We have now substantial background to the case to demonstarate CONCERN
The 106 Inducement as we understand , due to recent legislation introduced , May 05 ., means that the 106 Inducement Contract stands and will stand for 5 years unil 2007. We are concerned therefore by the removal of playing fields to have been created on-site from the site . This 106 criteria would effectively mean that such a site would not be economically feasible by virtue of footprint or generated affordable houing and . This is relected by the appraisal of an Inspector as early as 1996.
We are concerned on departure which will be dealt with via the Government Offiice . A piece of Greenbelt has been included on the site
We express concern regarding the overall bias on the application to the exclusion of many others . The applicationn gone now to some 20 weeks. Unusually most or all of the objections such as phase 2 Mine Surveys and contamination reports have occurred in this period which under normal circumstances would have been prepared well before the ceasing of any existing outline permission on 7th February 2005 this year
PPG3 means that this application must be considerred in the light of any material conditions , Developement planners appear to be briefing Coucillors as follows " the site has existing outline permission and is a designated housing site on the UDP" here is our interpretation which does not assume that any thing follows by way of false assertion PPG3 places a requirement t consider the application in the light of any material condition ( EMF , Powerlines) or Valid Objections as occurs at the time of renewal of application . The site DOES NOT have existing Outline Permission it expired on 7th February 2005. The site was brought forward in the UDP by the behest of developemnt planners . There has been no validation of this land use or allocation on Greenfield/Greenbelt by Urban capacity Study and such a proposed developement does not take into consider any Windfall sites that may or have become available
Heres what the Inspector Concluded as early as 1996
" This is not a modest stand alone greenfield developement but a largedevlopement on the urban fringe with numerous inherent constraints which is also a large part of the Royds Community Development Regeneration Project. Hence it involves a complex matrix of interactive considerations. In my opinion the comples design framework necessary to ensure satisfactory developemnt cannot be defined ny planning conditions on an outline consent. Nor do I believe that all the objectives of the scheme could be adequately controlled by conditions . For these reasons I consider a planning brief and section 106 agreements concerning affordable housing and the provision and maintainance of recreation and open space to be prerequisites of granting outline planning permission "
JC Basford (1996) Bsc C Eng MICE
We sought to investigate the malicious arson of the Youth Centre on Fenwick Drive in the light of the implicated developement on which insurance was never specifically claimed despite clearly existing and would have reinstated the facility . The land holding at this site still raises questions regarding the proposed developemnt and its validity at this location . We draw attention to what the Inspector said about the facility existing at this time
" secondly the Western end of the site adjoins a Youth Centre go cart track which is likely to be noisy when in use . Hence a provision within site of a landscaped buffer zone including a noise mound which would be necessary to protect nearby residents from noise "
The matter including defintive evidence will now be passed to West Yorkshire Polic for further investigation
Inspectors Appraisal 1.1 MByte
Despite numerous documented requests (available for inspection) the council have refused to provide information as requested in a timely and efficient manner .
Here are some examples
Appplication Validity - The site was owned and managed by S BCHT who where not given the required 21 days notice under the Town & County Planning Act which is one ioof few enforcible actions to be taken . The requirements of this law are clear and have NOT been met we would therefore move that the application is declared invalid and the applicants reapply giving suitable notification
We requested in detail a copy of the Scoping Process or activity that planners alledge that they have undertaken to look at EIA's or beginings of UCS
We asked to clearly confirm positions of ownership on the Ransom strip at the Front and to confirm cobvenants and other details relating to them
We sought to understand the basis of sale , transfer and generated capital receipt on the sale of the Ransom Strip and of the concept of Best Value in so far as the owner would be entitled to one third value of the entire developemnt site
We where stone walled by senior heads of Directorates , wuth at one point the Assistant Chief executive refusing even to communicate on planning issues and information.
