Tall Buildings Design GuideLeeds Local Development Framework
Supplementary Planning DocumentSustainability AppraisalNovember 2007
If you do not speak English and need help in understanding this document, please phone: 0113 247 8092 and state the name of your language. We will then we contact an interpreter. This is a free service and we can assist with 100+ languages. We can also provide this document in audio or Braille on request. (Bengali):-
(Chinese):-
(Hindi):-
(Punjabi):-
(Urdu):-
This publication can also be made available in Braille or audio cassette. Please call 0113 247 8092.
0113 247 8092
0113 247 8092
0113 247 8092
0113 247 8092
0113 247 8092
Contents
1 Summary and Outcomes 2
2 Background 5
3 Appraisal Methodology 7
4 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 11
5 SPD Issues and Options 25
6 Assessment of Key Issues and Policies 31
7 Implementation 44 Appendix 1 Sustainability Appraisal Framework 46 Appendix 2 Relevant Plans and Programmes 52 Appendix 3 Response to Scoping Report Comments from Statutory Bodies 63 and other Stakeholders
2
1 Summary and Outcomes
Non-technical summary
1.1 This Non-Technical summary highlights the process and key findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Tall Buildings for Leeds Guide Supplementary Document (SPD). The SA has been undertaken to assess the environmental, social and economic effects which are likely to arise from implementing the SPD. The SA also maximises the SPD potential to support the delivery of social, economic and environmental objectives, with SA providing a systematic way for checking and improving on the SPD as it develops.
1.2 The approach adopted in undertaking the SA is based on guidance set out in ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional, Spatial Strategies, and Local Development Frameworks’, ODPM 2005 and the ‘Guide to SA for the Leeds Local Development Framework’, November 2005.
1.3 This SA was undertaken by Leeds City Council in spring 2007.
Background to the Tall Buildings for Leeds SPD
1.4 Leeds City Council has prepared a Supplementary Planning Document to amplify the existing adopted UDP that will influence the location and design of tall buildings in Leeds City Centre and beyond. This SPD when approved will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for Leeds.
1.5 The Tall Buildings Guide for Leeds SPD has the following objectives: • To establish clear principles and advice against which proposals for tall
buildings will be considered and assessed. • To demonstrate the importance of design and urban design in achieving
distinctive quality buildings appropriate and compatible with their locations.
• To enhance skylines, views and settings whilst at the same time protecting areas of special character, settings and streetscapes.
• To ensure that new tall buildings have a good relationship with movement patterns and transport facilities.
• To make tall buildings environmentally sustainable and operational. SA process
1.6 The following process has been followed when undertaking the SA of the SPD. This process is explained in detail in the main SA Report:
• Stage A Setting the context, objectives, baseline and scope, • Stage B Developing and refining options and assessing effects, • Stage C SPD key issues and policies assessment and Mitigation, • Stage D Reporting and Consultation, and • Stage E Monitoring.
Setting the context, objectives, baseline and scope
1.7 When setting the context, a review of relevant plans and programmes affecting or influencing the SPD was undertaken. Baseline data was also collected to help in characterising the area, identifying areas of opportunities and challenges and to help in the prediction of impacts. The SA objectives were taken from the already
3
established SA framework for Leeds City Council and it was against these objectives that the performance of the SPD was tested. Developing and refining options and assessing effects
1.8 Government guidance requires consideration of options to achieve the objectives set in the SPD. The following options were considered:
• The No SPD Option, and • The SPD option.
1.9 The No SPD Option represented not having a new SPD and depending on existing
Adopted UDP policies. When the option was assessed against the SA objectives, it was found that in the longer term there would be a decline in the quality of tall buildings and their relationship with the public realm in Leeds City Centre which would lead to a decline in investor confidence in the City Centre. A decline in the quality of tall buildings would also lead to a less attractive City Centre affecting those that live and work in the City Centre. The assessment revealed that negative effects in the long term were likely especially against SA objectives related to maintaining and enhancing the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment, preserving and enhancing the historic environment, landscape and urban landscape, leading to a lack of sense of place.
1.10 The SPD option represented taking the new SPD forward and when assessed against S.A.objectives it was found that there would be a generally positive impact on economic, social and environmental objectives.
1.11 The SPD option performed well against SA objectives as it would improve the Leeds skyline, the architectural quality of tall buildings, and increase the quality of the public realm around tall buildings in Leeds City Centre leading to increased investor confidence, a better environment and increased social cohesion through provision of cultural, leisure and recreational spaces among other benefits. This option is the Council’s preferred option. SPD key issues and policies assessment and Mitigation
1.12 The following key issues in the SPD were assessed against the SA framework: • Locations for new tall buildings, • Protection of important and historic street views, settings and conservation
areas, • Sustainability and climate change • Design Detail.
1.13 Overall, the approaches adopted do not conflict with the SA objectives and if implemented they will help the Council in meeting its objectives to have good quality
tall buildings in the right locations resulting in a distinctive Leeds only skyline.
1.14 Adopted UDP policies were appraised as they had not been subject to the SA previously. The effects of the conservation related policies CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6 CC7, CC9, CC11, CC12, and CC13 are generally considered beneficial when assessed against SA1 and SA2 where a more attractive environment should encourage investment and tourism . These relate to maintaining economic growth and conditions that enable successful businesses and facilitate development.
4
1.15 Policies related to buiIdings and urban design BD2, BD4, BD5, BD13, BD14 and N13 were felt to have a positive effect and impact in relation to the environment. This could engender an increased sense of pride and belonging amongst the community. BD5A focuses on conserving energy and water resources resulting in it having a positive impact in terms of environmental objectives relating to the reduction of greenhouse emissions and pollution levels thus promoting sustainable design which would improve the quality of housing.
. 1.16 Policy SA9 as an aspirational strategic aim it is difficult to see where this policy
would have a negative affect in terms of sustainability., and in fact in most cases the policy scores at least a positive effect. Policy T2 is generally positive against the economic, social, and environmental objectives. It seeks to ensure that tall building development can be supported by the transport network as made evident with recent applications for supertower tall buildings sited within a few minutes walk from Leeds Railway station. Reporting and Consultation
1.17 This Sustainability Report has been produced and is available for consultation together with the submission SPD. Monitoring
1.18 A monitoring framework has been developed (table 7.1) It is proposed that SA effects monitoring is linked to other monitoring activities, for example, the overall LDF monitoring and the Leeds City Audit monitoring.
Statement on the difference the process has made
1.19 The purpose of the SA was to ensure that social, environmental and economic considerations have been taken into account in developing the SPD. It should reflect better the LDF SA objectives, and take more account of the needs of business, the community and social inclusion.
1.20 The SA process has also helped in comparing the SPD options and highlighting the benefits a new SPD, focusing on tall buildings for the City Centre, it will bring. It will have an immediate impact on the way developers and their advisors will prepare proposals for tall buildings. It will also guide the negotiations between officers and those seeking planning permission. It will be influential in delivering, people friendly places and good public realm as well as an attractive skyline to the city. How to comment on the SA
1.21 Comments are invited on the Draft SPD and on the Sustainability Appraisal. These comments should be made in writing to:- Head of Planning and Economic Policy The Leonardo Building 2 Rossington Street Leeds LS2 8HD
5
2 Background
Purpose of the SA and the SA report
2.1 The overall project objective is to ensure that Leeds City Council’s City Centre Planning Obligations and Tall Buildings Guide maximises its potential to support the delivery of social, economic and environmental objectives, with SA providing a systematic way for checking and improving on the SPD as it develops. SPD objectives and an outline of its contents
2.2 The purpose of the SPD is to establish clear principles and advice against which proposals for tall buildings will be assessed. Its key objectives are to:
• maintain a successful City Centre by enabling sustainable and quality tall buildings and a ‘it can only be Leeds’ skyline.
• improve the quality of the City Centre urban form and environment in order to secure further investment and underpin investor confidence,
• improve the connectivity of public spaces and orientation within the City Centre and to communities adjacent to the City Centre, and
• secure, in a consistent way, financial contributions to public realm improvements around the bases of tall buildings from developers.
Compliance with the SEA Directive/Regulations
2.3 The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive for the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes was transposed into English law on the 20th July 2004 in the form of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. The objective of the SEA Directive is “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans with a view to promoting sustainable development”.
2.4 The vehicle for achieving this aim is by means of the assessment of plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, the result of which are presented in an Environmental Report.
2.5 It has been determined that the Tall Buildings SPD is required to meet the provisions of the SEA Directive. This Sustainability Appraisal encompasses the SEA of the Draft SPD. Table 2.1 below signposts where the SEA requirements are covered in this SA Report.
