequate justification as to why development of such a sizeable area of land should take place in a location such as this. All in all, and notwithstanding minor revisions to the boundary elsewhere, I consider that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant taking this land out of the Green Belt.

• In respect of the land off Darrington Road, it is stated that the extent of development required in the Wakefield District both now and in the longer term could not possibly be accommodated without some revision of Green Belt boundaries. I do not agree. It is clear to me that the housing needs of the District within the Plan period can be met by identified sites and land within urban areas. As to the longer term, there is no evidence that indicates that further allocations of Protected Areas of Search will be required to safeguard the Green Belt beyond the time scale of the Plan.

• Rather than consolidating the settlement in this area, I would describe housing development on the objection site as significant encroachment into the countryside and unjustified sprawl of Pontefract towards Darrington. To my mind, regeneration objectives would be better served by recycling derelict and other urban land not by developing a greenfield site such as this. Irrespective of any locational advantages that the site may have, and the possibility of highway improvements, I consider that there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify the exclusion of this land from the Green Belt.



• Arguments similar to those advanced for the Darrington Road site have been put forward in respect of land at The Chestnuts, Pontefract Road, Myson Chair. Again I find that there are no exceptional circumstances. In particular, there is no need to allocate this land for housing purposes or as a Protected Area of Search. Even taking into account doubts regarding certain other sites, sufficient suitable land has been identified in sites higher up the search sequence.

• I appreciate that the objection site may once have formed part of a residential curtilage and thus could be regarded as previously developed land. However, that does not mean that the whole of the area of the curtilage would be a candidate for redevelopment. I saw that the objection site is an area of open land that I perceived to be clearly outside the well-defined limits of Pontefract. In my opinion, keeping the site undeveloped would help check the unrestricted sprawl of Pontefract and the merger of neighbouring towns. The countryside would be protected from encroachment and development would be directed to urban land thus assisting urban regeneration.

• I now turn to land at Ackworth Road/Hardwick Road (PNT 40). Development of this site for residential purposes would represent an urban extension onto greenfield land. I appreciate that the boundaries of the site are well defined; also that a less-intrusive first phase of development could be carried out. However, notwithstanding any locational advantages of the site, I have concluded that the District’s housing requirement could be met by identified sites and land within urban areas. It would not be necessary to extend the search any further.

• The suggestion that the Ackworth Road/Hardwick Road site could be used for job creation appears to stem from a belief that this would minimise problems on local roads. Whilst in an ideal world, the provision of local employment would mean that people would walk to work, the reality is very different. Quite apart from the absence of any need for further employment land, as noted above, there is no guarantee or even likelihood that jobs on this 17 ha site would be taken by locals. In short, I do not consider that there would be any material advantage in using the site for job creation.

• A link to the proposed Pontefract Western Relief Road could no doubt take traffic that would otherwise use local roads. However, such a link would not be feasible within the Plan period nor would it be justified by the development proposed at either Ackworth Road/Hardwick Road or north of Moor Lane. In this regard, I can conceive of safe and convenient solutions in circumstances where the percentage of traffic using local roads would not materially increase.

• With regard to the land north of Moor Lane, Carleton, the majority of the objections were made at the time of the Initial Deposit Alterations when the Council envisaged that the site would be allocated for residential purposes. A wide variety of concerns were expressed. Many related to a perceived affect on traffic conditions, the existing village community and various aspects of the environment.

• In addition to the many individual objections, Redrow Homes noted that, because of access constraints, only part of the Moor Lane site was likely to be developed. In addition, a housing scheme would be intrusive in the open countryside and less sustainable than other safeguarded areas. Haslam Homes indicated that allocation of this site would be contrary to the search sequence. Further, the site formed part of a Green Corridor.

• Under the Revised Deposit Alterations, the Council deleted the proposed housing allocation. As such, the site would remain as a Protected Area of Search. This is counter to the wishes of Beazer Homes who point to the need to encourage and support regeneration in this part of the area; to the preferential status of the site; and to difficulties from long-standing agricultural



activities. The site is stated to be in a location that is both sustainable and attractive to the housing market. The ability to deliver houses would be assured. In addition to the above, attention was drawn to a boundary anomaly.

