Future potential housing developments Adel & Cookridge

[Jogon]

Although primarily aimed to alert locals to stuff over here:-Site             Capacity(housing)~~                ~~~~~Govt Buildings 142long causeway 86Tile lane         451S. Dunstarn Ln 62+ ditto             280Rectory+paddockchurch ln         18+ditto                66Boddington Hall 160Church Lane>    186Cookridge HallGolf Club >     274 }+Cookridge Hall 1550 } = 1824 houses !To view / download from web www.leeds.gov.uk/siteallocationsVisit Development Enquiry Centre Leonardo BldgView at all Libraries & one stop centresJust because some are coded red = not suitable doesn't mean it cannot happen.this info and maps may affect you.Do take part in the consultation see also http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/S ... using.aspx        

[Leodian]

Thanks Jogon.Some interesting information is brought up through the map in your last link (clicking on a section of the map, but it may download slowly) and also when clicking on links in that webpage to other things relating to the areas of Leeds.    

[Loiner1960]

Shows how much local knowledge has gone into this. On Dewsbury Road a red area covers the site of Leeds landfill! There are vents and water courses because this was Leeds main site. But yes the possibility of building houses on it... Every green field and plot of land is under threat. http://www.leeds.gov.uk/SiteAllocationMaps/HMAP28.pdf

[Jogon]

Consultation / have your say on or [well] before Friday 26th July 2013

[raveydavey]

Those 'proposals' are quite scary. There are huge swathes of the city, including valuable green spaces flagged up as potential housing.Past experience suggests that developers will be studying these maps with glee and snapping up the greenest of them, whilst leaving more suitable sites to wither.The irony of course is that most of the homes that will be built will be too expensive for first time buyers...If you click through to the accompanying 'Green Spaces' map there initially appears to be a fair amount of 'greenery' offered a degree of protection, but a closer look reveals much of this is either existing parkland (ie Roundhay Park!) or thin strips of verge alongside main roads, which aren't really useful for much in the way of recreation. It's telling that the 'proposed development' sites feature virtually no designated green spaces at all.Please make your representations before the deadline.    

[stutterdog]

raveydavey wrote: Those 'proposals' are quite scary. There are huge swathes of the city, including valuable green spaces flagged up as potential housing.Past experience suggests that developers will be studying these maps with glee and snapping up the greenest of them, whilst leaving more suitable sites to wither.The irony of course is that most of the homes that will be built will be too expensive for first time buyers...If you click through to the accompanying 'Green Spaces' map there initially appears to be a fair amount of 'greenery' offered a degree of protection, but a closer look reveals much of this is either existing parkland (ie Roundhay Park!) or thin strips of verge alongside main roads, which aren't really useful for much in the way of recreation. It's telling that the 'proposed development' sites feature virtually no designated green spaces at all.Please make your representations before the deadline.     There doesn't seem to be any point in objecting to any proposals for new housing developments especially around the lower end of Farsley as the landowners and builders appear to have the Govt on their side.It doesn't seem to matter that the Leeds Planning office reject the proposed developments , the Govt just overrule their objections. We here in this area are about to be inundated with new housing on Green Belt land, 470 houses! So much for local democracy!

[Tasa]

I must say, I would be concerned if I lived on Moseley Wood Rise in Cookridge, currently a short cul de sac. This is planned to be the only access route into an estate of 200 houses built by Taylor Wimpey. If you follow the street view to the end of the cul de sac, the cat will lose its sunbathing spot if this goes ahead!http://goo.gl/maps/Rm85sOpen consultation meeting at Cookridge Village Hall on 27 June from 4.30-7.30pm.        

[BarFly]

I think some of the plans I saw have Hunger Hills as a site for building also -- so yet more unnecessary green belt usage.

[Jogon]

Tasa wrote: I must say, I would be concerned if I lived on Moseley Wood Rise in Cookridge, currently a short cul de sac. This is planned to be the only access route into an estate of 200 houses built by Taylor Wimpey. If you follow the street view to the end of the cul de sac, the cat will lose its sunbathing spot if this goes ahead!http://goo.gl/maps/Rm85sOpen consultation meeting at Cookridge Village Hall on 27 June from 4.30-7.30pm.         Unless a cul de sac (neck of the bag) is fully built with a closed crescent at the top then looks to me like a farmer and developer hedging (literally) their bets.Even then you're not guaranteed:- I recall a job I came across a landlocked block of land behind developed detatched houses with space for about 25 new houses. Residents up in arms, petitions objections, they shall not pass etc. It came to pass that 2 of these same homeowners broke ranks and sold to the developers at a premium price, their houses demolished and access problems solved., theirs was the 'road in'.Looking at the massive attempted Cookridge Hall attempt I see a couple of local 'routes in' like this(currently routes on my regular walk/cycle) :-http://goo.gl/maps/biyeJhttp://goo.gl/m ... 5currently to golf course>Breary Marsh>Golden A.P.

[Jogon]

found ithttp://barryanderson.yourcllr.com/category/planning/#