2.6 Local Development Framework including Supplementary Planning Documents. SA requires that the social and economic effects of the SPD are considered as well as the environmental. The proposed SPD adds detail to policies in the ‘saved’ UDP for which no SA has been undertaken. An SA of the SPD incorporating an SA of the ‘saved’ policies has therefore been undertaken.
6
Table 2.1 How SEA Requirements have been taken on board
The SEA Directive’s Requirements
Where covered in the SA Report
An outline of the contents, main objectives of the SPD and relationship with other relevant plans and programmes;
Section 2.2
The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without the implementation of the SPD;
Section 4.2
The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected;
Environmental baseline in Section (4.2)
Existing environmental problems relevant to the SPD; Section 4.3 The environmental protection objectives, established at international, community or national level, which are relevant to the SPD and how they have been taken into account during its preparation;
Appendix 2
The likely significant effect on the environment including on such issues as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora , soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage and the interrelationship between the above factors. These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects;
Section 5 & 6
The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programmes;
Section 6
An outline of the reasons for selecting alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties encountered in compiling the required information;
Section 5.2
A description of measures envisaged concerning monitoring;
Table 7.1
A non-technical summary; Chapter 1 The report shall include information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, its stages in the decision-making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process to avoid duplication of assessment;
Tiering of Plans, Section 7.1
Consultation: statutory consultees/public Section 3.21
7
3 Appraisal Methodology
Approach adopted
3.1 In keeping with Government guidance ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’ (ODPM 2005) the following stages have been followed:
• Stage A Setting the context, objectives, baseline and scope, • Stage B Developing and refining options and assessing effects, • Stage C SPD key issues and policies assessment and Mitigation, • Stage D Reporting and Consultation, and • Stage E Monitoring.
Stage A Setting the Objectives, establishing the Baseline and deciding
the Scope
3.2 This stage involved reviewing relevant plans and programmes that affect or influence the SPD, collecting baseline environmental and socio-economic data to form the basis for predicting impacts and monitoring effects of the SPD. This process also allowed any gaps in the baseline data to be identified and opportunities and challenges facing Leeds City Centre in relation to tall buildings to be determined. Baseline data and opportunities and challenges are set out in section 4.
3.3 Leeds City Council has a set of sustainability objectives contained in the Guide to Sustainability Appraisal of the Leeds Local Development Framework. These are based on the four objectives identified in the Government publication, ‘A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the UK’:
• Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; • Effective protection of the environment; • Prudent use of natural resources; and • Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
3.4 A set of sustainability objectives formulated by Leeds City Council also formed part of stage A.
3.5 To ensure that the SA covered the relevant scope and detail, a Scoping Report was
prepared in June 2005 and was issued to the statutory consultees for consultation.
3.6 The Scoping Report presented the context of the SA including an overview of other international, European, national, regional and local plans and programmes of relevance to the SPD. Relevant aspects within these documents were documented and presented in the Scoping Report.
3.7 The Scoping Report also outlined the SA objectives and the key sustainability issues for the SA to address. A number of alterations were made to the appraisal framework to take account of comments made by the four statutory consultees. This SA has been carried out using the revised appraisal framework. Stage B and C Developing and Refining Options and Assessing Effects
3.8 The SEA Directive and the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 place considerable emphasis on the consideration of reasonable alternatives. In the case
8
of SPDs, the alternative options can be kept to a consideration of the outcomes if there is no SPD and the outcomes that could result with the SPD. These two options have been considered and their potential sustainability effects identified. The options considered and reasons for alternative selection or rejection is discussed in detail in chapter 5 of this report.
3.9 Effects of SPD objectives, Options, Key Issues and relevant UDP policies have also been appraised. Proposals for mitigation to prevent or reduce potential adverse effects have been proposed where relevant. The type of mitigation has included the refinement of certain aspects of the SPD or the inclusion of certain technical measures at the implementation stage. Further details on impact assessment are provided in Chapter 5.
3.10 Predicted impacts were evaluated and the results recorded using matrix tables. The matrix tables use a series of notations to describe the likely effect of the SPD Objectives, Options, Key Issues and relevant UDP policies against the SA objectives. The notations used in the matrix tables are: ++ Score awarded where objective is compatible and in line with the SA
objective and is highly likely to have direct positive effects, + Score awarded where there is potential for positive effects either directly or
Indirectly, O Score attributed to insignificant or neutral effect on the SA objective, - Score awarded where objective is likely to have some negative impacts on
SA objective either directly or indirectly, -- Score awarded where objective is incompatible with the SA objective and is
highly likely to have adverse effects, D Impact dependent on how objective is implemented, and ? Uncertain effect on SA objective.
3.11 In carrying out the assessment consideration was made to the significant impacts relating to:
• Cumulative and synergistic effects,
• Secondary effects,
• Permanent and temporary effects, and
• Short, Medium and long term effects. In this assessment short, medium and long term were defined as described below.
o short = 0-5 (2005-2009),
o medium =5-10 years (2010-2014), and
o long = (2015 - onwards ).
3.12 The purpose of this phase of the SA was to demonstrate that the likely sustainability effects of the SPD have been considered, taking both the objectives of the SA and the geographical scope of the draft SPD into account, and to propose measures to prevent, reduce or offset any significant effects.
3.13 When undertaking the assessment, it was assumed that funds secured through this SPD would be spent on public realm improvements around tall buildings that meet sustainability principles.
9
3.14 Proposals for monitoring to measure the performance over time of the SPD against the SA objectives are necessary and this is presented in Chapter 7.
Stage D Reporting and Consultation
3.15 This Sustainability Report is the key deliverable of the SA, the purpose of which is to illustrate the process undertaken to complete the SA, to allow consultation and to demonstrate compliance with the SEA Directive.
3.16 This Report will be made available to the public for comment, alongside the draft
SPD. The consultation period will be for six weeks commencing from 7th January 2008 until February 18th 2008
3.17 Following the consultation phase, comments received will be used to determine
whether any changes need to be made to the SPD.
Stage E Monitoring
3.18 Proposals for monitoring the effects of the SPD following implementation are suggested in this section. The social, environmental and economic effects of the SPD will require regular monitoring to ensure that any significant effects arising from the SPD’s implementation are identified and, where necessary, remedied at the earliest opportunity. When the SA was carried out?
3.19 The SA of the Draft SPD was undertaken in March 2007. Who carried out the SA?
3.20 Leeds City Council produced a Scoping Report for the Tall Buildings Design Guide SPD and a full SA was undertaken by Leeds City Council Officers from different disciplines in March 2007. This Sustainability Report is published for consultation in January 2008 alongside the SPD. Who was consulted, when and how?
3.21 The early consultation included the activities described in paragraphs 3.22 -3.24 below:
3.22 The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report was sent to all the environmental statutory bodies and other relevant stakeholder consultees in December 2005:
Countryside Agency Environment Agency English Heritage English Nature Leeds Civic Trust The Leeds Initiative
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly Yorkshire Forward
3.23 A five week consultation period ending the 20th January 2006 was advised for the return of comments.
10
3.24 Comments received from Statutory Bodies and other Stakeholders and responses to those comments are tabled in Appendix 3
3.25 In addition to the statutory consultees and those bodies/groups, who were felt would have a particular interest in the SPD, a workshop event on 1st March 2005 (attended by design disciplines, councillors, consultants, developers and other stakeholders e.g. Civic Trust) resulted in many comments, observations and recommendations with regard to tall building sustainability issues. These have subsequently been incorporated into the Draft SPD.
11
4 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
Links to other strategies, plans and policies and sustainability objectives
4.1 Relevant plans and programmes that have a bearing on the development of the SPD were reviewed. This review was aimed at identifying issues affecting or influencing the SPD and how the SPD can take them on board. It also helped to identify issues that the SA should focus on. The table in Appendix 2 shows the reviewed plans and programmes and their implications for the SPD and the SA.
Description of the social, environmental and economic baseline characteristics and the predicted future baseline
4.2 This section describes the current socio-economic and environmental baseline for Leeds City Centre. Data that is relevant to the SPD has been collected and supplemented with relevant data collected for the ‘Guide to SA for the Leeds Local Development Framework’ and other baseline studies undertaken for various SA/SEAs - ‘West Yorkshire LTP2 SEA Scoping Report’ and the Leeds Waste Strategy Review SA. The information collected will provide a basis for both forecasting and monitoring sustainability effects. Economic Baseline
4.3 Leeds has one of the fastest growing economies in the UK and is the driving force within the Yorkshire and Humberside regional economy. Leeds has major strengths in financial and legal services, being home to over 30 national and international banks and several law firms which now rank amongst the top ten firms in the UK. Its retail and media sectors are also very strong and Leeds is the UK's third major manufacturing centre. Investment in the City Centre
4.4 Figure 4.1 below represents investment in the City Centre as measured by construction development value.
12
Figure 4.1 Total Construction Development Value in Leeds City Centre
4.5 Figure 4.1 represents the notional cost of development started and handled by the
Council’s Building Consultancy Service. The results of 2003/2004 show a significant increase in construction development value. The total value increased to just over £126million from £80 million in 2002/2003. This is the highest level of development value since monitoring began.