• Notwithstanding any advantages that could be attributed to the location, this is another example of a site that is not needed. The District’s housing requirement over the Plan period can be met by other sites including sites higher up the search sequence. To my mind, the site should remain as a Protected Area of Search. I acknowledge, however, that the northeastern boundary of the Protected Area of Search as shown on the adopted Proposals Map does not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. The boundary should be as shown on the Plan accompanying the Council’s proof of evidence.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3/4.2/1 That land at Willowdene Lane, Lady Balk be excluded from the Green Corridor.

3/4.2/2 That at the start of the fourth paragraph under the heading PNT H63 SCHOFIELD’S FACTORY SITE under Paragraph 5.2.2, the following words be used: “An element of affordable housing may be required…”.

3/4.2/3 That the Plan be modified in accordance with the Council’s proposed change Pontefract PC/2; also to recognise the increased area of the site (1.1 ha) and its potential capacity (minimum of 33 dwellings).

3/4.2/4 That at Carleton, the Green Belt boundary should be defined by a line continuing the rear garden boundaries of 2 and 4 Norwood as far as Norwood itself, then following the northern side of Norwood before crossing to follow the eastern boundary of the property known as West Wood. All land north and east of this boundary, including the wooded area west of the junction of Norwood and Darrington Road, would remain in the Green Belt.

3/4.2/5 That the extent of the Protected Area of Search at Moor Lane, Carleton should be as shown on the Plan accompanying the Council’s proof of evidence WMDC/Pontefract/HP13 (Document WMDC 5).


4.3 commercial development - paragraph 5.7.5: pnt 52

The Objection 1086/N00404/Pontefract/TC1 - GOYH Summary of Objection

• The reference to a need for provision of on-site car parking should be reconsidered.


• In response to the objection, the Council has put forward a proposed change (Pontefract PC/1). As a consequence, the objection has been conditionally withdrawn. I agree that the proposed change is entirely appropriate. I am recommending that the Plan be modified accordingly.



RECOMMENDATION 3/4.3/1 That the Plan be modified in accordance with the Council’s proposed change Pontefract PC/1.

5. knottingley community area proposals

5.1 employment sites - paragraph 6.1.3: land at junction of a1/m62; land off pontefract road The Objections 1547/N00338/Knottingley/EP1 - Mr C Birdsal 845/N00268/Knottingley/EP2 - Caddick Developments Ltd 845/N00269/Knottingley/EP2 - Caddick Developments Ltd 845/G00182/Knottingley/EP2 - Caddick Developments Ltd Summary of Objections

• Land at the junction of the A1 and the M62 would be suitable for a variety of commercial uses.

• Land at Pontefract Road, Knottingley should be taken out of the Green Belt and allocated for employment purposes.


• With regard to the land at the junction of the A1 and the M62 motorway, I recognise that this area is well located relative to national transport routes. However, to my mind, there are no particular regeneration needs relating to this site. Further, I am aware that, at the end of 2000, nearly 535 ha of employment land were available within the District. All in all, I consider that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant taking this land out of the Green Belt or its allocation for commercial use.

• Similar reasons apply to the land at Pontefract Road, Knottingley. I am aware that much of the 535 ha of employment land could not be said to be genuinely available and capable of development. Geographical variations also exist. However, bearing in mind a District-wide take-up rate of about 24 ha a year, and the availability of serviced land within the very allocation that the objector seeks to extend, I am of the opinion that sufficient land has been allocated to meet employment needs in the Plan period. I have concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. The exclusion of the objection site from the Green Belt and its allocation for employment purposes as an extension of the industrial land allocation KNT 7 would not be justified.


5.2 housing sites - paragraph 6.2.2: knt h39 pottery lane; land west of womersley road; knt 7 former sewage works, pontefract road; sleepy valley, weeland road; land between england lane & middle lane; land between the A1 & m62



