Bye bye countryside

[chameleon]

raveydavey wrote: An interesting article.Given that the land in question was zoned for mixed use and that development was entirely dependent on the "outer" outer ring road being built to service it, I'm at a loss as to how they can now justify filling it with houses before the road is built.The trouble is that the council appear to be already taking a defeated attitude to it all. Past experience of my own with the council legal department (during the Swarcliffe PFI debacle) gives me no confidence in them either.It's worth noting of course that whilst Whinmoor is relatively well served public transport wise (services 4 and 56 are currently every 10 minutes for most of the day, 6 days a week), the new development will have negligible public transport with only the infrequent Wetherby services passing at the periphery of the new development. Of course the new development will have no direct access to the Whinmoor terminus, but will no doubt be cited on any plans as being "just a short walk away"... A short walk....by car, right out of the new estate onto York Road, Right at the Red Lion negotiating an oncoming endless stream, doubtless with a lot more of the carnage we see from this dangerous manouvre.

[raveydavey]

If the development goes ahead (and I feel it almost certainly will get the green light, regardless of local opposition or sustainability) the sensible solution would be to install a "bus gate" route into the new development and install a new terminus, with either (or both) of the existing services that terminate at Whinmoor extended to service it.However this is unlikely to happen for several reasons. It will cost money and the developers won't want to pay for it. Neither will First - after all both services are frequently filled to capacity well before the city centre now (despite duplication with other services for much of either route beyond Seacroft / Cross Gates), so what will they gain? Once the bus is full, it's full.Metro are unlikely to have funds, despite this being exactly the area the NotSoSupertram was meant to serve. Beside which there is the argument about using public funds to support this type of scheme.    

[chameleon]

raveydavey wrote: If the development goes ahead (and I feel it almost certainly will get the green light, regardless of local opposition or sustainability) the sensible solution would be to install a "bus gate" route into the new development and install a new terminus, with either (or both) of the existing services that terminate at Whinmoor extended to service it.However this is unlikely to happen for several reasons. It will cost money and the developers won't want to pay for it. Neither will First - after all both services are frequently filled to capacity well before the city centre now (despite duplication with other services for much of either route beyond Seacroft / Cross Gates), so what will they gain? Once the bus is full, it's full.Metro are unlikely to have funds, despite this being exactly the area the NotSoSupertram was meant to serve. Beside which there is the argument about using public funds to support this type of scheme.     The Park & Ride remains identified as such in the Development Plans Davey. Should we tell someone.....

[Cardiarms]

has the development around Knostrop for freight/distibution/warehousing changed things?

[chameleon]

Published in the YEP today, much of what this meansfor outer areas is already policy and confirmed some time ago in the concluding report following a Public Enquiry:Published on Friday 3 February 2012 08:21 A development blueprint that will help shape the future of Leeds predicts the city will need up to 70,000 new homes by 2028 as its population continues to grow.And the document drawn up by the council indicates that 16 per cent of the properties would be built on greenbelt land and a further 14 per cent on greenfield sites, with the rest going to previously developed – brownfield – land.Much of the projected housing growth is focused on the city centre and inner areas, which account for 20,200 of the homes; east Leeds, where 11,400 would be built; outer south west with 7,200; north Leeds with 6,000 and outer south-east with 5,200. Site-specific allocations will be published later this year.A total of 3,660 would be built each year between 2012 and 2017, rising to 4,700 from 2018 until 2028, by which time Leeds’s population is forecast to have risen by just over 100,000 to 859,000.The figures are contained in the council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy, which allocates land for housing, shopping, office and commercial schemes.Drawn up under the direction of the Government, the strategy has to ensure that the city has a sufficient supply of housing land to meet expected need.But council bosses are warning the figures should be treated with caution as even during the construction industry’s boom years, such targets were not achieved.Coun Richard Lewis, executive member for development, said it was highly unlikely 70,000 homes would be built, particularly in the current economic climate.The council will press for the bulk of housing development to take place on brownfield sites and within existing urban areas to help preserve the city’s “distinctive character.” The strategy will go out to public consultation next month.

[Leodian]

On page 3 of today's YEP it states that the proposed 'Bramley Fields' name has been dropped and that pupils at schools in the area will be asked to come up with ideas for a new name.

[chameleon]

Leodian wrote: On page 3 of today's YEP it states that the proposed 'Bramley Fields' name has been dropped and that pupils at schools in the area will be asked to come up with ideas for a new name. This relates to he area which extends from the present building limits east of the A64 to a boudary formed by the proposed A6120 relief/bypass road which has been creeping slowly in and will be built - and in all honesty, whilst not necessarily wanted, is very much needed, and includes thee already planned Grimesdyke development.The name Bramley has only tenuous links historically with the proposed area and more meaningful suggestions have been put forward which better relate to and define the area.