We asked to confirm the ownership of any Mineral or extractions resulting from leveling on the hilslope site situiated on a coal seam ( being distinct from land ownership) . The position on mines has gone (documented ) fom no mines on site to 4 with possible gas activity issues and levels of Arsenic and Mercury to be contained and removed from site
We attempted to object at the inclusion of Greenbelt in the Objection to Modification Stage and at the apropriate Executive meeting
We attempted to examine the series of errors occurring in or on site
(1) Inclusion of BWA 26 ( Third tier conservation site which was extolled as of values as a " Foraging "corridor and is now being referred to as semi improved agricultural pasture
(2)The alledged transfer in error of part of a Ransom Strip to the Frontage of the Site , How did this come about when by whom and why was it not put right at the time
(3) The inclusion of a so called " slither " of Green Belt on which the council appear not to be declaring modification/departure
We attempted to retrieve the 106 Inducement Contact on file and where aked to pay £25 for a 14 page document.
We have queried if the removal of the existing Inducement even if it could be was actually advertised in line with regulations
Whilst attempting to utilise planning files we where denied access over a 3 week period on the alledged basis that tehey had gone of for scanning. The GOPDand other regulations clearly state they must be avaialble for Public Consultatoion
We seek to clarify the continued involvemnet of an SRB Regeneration Company which has no proven business case , who seeks to deliver a masterplan , out of time and out of budget and has extended beyond there 5 year life span, We seek to represent community eveidence that such an orgamisation has failed to represent the community concerns by monopolising , charging and alledgely infiltrating normal community channels and facilities to the exclusion of all other interests.
We questioned the role of any Land transfer by past and future implicated by way of Capital Receipt
We have questioned the Woodside school lack of involvement from the perspective of notification of near neighbours input by the board of govenors in the light of any activities which would likely impact on the children and in the light that our representations of providing evidence to the school where devclined by les webb The Chair Of Govenors who also coincidentally the Developers Archetect ( Acanthus Webb Seeeger Moorehouse ) and Director of Royds
We have enacted enforcement isues with the Council regarding Rights of Ways ( One directly crossing the "East" Field and the other whuch has been obstructed .The former has not been gated or styled but has been walked for some time . We also have highlighted the use of Royds Haul Farm as a base or 4 lorries from the firm PK Martin Registerred Hauliers , with these 22 T lorries using the small lane ( Royds Hall Ancient Highway ) in close proximity to the Primary School . These lorries have been jept here overnoght outside the terms of the Haulage licence. To date no enforcement has occurred these are NOT acts of charity but statutory requiremnets implicit on the Local Authority to enforce failure to do so can only be viewed as bias and harassment. Useful numbers for complaint Traffic Commisioner , Leeds.
The Traffic Commissioners can be contacted at:
The Clerk to the Licensing Authority
North Eastern Traffic Area
Hillcrest House
386 Harehills Lane
Leeds
LS9 7NE Tel: Leeds (0113) 2543281/ 2
Highway Inspector Bradford MDC (01274) 431914
To date none of these questions and issues have been satifactorily answered or addressed despite being referred to on an number of occasions and under requests from the Freedom of Information Act . A response has now been made which confirms an existing error or land transfer . An apparaisal shall be given in due course
We report that the farmer now has been granted a Vehicle Operating Licence to run heavy plant from this site. Farmyard above including a large Dairy Herd
We have an audit chain of correspondence going back to Feb 05 expressing concerns both to Highways and to Planners Involved . In addition to concerns from the precious headmistress.
This is a large Hill Top Site in close proximity to a Primary School at its base . the road surface has not been properly instated .
Loose surface , dust or Frozen water on a hilltop is a recipe for disaster given it is a Public Footpath and scheduled ancient highway ( To be maintained in character ).
The site is located in a residential area with restricted accesss routes on 3.5 t residential limits
Royds Hall Lane is a Scheduled Ancient Highway to be maintained in character leading to Grade 2 sites of listed buildings where they are parked no more than 2 ft away . Such a lane is only the width of a lorry and is used as a public footpath with Public Footpath 129 joining with no measures of protection
This lane is used by many of the children and parents because it is traffic free to travel too and from the Primary (and Secondary schools in the area ) and near Play Areas on Fenwick and Meadway and Lingdale
We are not aware that any COU ( Change of Use ) has been submitted to Planning . we seek to identify this issue