4.6 All sectors except residential experienced an increase in development values.
Although residential starts were down in 2003/2004, they are still well above the troughs of the mid 1990’s. Also, office and industrial starts are their highest level since monitoring began. Gross Value Added per Capita
4.7 For the whole of the 1990s Leeds has had a relatively high level of GDP per head of population. In 1997 and 2002, it was significantly higher than West Yorkshire, the region and the UK as a whole as represented in figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4.2 GVA per head
Employment
4.8 Leeds is the largest employment centre in the region and in terms of employment structure, it is the second most diverse of any major Great Britain City. Over the last
GVA/head (Resident)
02000400060008000
100001200014000160001800020000
Leeds WestYorkshire
Y & H UK
1997 2002
020406080
100120140
£ M
illio
n
92/9
3
93/9
4
94/9
5
95/9
6
96/9
7
97/9
8
98/9
9
99/0
0
00/0
1
01/0
2
02/0
3
03/0
4
Year
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT VALUE 1992/1993 - 2003/2004
13
20 years, more jobs have been created in Leeds than in any other UK City outside London – a net increase of 91,000 jobs. Leeds is expected to generate a third (some 30,000 new jobs) of the region's total employment growth over the next decade. Leeds has had a sustained period of employment growth and low unemployment. In 2004, the number of claimants was 11,300 compared with a Labour Force Survey estimate of total unemployment of 18,000.
4.9 The stock of VAT registered companies in Leeds totals 18,230 with almost 26,000
business units, 28 plcs and a further 30 based elsewhere in West Yorkshire. Leeds is not dependent on a limited number of companies or sectors. It is a major employment provider for adjacent districts: estimated 70,000 net in-commuters in 2005, with an estimated 10,000 increase over the next decade.
Social Baseline Population and Human Health
4.10 According to the mid 2003 population estimates there were 715,300 people residing in Leeds of whom 48.4 percent were male and 51.6 percent were female. The average age of the population in Leeds was 37.6 years. This compared with an average age for England and Wales of 38.6 years. 68 per cent of the population in Leeds are generally in good health, 21 percent in fairly good health and 9 percent not in good health. 17 percent of the population was reported to be living with a limiting long- term illness.
Household Size
4.11 There has been a significant increase in the number of households in Leeds – from 295,100 in 1991 to 312,541 households in 2001, of which 301,614 are occupied. The average size of households in Leeds was 2.3 people compared with an average of 2.4 people in England and Wales.
City Centre Residential Population
4.12 There has been a dramatic increase in residential developments in Leeds City Centre. At the start of 1999 City Centre residential population was estimated at 4,500. By autumn, 2003 the population had grown to approximately 6,800.
4.13 Since 2000, 67 residential development schemes have been completed with more than 900 apartments completed during 2003/03 financial year alone (see table 4.2 below). (Source: The 6th Leeds City Centre Audit). Table 4.2 Residential apartments completed Year Completed 1998/99 81 1999/00 151 2000/01 524 2001/02 234 2002/03 384 2003/04 955 Source: Development Department: Leeds City Council, 2004
14
Leisure
4.14 An Open Space and Circulation Survey undertaken by the Leeds Planning Department during the development of the UDP identifies a number of areas lacking in green spaces and identifies areas for proposed public spaces in the City Centre. Appendix 1 shows the existing and proposed areas of public space in Leeds City Centre.
4.15 The tightly built up character of the City and the limited scale of replacement of building stock represent major constraints on the scope to provide additional physical space within the City Centre. In these circumstances, new green spaces need to be maximised wherever opportunities arise.
4.16 Leisure remains an important component of development in the City Centre. There is a wide range of leisure venues in the City Centre and the emergence and rapid growth of the evening economy has increased the number of people visiting Leeds City Centre. Major mixed use developments recently completed, under construction and proposed in Leeds include leisure proposals such as pubs, clubs, health and fitness centers and other leisure uses to complement residential, office and retail uses. Social Deprivation
4.17 Around 150,000 people in Leeds, almost 20% of the population, live in areas officially rated as amongst the most deprived in the country. While unemployment is low for the City as a whole, there are some areas in Leeds that experience unemployment that is more than double the City’s average. There are similar inequalities in house prices, educational achievement, health and crime, (Vision for Leeds 2004-2020, Leeds Initiative, 2004).
Rates of Crime and Anti-social behaviour
4.18 In the City Centre, there has been a 2% rise in the number of crimes recorded this year when compared to 2002/03. There have, however, been reductions in some types of crime whilst others have only increased slightly: • The number of vehicles stolen from the City Centre has fallen for the tenth year
in a row. It now stands at 305, a 75% reduction over 10 years, • The number of incidences of items being stolen from vehicles fell by nearly 10%
compared to last year, • Offences against the person fell by 2% after increasing year on year for the last
ten years , • The frequency of people stealing from shops has fallen dramatically; numbers
have decreased by a third to 1,264. This is the lowest it has been in the last ten years,
• Other theft/burglary has increased to its highest level of the past ten years to 4,866. This is an increase of 19% on last year’s figures, and
• Damage and other offences have both increased by nearly 30%.
15
Table 4.5 City Centre Offences (by category) 1995 – 2003/04 Offence
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
99/00
00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
Offences against people
390
473
476
820
935
1274
1444
1666
2147
2107
Stealing from a vehicle
2116
2148
2453
1803
1915
1697
2400
3099
2083
1912
Theft of a vehicle
2190
1191
779
673
524
513
494
454
412
305
Stealing from shops
1933
2251
2084
2240
1754
1691
1808
1802
1914
1264
Other theft/ burglary
4389
4321
4070
3681
3496
4016
3591
4135
4093
4866
Damage
841
878
870
676
856
551
661
782
674
875
Other*
131
235
183
513
1770
1381
1194
1978
1178
1504
Total
11990
11497
10915
10406
11250
11123
11592
13916
12501
12833
*Includes drugs offences, fraud, forgery and handling, amongst others Source: West Yorkshire Police
4.19 Across Leeds, the map below shows that while the outer wards have crime rates close to the England and Wales average, the inner City wards have much higher crime rates, as much as ten times more than the national average. Environmental Baseline
Biodiversity, flora and fauna 4.20 Leeds supports a wide range of habitats and species. The following three areas are
defined as Leeds Nature Areas (LNAs) and are sites of local importance for enjoyment, study or conservation of wildlife, geological features and landforms.
• St Marks Churchyard; • Woodhouse Moor; and • Aireside Embankment.
4.21 There is also the Leeds –Liverpool Canal Site of Ecological and Geological Importance (SEGI). SEGI’s are designated for their flora, fauna and geological or physiological features. The Leeds Liverpool Canal SEGI is one of the best examples of a linear wetland habitat in the County with a diverse range of communities and species and a number of rarer species.
4.22 There are a number of protected species found in Leeds City Centre. Otters are known to be recolonising the River Aire and the Leeds- Liverpool canal is known to support water voles. Four bat records are held within the City Centre.
16
Flood risk 4.23 Government guidance on Development and Flood risk (PPG25) identifies three
different flood zones from zone 1 (lowest probability of flooding) to zone 3 (highest probability of flooding). In Leeds there are 10,883 properties at risk from flooding (flood zone 2 and 3). There are 2,100 commercial properties at risk from flooding. The Environment Agency plans to have 1,500 domestic properties protected by flood alleviation schemes by 2013. The City has 407 flood defences with 2.5% of these in poor condition. Appendix 3 identifies flood zones 2 and 3 and the historical flood areas, some areas liable to flooding are within the City Centre. Water Resources
4.24 The River Aire runs through the south of Leeds City Centre. The Aire flows through mainly urban and industrial areas and, although the quality of the river has seen significant improvements since 1990, 100% of the River Aire as it flows through Leeds was graded as ‘poor’ in 1990. In 2001 this has reduced to just 16.7% of the river being graded as poor. The Water Framework Directive requires all inland and coastal water bodies to reach at least "good status" by 2015.
4.25 Continuing contamination of the Aire is due to surface water run off, trade discharges, mine waters and industrial discharges and pesticides. Source: Leeds State of the Environment Report 2003.