The Objections 790/N00092/Knottingley/HP2 - Redrow Homes (Yorks) Ltd 850/N00267/Knottingley/HP2 - British Waterways 850/G00180/Knottingley/HP2 - British Waterways 850/G00181/Knottingley/HP2 - British Waterways 938/N00293/Knottingley/HP3 - Rockware Glass Ltd 416/N00323/Knottingley/HP4 - Warmfield Group 938/N00291/Knottingley/HP5 - Rockware Glass Ltd 938/N00292/Knottingley/HP5 - Rockware Glass Ltd 945/N00408/Knottingley/HP6 - Mr B Paterson & Mrs E Goulding 766/N00099/Knottingley/HP7 - Mr J Pullman 766/N00100/Knottingley/HP7 - Mr J Pullman 766/G00134/Knottingley/HP7 - Mr J Pullman 831/N00273/Knottingley/HP8 - Wilson Bowden Developments 831/G00189/Knottingley/HP8 - Wilson Bowden Developments 831/N00270/Northern Area Strategy/HP8 - Wilson Bowden Developments 849/N00288/Knottingley/HP8 - Meridian (Brighton) Ltd Summary of Objections

• Development of land at Pottery Lane for housing is likely to be unviable.

• In respect of land at Pottery Lane, references in the text to traffic impact, industrial zoning, flooding and noise should be amended.

• The Pottery Lane site is capable of accommodating more than 25 dwellings.

• The Pottery Lane site is a brownfield site not a greenfield site.

• Car parking standards should be determined on a site by site basis.

• Land at Womersley Road should be allocated for residential development.

• Land between England Lane and Middle Lane should be allocated for housing or alternatively for light industrial use.

• Remaining undeveloped land at the former Sewage Works site, Pontefract Road should be deleted from the employment allocation and allocated for housing.

• Sports fields at Sleepy Valley, Weeland Road should be allocated for retail, leisure, business, employment and residential development.

• Land between the A1 and the M62 should be allocated for housing or employment purposes and not as Green Belt.

• Land to the northeast of the A1/M62 intersection should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for employment development.

• The importance of upgrading the A1 should be recognised.

• Some private sector housing on land to the northeast of the A1/M62 intersection would assist in meeting the anticipated shortfall. Additional social housing could also be provided.




• With regard to land at Pottery Lane, I appreciate that there may be abnormal costs. However, I do not consider that the need to reclaim the site, or market or other constraints, would mean that residential development would be unviable particularly if a greater number of units were involved.

• In terms of the reference to traffic impact, and taking into account the conditions that I saw on site, I consider that it is quite reasonable to indicate that the local road network is inadequate for any significant increase in traffic. However, such reference would not preclude allocation of the site for housing purposes. Nevertheless, in the text, particular attention is drawn to the junction of Pottery Lane with Ferrybridge Road (referred to as the North View/Ferrybridge Road junction). At a minor road distance of 2m, I note that the visibility is good in both directions. In my opinion, a minor road distance of 2m is likely to be adequate given the total number of vehicles that would use this junction. As such, I consider that particular reference to this junction would be inappropriate.

• The reference to the former Industrial Zone designation could be misleading. The designation would only be deleted if and when the residential allocation is adopted. I consider that the text should be amended accordingly.

• With regard to flooding and noise, these are both matters that a prospective developer would need to take into account. It is entirely appropriate that reference should be made to such matters in the development plan.

• With regard to the capacity of the site, I note that the area is 3.1 ha. At a density of 30 dph, this would yield some 93 units of residential accommodation. I recognise that any land that forms part of the functional flood plain should be excluded from the site; also land required for any highway works or for replacement off-street parking. However, it appears to me that, as a working estimate, the objector’s figure of 70 dwellings is not unreasonable.

• The Council states that the limit on the amount of housing that would be permissible is primarily as a consequence of local highway conditions. However, in my opinion, the amount of traffic that would be generated by 70 dwellings would be low. Bearing in mind that, although limited, there are some opportunities to improve local highway conditions, I do not consider that the capacity of this brownfield site should be limited to 25 dwellings.

• A final point made by objectors regarding the Pottery Lane site relates to car parking standards. It is pointed out that, in part of the District, the public transport service is very limited especially outside peak times. Be that as it may, I consider that there is inadequate justification for departing from the proposed District-wide car parking standards.

• Turning to the land at Womersley Road, I note that the first objection of Rockware Glass relates to a former limestone quarry lying east of Middle Lane. I estimate the area to be some 7.6 ha.

• It was accepted that the former quarry is a brownfield site. However, there was no agreement as to whether the site falls within the urban area. For my part, I saw that there is built development to the north, east and south of the objection site. To the west, part of the land is in playing field use, part is used for horse grazing. Further to the west lies the England Lane housing area and other substantial parts of the built-up area of Knottingley. To my mind, the



objection site is essentially contained by urban land and can reasonably be regarded as forming part of the urban area of Knottingley.