[raveydavey]

From this morning's YEP:http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... Developers behind proposals to build 2,000 homes on the outskirts of Leeds have been warned “don’t even think about a planning application” until key road issues are sorted out.The warning came from the council’s east plans panel when the Persimmon Homes-led consortium made a pre-application presentation to councillors outlining the scheme.Described as one of the biggest residential developments to be considered by the council for many years, the consortium intends to build the homes in phases over the next eight years on greenfield land east of Whinmoor, between Wetherby Road and York Road north of Skeltons Lane.The site forms the northern part of a large swathe of land known as the east Leeds extension (ELE) which is earmarked for long-term development.But councillors consider that the building of a new route – the east Leeds orbital road (ELOR) – is critical to deal with the extra traffic that will be created by new homes.And they are worried that proposals are starting to come forward without any firm plans for the ELOR in place.The Persimmon-led consortium is proposing to build a section of the ELOR but work on that will not start until the later phases of its scheme.Coun John Procter (Con, Wetherby) said a whole range of infrastructure issues needed to be resolved ahead of any development, particularly the ELOR. He said: “So far answers have not been forthcoming. They need to be considered before the applicants even think about submitting a planning application.“There is a need for a comprehensive orbital road if you are are to develop in the east of Leeds.”He urged all developers with an interest in the ELE to work together to come up with a solution for the road. Jonathan Dunbavin, planning consultant representing the consortium, said planning policy did not require “the orbital road to be in situ from day one” but he recognised it was an important issue for panel members.The panel heard that in the earlier phases of the scheme a range of junction improvements and other highway measures were proposed.Whilst the apparent stance by the council is welcomed, as anyone who lives in the area / uses the surrounding roads knows the current infrastructure simply wouldn't be able to cope with an additional 2000 homes (potentially 4000+ cars), it is worrying that the developers seem to think otherwise - and developers have a long history of getting their own way, be it through biased traffic surveys or by forcing plans to the Government Planning Inspectorate if the council have the cheek to say no.The access to / from York Road in the dangerous dip are already set to cause chaos and to add to these without serious improvements is a massive concern. That said, will the planned ELOR impact on traffic in and out of the city including from any new development? Probably not as it is designed to take cross city traffic away from the current Outer Ring Road network (from Red Hall to Thorpe Park, if plans are to be believed). Surely most of the occupants of the planned homes will be going to work in Leeds city centre, so will use the existing York Road or Wetherby Road depending on which is most convenient from their new home?

[book]

I suppose putting a rail link or tram system in the new suburb is out of the question. A word of warning to all those in that area, I live surrounded by new road networks and it has regenerated parts of South Leeds but destroyed tranquility.

[chameleon]

Davey, the same was said as a defence against the building of the A1/M1 link road and indeed the remainder of the improvements including the East Leeds bypass however, the reality is demonstrably quite the opposite with an imense quantity of 'local' as well as more general traffic using these rather than the tradtional routes. Based on this I suspect that the cross-route giving access to the motorways North and South and towards the network into Leeds centre will will attract a considerable following, particularly from a newer incoming population less ingrained with the more traditional routes.The proposed development (yet to be named) which includes the Grimes Dyke element includes the provision of a significant section of the long debated A6120 bypass. Its arrival has always officially been deemed essential as a forerunner to any significant development of the East Leeds Extension Corridor which was indentified of ccourse by the Council over 10 years ago as an area to be given over to the long term future development of the city.With regard to the access agreed by the Developers and the Council Highways department, it will be light controlled in the same way as the access to the large Killingbeck Hospital development is and that causes little if inconvenience and indeed helps to smooth the overaall traffic flow at peak times. Non the less, I share your concerns generally on that point and now it is a case of 'proof of the pudding' being the test once built.Perhaps a further great concern may be the increase in right turning traffic travelling west at The Old Red Lion and wishing to access the existing conurbation and its facilities including public transport. The assumption of the Developer's Planners is that the low-density traffic design of Grimes Dyke will encourage the new residents to use the pedsetrian/cycle routes being included instead of driving to these. Yes, of course they will. What the planning panel's statement does confirm, is the Council's continuing commitment and determination to see the full Crossgates - Seacroft bypass come to fruition. The developmentmental use of the land it will enclose is, as we have established, already determined and approved - all that is left is now to influence the structure, form and design this will take to endeavour getting the best possible result of the ineviitable in the eyes of the existing communities.