Air 4.26 Since the introduction of the National Clean Air Acts in the late 1950s there has
been a general improvement in the standard of air quality in West Yorkshire. The improvement is mainly attributable to changes in the types of industry that dominate the region, and a switch away from coal and oil towards much cleaner fuels. Since the more visible types of pollution attributed to heavy industry have declined, other types of pollution have become more prevalent. Road transport emissions are now the major source of urban air pollution in West Yorkshire. As car ownership and total distance travelled have continued to grow over time, there has been an accompanying increase in emissions, particularly around areas of traffic congestion. Air quality in Leeds has generally been improving over recent years with reduction in concentration of pollutants (see table 4.6 below).
Table 4. 6 Number of Moderate or High Pollution Days in Leeds Centre
Pollutant 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Carbon monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen dioxide
0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
PM10(particles) 42 42 37 47 49 13 12 1 6 6 Ozone 3 5 21 12 9 3 27 8 10 5 Sulphur dioxide 19 23 15 9 11 6 6 1 3 1
Source: Leeds City Council Air Quality Review
4.27 Leeds City Council operates an air pollution monitoring network to gather information used to review and assess air quality within the Leeds area. The Government has identified 7 pollutants that Local Authorities need to consider when assessing air quality: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10 particles, lead, benzene and 1, 3 butadiene. Information on all these pollutants (with the exception of lead) is collected at permanent and
17
temporary monitoring stations throughout Leeds. The permanent monitoring stations are: The DEFRA station at Queen’s Square, Leeds Corn Exchange, Garforth, Haslewood Close, Headingley, Methley, Potternewton and West Street. Permanent sites are currently active for at least one pollutant and will have varying amounts of archived data depending when the site started operation. Short term monitoring locations typically present data for between 4 months and one year. The earliest data in the database is from 1993. Climatic Factors
4.28 The Home Energy Conservation Act (HECA 1995) requires all local authorities in England to write plans detailing how they might achieve a 30% improvement in energy efficiency in housing within their area over the period 1996 to 2011. Leeds City Council supports Friends of the Earth’s target of a 30% reduction from 1990 levels of energy consumption across the city by 2005. Between 1996 and 2002 there was a 6.88% improvement in the energy efficiency of Leed’s housing.
4.29 There is a range of renewable energy resources available in the Yorkshire and Humber region, including a number of sites producing landfill gas in Leeds. Currently only 1.5% of the regional electricity consumption is generated from renewable sources. A recent report suggests that the region could realistically generate 9.4% by 2010 and 22.5% by 2021.
Waste 4.30 In 2002/03 86.7% of household waste went to landfill, for which there is a declining
capacity. Recycling rates are increasing in Leeds, however the total amount of household waste increased by nearly 7% in 2002/03. The main responsibility for separation, recycling and disposal remains with Leeds City Council, which has signed a Local Public Service Agreement to achieve recycling rates of 22.7% by 2005/06 (total recycling and composting). Table 4.7 below shows the change in the amount of waste sent to landfill and recycled in Leeds between 1998 and 2004.
Table 4.7 Waste Management methods
Households Waste Disposal
98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04
% of household waste sent to landfill
91.7 91.1 89.4 88.1 86.7 80
% of Household waste recycled (including composting)
7 8 11 13 12 14.5
Source: YHA AMR 2004 and Overview Report - Leeds State of the Environment Report 2003
Transport 4.31 Leeds has excellent road and rail links and is currently experiencing continuing
growth in travel into the City. Road traffic in Leeds has grown by 5.4% between 1993 and 2004. Commuting to work into Leeds has increased rapidly in recent years and is projected to increase further.
4.32 Around 34% of households lack access to a car and thus public transport, walking and cycling play a vital role in meeting a significant travel need in the community.
4.33 Leeds railway station is located within the City Centre and has the highest number of passengers of any station outside of central London with over 900 trains and 90,000 passengers passing through the station everyday.
18
4.34 There has been a growth in number of people accessing the City Centre by public transport (bus or train) – 38.1% in 2004 compared to 33.5% in 1998. Car use continues to decline as a proportion of the total travel to work journeys a decrease of 6.3 percentage points between 1998 and 2004.
19
Cultural Heritage 4.35 Leeds City Centre has a growing reputation for its rich and fascinating heritage of
historical buildings and areas. The City Centre is renowned for its Victorian monuments such as the Town Hall and Corn Exchange. There are eight conservation areas in the City Centre. These are: • Woodhouse – Hanover Square/Woodhouse Square • Central Area – Queens Square • Woodhouse- Clarendon Road • Woodhouse- Woodhouse Lane/University Precinct • Central Area – Canal Wharf • Central Area – Leeds City Centre • Holbeck • Central Area – Eastern River
4.36 There are 6 Grade I, 31 Grade II* and approximately 1900 grade II listed buildings in
the City Centre. Two of these listed buildings, Leeds White Cloth Hall and Temple Works Gate Lodge, are on the Buildings at Risk Register.
Difficulties in data collection and its limitations
Quality of Streets and Open Spaces around Tall Buildings
4.37 Future collection of data e.g. footfall traffic will be useful in describing the existing condition of the City’s streets and open spaces and in identification of areas that need improvement. The SA Framework, including objectives, targets and indicators
4.38 The main aim of SA is to promote sustainable development through the integration of social, environmental and economic considerations into the preparation of the SPD. To ensure that the SPD has taken on board relevant sustainability issues, a set of sustainability appraisal objectives were used to test the performance of the SPD in sustainability terms.
4.39 The following objectives have been drawn from those in the Leeds Guide to SA and are relevant to the SA of the SPD. Together with the sub-objectives, the objectives have been used to form the appraisal framework against which the SPD has been assessed. These objectives and sub-objectives are shown in table 4.8 below. Table 4.8 Objectives and sub-objectives
SA OBJECTIVES
SA SUB-OBJECTIVES
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES 1. Maintain or improve good
a. Will it maintain or improve current employment rates in Leeds? b. Will it raise average earnings?
20
SA OBJECTIVES
SA SUB-OBJECTIVES
quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market.
c. Will it support employment opportunities for people who live in or close to the area?
d. Will it help develop the skills of people who live in or close to the area?
e. Will it support equal employment opportunities? f. Will it reduce the disparities in employment rates between deprived
and affluent parts of Leeds? g. Will it reduce the high rates of unemployment among black and
ethnic minority groups? h. Will it improve access to affordable and quality childcare?
2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, efficient economic growth and investment.
a. Will it support existing businesses? b. Will it encourage investment? c. Will it improve productivity and competitiveness? d. Will it encourage rural diversification? e. Will it reduce slowness in negotiations over s106 agreements? f. Will it increase openness in obligations? g. Will it help reduce unpredictability for developers about the size and type
of obligations they are likely to be asked for? h. Will it increase accountability over how funds gathered by s106
agreements are spent? SOCIAL OBJECTIVES 4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds
a. Will it promote healthy life-styles, and help prevent ill-health? b. Will it create a better balance between primary and hospital services,
and make more health services available locally? c. Will it address health inequalities across Leeds?
5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds.
a. Will it encourage crime reduction through design? b. Will it help address the causes of crime? c. Will it help reduce the fear of crime? d. Will it help to reduce disparities in crime rates across Leeds?
6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all
a. Will it increase provision of culture, leisure and recreational (CLR) activities/venues?
b. Will it increase non-car based CLR activities? c. Will it increase participation in CLR activities by tourists and local
people d. Will it preserve, promote and enhance local culture and heritage? e. Will it improve access and affordability of CLR facilities?
7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds?
a. Will it make housing available to people in need (taking into account requirements of location, size, type and affordability?
b. Will it reduce (the risk of) low housing demand in some parts of the city, and reduce the number of empty properties?
c. Will it increase the availability of affordable housing, especially in high demand areas?
d. Will it help improve the quality of the housing stock and reduce the number of unfit homes?
e. Will it improve energy efficiency in housing to reduce fuel-poverty and ill-health?
f. Will it encourage the use of sustainable design and sustainable building materials in construction?
8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation
Social inclusion a. Will it provide more services and facilities that are appropriate to the
needs of ethnic minorities, older, young and disabled people? b. Does it enable less-well resourced groups to take part?
21
SA OBJECTIVES
SA SUB-OBJECTIVES
c. Does it take steps to involve difficult to reach groups? d. Will it increase financial inclusion? Community participation e. Will it give the community opportunities to participate in decisions? f. Will local community organisations be supported to identify and
address their own priorities? 9. Increase community cohesion
a. Will it build better relationships across diverse communities and interests?
b. Will it increase people’s feelings of belonging? c. Will it encourage communities to value diversity? d. Could it create or increase tensions and conflict locally or with other
communities? ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES 10. Increase the availability of parks and greenspace and improve the quality of greenspace.
a. Will it improve the availability of publicly accessible parks and greenspace?
b. Will it address deficiencies of greenspace in areas that are under-provided?
c. Will it improve the quality and management of parks and greenspace across Leeds?
d. Will it improve the security of greenspace? 11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development
a. Does it make efficient use of land by promoting development on previously used land, re-use of buildings and high densities?
b. Will it promote the development of communities with accessible services, employment, shops and leisure facilities?