• As a previously developed site within the urban area, the former Womersley Road quarry deserves serious consideration as a potential housing site and a contributor to the District’s housing needs. I appreciate that the site is a little distance from the railway station (1.6 km) and the main Knottingley shops; also in a part of Knottingley that is separated from the main built-up area by a level crossing. However, in my opinion, these factors do not rule out residential allocation.

• Of more serious concern is whether housing completions could be achieved within the Plan period. In this regard, the question of ground conditions and contamination would need to be addressed. In addition, land to facilitate access may be required. The objector argues that, in order to determine such matters, the impetus of allocation is required. Property consultants have been appointed in order to progress acquisition and development.

• I have concluded that, in this case, there is an owner willing to progress development of the site. I do not regard the constraints as overriding. Indeed, in many respects, they are similar to those identified at other allocated sites in Wakefield. Nevertheless, given the constraints, I think it unlikely that more than about 50 houses out of a potential contribution of a minimum of some 228 dwellings would be completed within the Plan period. I am recommending accordingly.

• With regard to land between England Lane and Middle Lane, this has been put forward for either housing or light industrial use. Dealing first with industrial use, I note that, at the end of 2000, some 535 ha of employment land were available within the District. With take-up rates of some 24 ha a year, I consider that there is inadequate justification for light industrial use of the objection site.

• On the question of housing use, the objectors indicate that the land is a previously developed site within the physical limits of Knottingley. For my part, as stated above in the context of the Womersley Road site, I consider that this locality can be regarded as forming part of the built-up area of Knottingley. The urban context of the objection site would be reinforced by residential development to the east. As to whether the site falls within the definition of previously developed land, that is more debatable. It appears to me that, irrespective of whether reclamation was covered by any planning condition, restoration of the site has nevertheless been carried out. I appreciate, however, that it would be sensible to use sites such as the objection site ahead of land with a mature soil structure, all other things being equal.

• Nevertheless, in this case, the housing need of the District can be met on sites higher up the search sequence. In addition, matters relating to ground conditions, contamination and access are relevant. It may well be that all such factors could be resolved satisfactorily. For example, if the Womersley Road site was developed, access could be made available from this direction. However, bearing in mind the many uncertainties, I consider that there are no overriding circumstances that would justify a residential allocation.

• Turning to the former Sewage Works on Pontefract Road, I saw that access to the undeveloped land has been provided off the road serving the A1 Business Park. The stub ends of the hammerhead at the end of an access cul-de-sac give access to plots of land that I perceived to have been prepared and serviced with a view to employment development. Further employment land lies to the south and southwest. To the north and northwest, at a higher level, there is housing fronting Sowgate Lane. I noted that the area is affected by motorway noise.



• I appreciate that the land may have remained vacant for some six years. However, to my mind, the most appropriate use of the site would be for employment purposes. It is a natural part of the A1 Business Park; and it enjoys good access to the A1 trunk road and M62 motorway. I am also mindful that other objectors are seeking addition employment land in this location including an extension of the KNT 7 industrial allocation of which the objection site forms part. I see no reason why there should be a need to “remove continued uncertainty”. The site is clearly allocated for industrial purposes. In my opinion, continued allocation for employment uses is entirely appropriate.

• With regard to the sports fields at Sleepy Valley, Weeland Road, these are stated to be suitable for a wide variety of uses including retail, leisure, business, employment and residential development. The Council, for its part, maintained there was no need for any such development. Indeed, the site is a valuable area of open space within the urban area. No replacement provision has been put forward.

• Dealing first with retail and leisure uses, I consider that these need to be evaluated in the light of the advice in PPG 6. Paragraph 1.10 of PPG 6 states that, “Both local planning authorities and developers selecting sites for development should be able to demonstrate that all potential town centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered for development for key town centre uses. If, however, there is no need or capacity for further developments, there will be no need to identify additional sites in the town.” Paragraph 1.15 applies this approach to leisure developments.

• In the present case, the objection site was acknowledged to be neither a town centre nor an edge-of-centre site. However, no particular assessment of need or potential alternative sites was put before the inquiry. Bearing in mind also the relatively small size of Knottingley, I consider that it would be totally inappropriate to consider the allocation of up to 3.05 ha of land for retail or leisure purposes.