12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests
a. Will it protect and enhance existing habitats, especially priority habitats identified in the UK and the Leeds Biodiversity Action Plan?
b. Will it protect and enhance protected and important species? (Important species are those identified in the UK and the Leeds BAP.)
c. Will it protect and enhance existing designated nature conservation sites?
d. Will it provide for appropriate long term management of habitats? e. Will it make use of opportunities to create and enhance habitats as
part of development proposals? f. Will it protect / mitigate ecological interests on previously-developed
sites? g. Will it protect sites of geological interest?
13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Will it reduce greenhouse gas emissions from: a. Households? b. Commercial and industrial activities? c. Transport, agriculture, landfill & mining?
14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change
Flood Risk a. Will it prevent inappropriate development on flood plains and prepare
for the likelihood of increased flooding in future? Other climate change effects b. Will it improve the capacity to cope with the increases in strong winds
and storms? c. Will it improve the capacity to cope with higher temperatures?
15. Provide a a. Will it reduce the need to travel by increasing access to key services
22
SA OBJECTIVES
SA SUB-OBJECTIVES
transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts
and facilities by means other than the car? b. Will it ease congestion on the road network? c. Will it provide/improve/promote information about alternatives to car-
based transport? d. Will it reduce the number of journeys by personal motor transport and
by air? e. Will it make the transport/environment attractive to non-car users? f. Will it encourage freight transfer from road to rail and water? g. Will it encourage employers to develop green travel plans for staff
travel to/from work and at work? h. Will it reduce the causes of transport-related accidents?
16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally
a. Will it support the use of more local suppliers for agriculture, manufacture, construction, retailing and other services?
b. Will it ensure that essential services (e.g. employment, health services and shops) and resources to serve communities are within reasonable non-car based travelling distance?
c. Will it provide appropriate housing for local needs? d. Will it support the vibrancy of city, town and village centres? e. Will it encourage ICT links to connect isolated and disadvantaged
communities to services and resources? 17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled.
a. Will it minimise waste? b. Will it promote re-use, recovery and recycling of waste? c. Will it provide facilities for recycling and recovering waste?
18. Reduce pollution levels
a. Will it promote the clean-up of contaminated land? b. Will it reduce air, water, land, noise and light pollution? c. Will it reduce the risk of pollution incidents and environmental
accidents? d. Will it promote neighbourhood cleanliness?
19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality
a. Will it maintain and enhance areas of high landscape value? b. Will it protect and enhance individual features such as hedgerows,
dry stone walls, ponds and trees? c. Will it increase the quality and quantity of woodland features in
appropriate locations and using native species? d. Will it protect and enhance the landscape quality of the City’s rivers
and other waterways? e. Will it take account of the geomorphology of the land?
20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment
a. Will it ensure new development is well designed and appropriate to its setting?
b. Will it ensure development is consistent with Leeds City Council design guidance for the built, natural and historic environment?
c. Will it support local distinctiveness?
21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment
a. Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of historical, archaeological and cultural value in urban and rural areas?
b. Will it protect and enhance listed buildings, conservation areas and other designated historic features and their settings?
22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design.
a. Will it increase energy and water efficiency in all sectors? b. Will it increase energy from renewable sources? c. Will it promote the energy, water and resource efficiency of
buildings? d. Will it increase sustainable urban drainage? e. Will it increase efficiency in use of raw materials? f. Will it minimise the loss of high quality agricultural land and soils? g. Will it support reduced resource use by business?
23
Main social, environmental and economic issues and problems identified
4.40 The key sustainability issue faced in preparing the SPD is 1/ the need to locate tall buildings in the right places, 2/ improve the provision and quality of the public realm around tall buildings in the City Centre in order to help sustain and deliver the urban renaissance 3/ improve the competitiveness of Leeds as a European city, and 4/ improve the design of tall buildings so that they can exploit technology to be energy efficient and operational.
4.41 The baseline review reveals the following key trends/opportunities/issues:
• Leeds has one of the fastest growing economies with a relatively high level of GDP per head of population. Investment in the City Centre has also increased significantly in the past few years. These trends are set to continue and they present opportunities for a revitalised skyline and urban forms , at the same time securing funds for public realm improvements around tall buildings.
• there has been a dramatic increase in residential developments in the City Centre and the number of people living in the city. There has also been increased student residential growth with 3 tall student towers on site.
• number of crimes in the City Centre has increased. Tall buildings offering better surveillance and public realm provision where tall buildings connect to the ground, can contribute towards enhancing security in the City Centre and reducing City Centre crime.
• there is an increase in number of people accessing the City Centre by public transport, attractive public realm with better connectivity will further increase use of public transport, cycling and walking. Three 30–50 storey towers have been proposed for sites only 6 minutes walk from Leeds Railway Station.
• Tall buildings have also been proposed for sites to the west of the city centre, which when accumulated with all other tall building proposals indicate a very strong trend and attraction for developers to consider tall buildings for Leeds. This trend and pattern is particularly important because the spread of and groupings of tall buildings will need careful consideration if ‘pepperpotting’ of tall buildings is to be avoided. The opportunity to shape the city and its skyline has presented itself.
• The junction between a tall building and its base offers an opportunity to create a good environment and public realm. So far in Leeds e.g. West Riding House, and many other cities world wide, these junctions at large have been unsuccessful and therefore offer the challenge of creating good design at the bottom of tall buildings. A successful join can only do good in making the environment at the bases of tall buildings more attractive, and encourage investment in the city centre.
The Guide to Sustainability Appraisal of the Leeds Local Development
Framework identifies a number of key sustainability issues for Leeds. Some of these are relevant to the SPD and are listed below:
• The need to create energy efficient tall buildings which are environmentally sustainable and operational.
• Increase business confidence and investment. • Access to good public space and environments. • the need to create and maintain cohesive communities,
24
• tackling crime and the fear of crime: Although recorded crime in the whole of Leeds is decreasing, burglary and anti-social behaviour are particular concerns with ethnic minority groups feeling particularly unsafe,
• reducing ambient noise, especially from traffic, • ensure that all neighbourhoods across the city are decent places where
people want to live and are well served by transport. • make sure that everyone in Leeds is able to walk to or have easy access to,
a local open green area and be able to see a tree or green space wherever they are. Increase the quantity, quality and accessibility of parks and greenspace,
• the need to reduce the number of car journeys into the district and particularly Leeds City Centre,
• preserve and enhance the historic environment. • Creation of good and attractive environments.
25
5 SPD Issues and Options
SPD Objectives
5.1 The objectives described in section 2.2 set out what the SPD is aiming to achieve and they also form the context for the development of SPD options. It is important that the SPD objectives are in accordance with sustainability principles. To test whether the SPD objectives were consistent with sustainability, they were assessed against the SA objectives.
5.2 The predicted impacts were evaluated and the results are described below. Detailed findings are recorded using a matrix table – table 5.1 below.
5.3 Objective 1: Maintaining a successful City Centre by enabling quality tall buildings and a ‘it can only be Leeds skyline’. The implementation of this objective will contribute towards achieving a sustainable quality environment and high quality designed buildings and public realm in Leeds City Centre. It will lead to increased business confidence and investment making the enhanced urban landscape and historic environment an attraction for further investment. It should also increase the availability of quality public space for use by the general public and improve the quality of life of City Centre users. A distinct skyline which cannot be confused with any other place must offer a strong identity and address for investors and businesses.
5.4 Objective 2: Improving the quality of the City Centre public realm around tall
buildings in order to secure further investment and underpin investor confidence aims to increase investor confidence and encourage more investment into the City Centre. This has positive effects on the SA objectives on the economy as it improves the conditions, which enable successful business in the City Centre. Improving the quality of the public realm and making tall building ground floor frontages more activite, also has direct positive benefits on social and environmental sustainability objectives.
5.5 Objective 3: Improve the connectivity of public spaces and orientation within
the City Centre and to communities adjacent to the City Centre performs well against SA objectives related to improving social inclusion and community cohesion. By improving connectivity, this objective contributes to increased access to public spaces and quality environments which in turn should have positive effects on people’s health and well being.
5.6 Objective 4: Secure in a consistent and transparent way financial
contributions to public realm improvements from developers, encapsulates the economic focus of the SPD and the need to secure financial contributions in a consistent way. Overall, this objective has positive effects on the sustainability objectives. The rationale for the government publishing a revised circular on planning obligations 05/05 is stated in the final Regulatory Impact Assessment which idenitifies four points that the current system has been criticised for. These are:
• slowness: protracted negotiations over s106 agreements can delay development and are costly in terms of staff salaries and legal fees,
• lack of openness: obligations have been agreed in private and not published in the past, giving rise to suspicions that planning permissions are bought and sold by developers and local authorities,
26
• unpredictability: developers are unclear about the size and type of obligations they are likely to be asked for, and
• lack of accountability: there is uncertainty over how funds gathered by s106 agreements are spent.
5.7 To reflect these key points it is considered that objective 4 could be revised to
address this. The inclusion of a word such as transparent should strengthen the SPD’s effects against the economic sustainability appraisal objectives and enhance the SPD’s approach of contributions that are fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development. This has been accepted by LCC and the objective has been amended to take this into account and to ensure it best reflects Circular 05/05
Table 5.2 Assessment of SPD objectives (principles – combined result)
SA Objectives SPD Objectives (Strategic
Principles & Design Principles)
Economic objectives
1. Maintain or improve good quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market. 0 2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, economic growth and investment. + Social objectives 3. Increase participation in education and life-long learning and reduce disparity in participation and qualifications achieved across Leeds.
0 4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds + 5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds. + 6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all 0 7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds? + 8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation 0 9. Increase community cohesion 0 Environmental objectives 10. Increase the availability of parks and greenspace and improve the quality of greenspace. 0 11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development
+ 12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests 0 13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions + 14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change + 15. Provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts + 16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally + 17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled. +
27
SA Objectives SPD Objectives (Strategic
Principles & Design Principles)
18. Reduce pollution levels + 19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality + 20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment + 21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment + 22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design. +
Key: + Compatible - Incompatible 0 No links
Main options considered and how they were identified
5.8 The SA considered two strategic options for the SPD which were combined for convenience . Due to the nature of the SPD it was considered adequate to undertake a comparison of the sustainability impacts of not having a SPD, the ’No SPD Option’, and having an SPD, the ‘SPD option’.
No SPD Option
5.9 Under this option Leeds City Council would not produce the Tall Buildings Guide for
Leeds SPD. Instead, the Council would continue to depend on the adopted UDP policies that set out the general principles in the development and use of land. The opportunity to create and control the evolving skyline, the location and design of tall buildings would be restricted. In particular, existing policies would continue to form the basis for influencing and controlling tall building development in future. SPD Option
5.10 The SPD Option provides guidance on the design and location of tall buildings circumstances and a basis for obtaining developer funding for increased public realm around tall buildings. It focuses on the historic environment, key views and settings as well as environmental and built form issues. The SPD option seeks to create a well designed, recognisable and attractive environment and skyline that can inspire business confidence and further investment as well as providing a sense of pride for those living, working and visiting Leeds. Comparison of their social, environmental and economic effects
5.11 The two options were assessed against the SA objectives and their social, environmental and economic effects compared. The predicted impacts were evaluated and the results recorded using a matrix shown in table 5.2. Assessment of No SPD Option
5.12 When assessed against SA objectives, the No SPD option would not affect the economic potential of the City Centre in the short and medium term. The baseline information shows that in terms of economic growth, Leeds has continued to enjoy increased economic growth without an SPD. This option has therefore not hindered economic growth and businesses have continued to be attracted to invest in Leeds City Centre. In the longer term however, there were question marks regarding
28
damage to the historic and the visual environment with the potential for a decline in investor confidence and low moral for residents, workers and visitors.
5.13 When assessed against the social objectives, the no SPD option currently has
neutral effects on cultural, leisure and recreational activities and crime levels. However, as the City Centre continues to attract more city dwellers as evidenced by the increased residential development in the city in the last few years, there is potential for adverse negative effects on the quality of life of people living in the city in terms of access to good quality public space and environments, social inclusion and access to leisure and recreational activities as well as being associated with a possible ‘anywhere’ skyline.
5.14 Against SA environmental objectives, the no SPD option will in the long term lead to
a decline in the quality of the environment given the pressure from economic growth and increased city living and a lack of public realm investment.
Assessment of SPD Option
5.15 This option was found to have a positive impact particularly with environmental objectives. The SPD option will have positive effects on economic growth in the longer term by improving conditions which have enabled business success and economic growth when developments influenced by the SPD would take time to come to fruition.
5.16 Socially, this option will enhance the feeling of social inclusion and community cohesion through creation of better connected public spaces and built environments that are safe and secure.
5.17 This option was very positive about the efficient use of energy, the promotion of sustainable design and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
5.18 The SPD was going to have a major contribution to enhancing the built environment, landscape quality and preserving the historic environment.
5.19 Public realm around tall buildings will be guided by policies in other strategic planning documents and relevant supplementary guidance, for example, the Street Style Design Guide and City Centre Urban Design Strategy, to ensure that implementation is in accordance with the broader planning guidance and that it is in line with the Council’s broader sustainability agenda.
29
Table 5.2 Options assessment
SA Objectives No SPD SPD Economic objectives 1. Maintain or improve good quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market.
0 0 2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, economic growth and investment.
0 + Social objectives 4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds 0
0
5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds. 0 + 6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all 0 0 7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds?
? + 8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation 0 0 9. Increase community cohesion 0 0 Environmental objectives 10. Increase the availability of parks and greenspace and improve the quality of greenspace. 0 0 11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development
+ -
12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests 0 0 13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0 + + 14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change
? ? 15. Provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts 0 + 16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally 0 + 17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled. 0 0 18. Reduce pollution levels 0 + 19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality ? + + 20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment ? + + 21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment ? + + 22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design. 0 + +
How social, environmental and economic were considered in choosing the preferred option
5.19 The options assessment revealed that under the no SPD Option, the situation, in the main, remains neutral with no apparent decline in investor confidence and no
30
real detriment to social and environmental objectives. In fact tall buildings were regarded as opportunities to minimise the pressure on greenfield land. The SPD option was regarded as being slightly positive to social objectives but more positive to environmental sustainability objectives particularly where visual considerations were involved .
5.20 The SPD option is the Council’s preferred option. This option would facilitate the enhancement of the built environment and landscape whilst protecting the historic environment, key views and settings. The enhanced image, and distinct skyline/ environment will be attractive to investors, visitors, residents, shoppers and tourists. Quality public realm where tall buildings connect to the ground can also encourage investor confidence.
5.21 The SPD option is certainly positive about more efficient use of energy and natural resources and the reduction of pollution levels which will all contribute to sustainable design.
31
6 Assessment of Key Issues and Policies
Significant social, environmental and economic effects of Key issues and UDP policies
Key Issues
6.1 In order to assess the social, environmental and economic effects of the SPD, a review of the SPD was undertaken to identify key issues addressed in the document. The identified issues were appraised against the SA objectives and findings are described below. The detailed assessment findings are recorded in a matrix a summary of the matrix is shown in table 6.1 below. Protection zones, views & conservation areas
6.2 This approach aims to ensure that key historic views, settings and the conservation area are protected.
6.3 This approach is consistent with the SPD objectives as it would contribute to
an enhanced skyline, City Centre public realm, environmental and visual quality which in turn attracts more investment in the city, improves the cultural, recreational and leisure activities in the City Centre, enhances the landscape, historic environment and the general built environment.
6.4 Landscape quality, the distinctiveness of the built environment and the need
to preserve and enhance the historic environment categories scored highly as having major positive effect in meeting SA objectives.
Location
6.5 When assessed against SA objectives, the subject of location was considered
to have some minor positive effect e.g. minimising the pressure on Greenfield land, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The highest score – preserving and enhancing the environment – was the only category to achieve major positive effect. Location will also determine travel distances and be important in promoting walking, cycling and public transport.
Sustainability & climate change
6.6 This approach is aimed at providing detailed guidance regarding the design of tall buildings. As above the objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was going to score highly with environmental objectives of increasing efficient use of energy and natural resources. The SPD acknowledges this with references to wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. . Design detail
6.7 When assessed against SA objectives, this approach is consistent with the economic objectives of maintaining and enhancing conditions that create a business success particularly if it is a prestige/ image factor e.g. quality materials or increasing the energy efficiency of buildings.
32
6.8 When assessed against the SA social and environmental objectives, the effect of the approach would depend on how much money is secured which will influence material selection and possible public realm improvements around the bases of tall buildings.
Table 6.1. SPD Proposals / Policies Assessment
SA Objectives
Prot
ectio
n zo
nes,
vie
ws
+ C
ons.