• With regard to business and employment uses, I note that, at the end of 2000, nearly 535 ha of employment land were available within the District. In Knottingley itself, some 30 ha of allocated land remain undeveloped. With District-wide take-up rates averaging about 24 ha a year, I consider that there is no particular need for additional employment development on the objection site.

• In terms of residential use, I am aware that the objection site is a greenfield site. Nevertheless, it is situated within the urban area and, in my opinion, warrants serious consideration as a potential housing site. In this regard, the main issues appear to me to be the question of access and the importance of the site as open space.

• I am aware that, to provide satisfactory access to the main parts of the site, land acquisition would be necessary. This begs the question of whether the necessary land could be acquired particularly within the Plan period. I was told that such matters needed the impetus of a development plan allocation but that property advisors have been appointed with a view to progressing the situation. On the matter of the existing cricket field and rugby pitch on the objection site, these could be relocated on land east of Middle Lane. Such land was owned by the objector.

• In my opinion, the value of the objection site as playing fields is the most important consideration in open space terms. In this regard, the Council’s Sport and Recreation Study should, when published, clarify the significance of facilities such as these. In the meantime, I consider that any action that could lead to the loss of the cricket field and the rugby pitch would



be premature. I appreciate that replacement sports facilities could be sited on land in the objector’s ownership at Womersley Road (see above). However, to my mind, it would make little sense to relocate such facilities from a greenfield site to a brownfield site in circumstances where the development of brownfield land should be maximised.

• I am aware that, at Sleepy Valley, part of the objection site is vacant and overgrown. This area, east of the rugby pitch, could be considered as a development site in its own right. However, the area of land involved is comparatively small and, bearing in mind the need to acquire land for access, there is no evidence to indicate whether development of this smaller parcel would be viable. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that the objection site should be treated as a whole and that, at this stage, its allocation for housing purposes would be inappropriate.

• Turning to land between the A1 and the M62, this is stated to be no longer appropriate for Green Belt now that the A1 is to be upgraded. The site should be used for either housing or employment purposes. This would support regeneration and sustainability objectives and, in the case of residential development, satisfy the overall aims of the housing strategy.

• For my part, I appreciate that the site may be affected by future highway improvement works; also that development of the site could be carried out, with benefit, at the same time as those works. However, notwithstanding any locational advantages that the site may have, I find that there is no need for additional housing or employment land. The housing needs of the District, whether in terms of quantity, type or distribution, can be met on land within urban areas. In respect of employment, and taking into account take-up rates and the amount of available land, I consider that there is no need to allocate more land for such purposes.

• All in all, I have concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant taking land between the A1 and the M62 out of the Green Belt. Its allocation for development purposes would not be justified.

• I have come to the same conclusion in respect of land to the northeast of the A1/M62 interchange. I appreciate that this land has certain locational advantages; also that there is a degree of certainty now that the final alignment of the A1 improvements has been identified. However, in my opinion, there is no overriding need to allocate this site for employment or housing purposes, including social housing. Factors including the locational arguments and the suggestion that “removal would not affect, to any great extent, the function of the Green Belt” do not, in my opinion, constitute exceptional circumstances in this case.

• A final point relates to the importance of the A1 upgrading. I note that, in Paragraph 1.5.2(a) of the Revised Deposit Alterations for the Northern Area, specific reference is made to the upgrading of the A1 and the attendant benefits to the District. In my opinion, the importance of the scheme has been adequately recognised.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5.2/1 That in the first paragraph under the heading KNT H39 POTTERY LANE, KNOTTINGLEY, the following words be deleted: “…and the North View / Ferrybridge Road junction is particularly problematic.”

3/5.2/2 That under the same heading, the following words be substituted for the fourth paragraph: “The housing allocation replaces the former Industrial Zone designation.”

3/5.2/3 That, wherever appropriate, the Plan be modified to recognise that the minimum number of dwellings attributed to the KNT H39 site at Pottery Lane should be 70 dwellings.



3/5.2/4 That the former quarry site at Womersley Road, Knottingley by allocated for housing purposes (Annex B1). The minimum number of dwellings to be completed within the Plan period would be 50. The total capacity of the site would be a minimum of 228 dwellings.


city of wakefield metropolitan · pdf filecity of wakefield metropolitan district unitary...

Documents