Are
as
Loca
tion
Sust
aina
bilit
y &
clim
ate
chan
ge
Des
ign
deta
il
Economic objectives 1. Maintain or improve good quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market. 0 0 0 0 2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, economic growth and investment. 0 + 0 + Social objectives 3. Increase participation in education and life-long learning and reduce the disparity in participation and qualifications achieved across Leeds. 0 0 0 0 4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds + 0 0 + 5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds. 0 0 0 + 6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all 0 0 0 0 7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds? 0 + + + 8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation 0 0 0 0 9. Increase community cohesion 0 0 0 0 Environmental objectives 10. Increase the availability of parks and greenspace and improve the quality of greenspace. 0 + 0 + 11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development - + 0 0 12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests 0 0 0 0 13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0 + + + + 14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change 0 - + + 15. Provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts 0 + + + 16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally 0 + 0 0 17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled. 0 0 0 + 18. Reduce pollution levels 0 + + +
33
SA Objectives
Prot
ectio
n zo
nes,
vie
ws
+ C
ons.
Are
as
Loca
tion
Sust
aina
bilit
y &
clim
ate
chan
ge
Des
ign
deta
il
19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality + + + 0 + 20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment + + + 0 + 21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment + + + + 0 + 22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design. 0 + + + +
Scoring: ++ Major positive effect + minor positive effect 0 no effect – minor negative effect - - major negative effect ? uncertain effect
UDP Policies The Tall Buildings SPD is helping to implement a number of ‘saved policies’ from the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review, 2000). These policies have not been subject to a sustainability appraisal prepared in accordance with the current regulations. It is therefore necessary to identify the likely significant social, environmental and economic effects of the relevant saved policies to ensure that they provide a sound basis for the SPD in sustainability terms. The section below provides a summary of the assessment of the relevant saved UPD policies. The detailed scoring of each policy against the 22 Leeds SA objectives is set out in Table 6.2. below. Summary Assessment of UDP Policies CC3: The identity and distinctive character of the City Centre will be maintained by: i. protecting the building fabric and style which makes Leeds a unique and attractive city ii. encouraging good innovative designs for new buildings and spaces iii. upgrading the environment where necessary to complement the needs of activities which are essential to the identity, vitality and function of the City Centre The effects of the policy are generally considered to be beneficial when assessed against the SA objectives. A more attractive environment should encourage business investment and benefit tourism, as well as making the City Centre more useable and safer for residents of Leeds. The most direct benefits are related to enhancing the quality of the built environment in the City Centre. CC4: The City Council will encourage developments at City Centre gateway locations to be of an appropriate scale and design quality to reflect the importance of these locations at the entrances to the City Centre. The policy promotes major development in specified gateway locations. This is considered to be beneficial in terms of attracting business investment, promoting
34
leisure activities, and making good use of brownfield land for development. It should also be positive in terms of making the best use of the public transport network, which is focused on linkages to the City Centre. The policy also promotes a higher quality built environment. An uncertain effect of the policy is its effect on flood risk. Some of the gateway locations are within higher flood risk zones according to Environment Agency maps. The promotion of housing uses in these locations would be a negative effect requiring appropriate mitigation. CC5: All development within the Conservation Area or its immediate setting must be designed so as to preserve or enhance the existing character of the area. The heights of new buildings there should normally relate to those of surrounding buildings by being within one storey height of them. The policy has a positive impact on the historic environment by ensuring that new development preserves or enhances the existing character. This should in turn benefit cultural, leisure and tourism activities which are associated with historic buildings and areas. CC6: Outside the Conservation Areas and their immediate settings and outside the gateway locations, proposals for high buildings will be considered on their merits, taking account of: i. quality of design; ii. effect on the skyline and impact on views across the city; iii. effect on neighbouring buildings and general street scene; iv. their micro-climatic effect on the immediate effect on the immediate pedestrian environment. The most direct benefits of the policy relate to preserving the quality of the built environment in the City Centre. The absence of such a policy could result in the development of high buildings which are inappropriate and damaging to the character of the City Centre and the City’s skyline. CC7: Redevelopment of City Centre tower blocks will be encouraged where their appearance is unattractive and buildings are functionally obsolete. The policy is considered to be generally beneficial as many older tower blocks are ‘eyesores’ which are harmful to the character of the City Centre. CC8: Outside the prestige development areas new developments should respect the spatial character and fine grain of the City Centre’s traditional building blocks and streets. Where a new street pattern is to be created, this should generally reflect the traditional street pattern of the City Centre. The effects of the policy are generally considered to be beneficial when assessed against the SA objectives. A more attractive environment should encourage business investment and benefit tourism, as well as making the City Centre more useable and safer for residents of Leeds. The most direct benefits are related to enhancing the quality of the built environment in the City Centre, including historic areas. CC9: Every opportunity will be taken through direct action, new development, development control and planning obligations to achieve quality, safety, security and general accessibility in existing public spaces.
35
Assessment against the SA objectives showed that this policy contributes to maintaining the existing public realm and therefore making sure that there is no deterioration. This ensures that Leeds City Centre stays attractive to investors. It also maintains existing landscape, leisure, recreational and cultural activities, the historic environment and the safety and security of the City Centre. The policy only refers to existing public spaces and with time and current levels of high economic growth in Leeds, there is likely to be a need for new public spaces. This policy although successful in the short term may not be sustainable in meeting the public realm needs of Leeds in the future. CC11: The City Council will assess the role of City Centre streets and implement further schemes to create more and enhance existing pedestrianised corridors and to upgrade the street environment generally. These schemes will respect the historic character of the City Centre, its traditional paving materials and historic streets settings where dominant. The effects of the policy are to make to make the City Centre more useable and attractive for pedestrians bringing benefits in terms its vitality and viability. The policy also directly benefits the built and historic environment of the City Centre. CC12: In new development, new public spaces must be related to and connect with the existing pattern of streets, corridors and spaces, including the river and canal walkways. The effects of the policy are to make to make the City Centre more useable and attractive for pedestrians bringing benefits in terms its vitality and viability. CC13: New public spaces must be imaginatively designed to complement their location and to ensure that they are attractive, comfortable, safe to use and accessible for all. The effects of the policy are generally considered to be beneficial when assessed against the SA objectives. A more attractive environment should encourage business investment and benefit tourism, as well as making the City Centre more useable and safer for residents of Leeds. Well designed public spaces can also play host to events, enhancing cultural and tourism opportunities in the City Centre. The most direct benefits are related to enhancing the quality of the built environment in the City Centre. BD2: ‘The design and siting of new buildings should complement and, where possible, enhance existing vista, skylines and landmarks’ This policy seeks to ensure new buildings complement the existing environment. Assessed against the SA objectives the policy was deemed to have a positive impact in relation to the environment. This was particularly the case in relation to preserving, maintaining and enhancing the historic and built environment. The view was also taken that a positive impact on the built environment could engender an increased sense of belonging amongst the community. BD4: ‘All mechanical plant and associated pipework, lifts and other mechanical equipment and fire escape stairs should normally be contained within the envelope of the building. All service and delivery areas should be screened from view as far as possible’
36
The noticeable impact of this policy relates to the built environment. It was felt that BD4 would, through promoting the careful placement of mechanical works associated with buildings, have a positive effect in terms of maintaining and protecting the built environment. BD5: ‘All new buildings should be designed with consideration given to both their own amenity and that of their surroundings. This should include useable space, privacy and satisfaction penetration of daylight and sunlight’ BD5 was thought to have a positive impact on a on social and environmental grounds. The intention of the policy to ensure the penetration of daylight and useable space could contribute to preventing ill-health. Encouraging satisfactory daylight would also mitigate the need for artificial lighting and therefore the policy was seen to have a potentially positive impact in terms of energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse emissions. As with the BD policies above it was felt that a positive contribution would be made to protecting and enhancing the built environment. BD5A: ‘The design of all development should maximise opportunities to conserve energy and water resources and use materials appropriate to these aims’ The focus of this policy on conserving energy and water resources resulting in it having a positive impact in terms of environmental objectives relating to reducing greenhouse emissions and pollution levels. The view was taken that this policy also had a positive social impact as it promotes sustainable design which would improve the quality of housing. BD13: ‘Telecommunications development will be permitted when all practical steps have been taken to locate and design such equipment so that: i. sensitive locations are avoided; ii. visual intrusion is minimised; iii. mast sharing or existing tall structures are tilised wherever possible. This policy has a significantly positive economic impact as facilitating telecommunication service improvements provides a better business environment for economic growth. It was also felt that there could be benefits for community inclusion and cohesion through improved access to telecommunication services as a result of increased mast provision. While the policy does seek to minimise the environmental impact of development it was felt that there could still be a degree of negative impact on landscape quality and the built environment through the potentially necessary siting of masts in sensitive locations where it could not be practicably avoided. BD14: ‘Carefully designed floodlighting schemes will be encouraged, particularly for distinctive, important buildings This policy promotes the use of floodlighting to bring added visual interest to areas after dark. It was felt that although this policy may enhance local heritage and the built environment this would be at a cost to the environment. In terms of energy efficiency, use of natural resources, and light pollution, this policy was deemed to score negatively. Indirectly the encouragement of floodlighting schemes may also contribute to the production of greenhouse gases, which was contrary to objective 13 of the sustainability appraisal framework.
37
N13: ‘The design of new buildings should be of high quality and have regard to the character and appearance of their surroundings. Good contemporary design which is sympathetic or complimentary to its setting will be welcomed’ Policy N13 seeks to promote good design in all new buildings. In terms of economic importance there was felt to be a positive link between a city with attractive looking buildings and investment. This policy would directly influence the aesthetic quality of new development as such would have a major positive effect in both maintaining and enhancing the built and wider historic environment. As with other design policies it would be fair to say that an attractive built environment may engender an increased sense of belonging amongst the community. SA1: ‘To secure the highest possible quality of the environment throughout the District, by protecting existing good environment, conserving and enhancing where there is scope for improvement, including initiating the renewal and restoration of areas of poor environment’ As a strategic aim this policy attempts to balance the interests of the environment of Leeds with development aspirations. Understandably then it was felt that this policy would have a significant positive effect on greenspace and Greenfield land and should promote the protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment. As a strategic aim though it is unlikely that this policy would have either a positive/negative effect on social or economic objectives. SA9: ‘To promote the development of a City Centre which supports the aspiration of Leeds to become one of the principal cities of Europe, maintaining and enhancing the distinctive character which the Centre already possesses. This policy recognises the assets Leeds has as a city and seeks to enhance these by promoting development which compliments the character of the city centre. As an aspirational strategic aim it is fairly difficult to see where this policy would have a negative effect in terms of sustainability, and in fact in most cases the policy scores at least a positive effect. In economic terms this policy could be seen to provide encouragement to investment and also the conditions which create equal employment opportunities within the city centre. Environmentally this aim would seem to provide a good basis for enhancing and preserving both the built and historic environment of the city centre. T2: New development should normally: i. be served adequately by existing or programmed highways or by improvements to the highway network which are funded by the developer via planning conditions on planning permissions or planning obligations, and will not create or materially add to the problems of safety, environment or efficiency on the highway network. ii. be capable of being adequately served by public transport and taxi services and should ensure that necessary infrastructure for new services is included in the development; and iii. make adequate provision for easy, safe and secure cycle use and parking; and
38
iv. additionally in the case of residential development, be within convenient walking distance of local facilities and does not create problems of personal accessibility.
This policy is generally positive against the economic, social and environmental objectives. The policy seeks to ensure that development can be supported by the transport network taking into account private transport, public transport, cycling and walking requirements. The policy seeks to minimise the negative impacts of the transport needs generated by new development by addressing safety, environmental and accessibility issues. Reference to access by public transport, walking and cycling should help to promote alternatives to the car which is beneficial for objectives related to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and energy use. Encouraging walking and cycling to local facilities should also bring health benefits.
39
Table 6.2. Tall Buildings SPD SA: Assessment of UDP policies
UDP POLICY SA OBJECTIVES
CC3 CC4 CC5 CC6 CC7 CC8 CC9 CC11 CC12 CC13
Economic objectives
1. Maintain or improve good quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market.
0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, economic growth and investment.
+ ++ 0 + + + + + + +
Social objectives 3. Increase participation in education and life-long learning and reduce the disparity in participation and qualifications achieved across Leeds.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds
+ 0 0 0 0 0 + + + +
5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds.
+ + 0 0 0 0 ++ + 0 ++
6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all
++ + ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ ++
7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds?
+ + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 +
8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
9. Increase community cohesion 0 0 + 0 ? + + + + + Environmental objectives 10. Increase the quantity, quality and accessibility of greenspace
+ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + +
11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development
+ ++ + + ++ + 0 0 0 0
40
UDP POLICY SA OBJECTIVES
CC3 CC4 CC5 CC6 CC7 CC8 CC9 CC11 CC12 CC13 12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + + 14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change
0 ? 0 0 ? 0 + 0 0 0
15. Provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts
+ ++ 0 + 0 + ++ ++ ++ ++
16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally
++ ++ + + + ++ + ++ ++ ++
17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18. Reduce pollution levels + 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality
++ 0 + + 0 0 ++ + ++ ++
20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment
++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment
++ 0 ++ + + ++ ++ ++ + ++
22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design.
+ + 0 + ? 0 + + 0 0
UDP POLICY
SA OBJECTIVES BD2 BD4 BD5 BD5A BD13 BD14 N12 N13 SA1 SA9 T2
Economic objectives
1. Maintain or improve good quality employment opportunities and reduce the disparities in the Leeds’ labour market.
0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 ++ +
2. Maintain or improve the conditions which have enabled business success, economic growth and investment.
0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + 0 ++ +
41
UDP POLICY SA OBJECTIVES
BD2 BD4 BD5 BD5A BD13 BD14 N12 N13 SA1 SA9 T2
Social objectives 3. Increase participation in education and life-long learning and reduce the disparity in participation and qualifications achieved across Leeds.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0
4. Improve conditions and services that engender good health and reduce disparities in health across Leeds
0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
5. Reduce overall rates of crime, and reduce the disparities in crime rates across Leeds.
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
6. Maintain and improve culture, leisure and recreational activities that are available to all
+ 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + ++
7. Improve the overall quality of housing and reduce the disparity in housing markets across Leeds?
0 0 0 ++ 0 - + 0 0 0 0
8. Increase social inclusion and active community participation
0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 9. Increase community cohesion + 0 0 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 Environmental objectives 10. Increase the quantity, quality and accessibility of greenspace
0 0 0 0 - 0 ++ 0 ++ 0 0
11. Minimise the pressure on greenfield land by efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict and previously used sites & promote balanced development
0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++ + ++
12. Maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity or geological conservation interests
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ + 0
13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0 0 + ++ 0 - + 0 0 0 ++ 14. Improve Leeds’ ability to manage extreme weather conditions including flood risk and climate change
0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + 0
15. Provide a transport network which maximises access
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++
42
UDP POLICY SA OBJECTIVES
BD2 BD4 BD5 BD5A BD13 BD14 N12 N13 SA1 SA9 T2
whilst minimising detrimental impacts 16. Increase the proportion of local needs that are met locally
0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + +
17. Reduce the growth in waste generated and landfilled.
0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. Reduce pollution levels 0 0 + ++ 0 - + 0 0 0 + 19. Maintain and enhance landscape quality
+ 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ++ ++ 0 20. Maintain and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the built environment
++ ++ + 0 - + + ++ ++ ++ 0
21. Preserve and enhance the historic environment
++ + + 0 - + 0 + ++ ++ 0 22. Increase the efficient use of energy and natural resources and promote sustainable design.
0 0 ++ ++ 0 - + 0 0 0 +
Scoring: ++ Major positive effect + minor positive effect 0 no effect – minor negative effect - - major negative effect ? uncertain effect
How social, environmental and economic problems were considered in developing key SPD issues and UDP policies
6.09 The social, environmental and economic problems identified in section 4.40 were considered when reviewing the SA objectives and sub objectives that were used to assess the SPD. These problems were incorporated into SA sub-objectives where necessary.
6.10 Overall, the key issues were found to be in accordance with meeting sustainable development in terms of tall building design, proposed materials and image. Alongside setting the circumstances for obtaining financial contributions for public realm improvements, the SPD has potential to address the key issues identified in the section 4.40.
6.11 Although the UDP polices have been assessed as part of this SA, there is no scope to change/modify them as they form part of the adopted plan. However, the SA findings of the policy assessment can be taken on board when developing future policies on planning obligations and developer contributions and these should consider the social, environmental and economic problems identified in the SA report. The proposed mitigation measures are as follows:
• Implications of the review of the City Centre boundary as part of the ‘City Centre Area Action Plan’ should be considered to ensure that any
43
sustainability issues arising from the geographical scope of the City Centre are taken into consideration;
• It is recommended that main social, environmental and economic issues and problems identified in section 4.40 of this report be considered and integrated in the SPD wherever possible to ensure that the SPD can contribute towards tackling key sustainability issues related to tall buildings.
44
7 Implementation
Links to other tiers of plans and guidance and the project level (e.g. design guidance)
7.1 At the project level, the design of new tall buildings will be guided by the Council’s Design Guide and other relevant supplementary planning guidance e.g. City Centre Urban Design Strategy and Neighbourhoods for Living, and it will all be carried out according to the principles stated in the Council’s Corporate Procurement Strategy 2005 to 2008. National Planning Guidance and Guidance on Tall Buildings by CABE and English Heritage will also assist in the evaluation of tall building proposals as well as being capable of a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
7.2 The SPD is currently supported by the Adopted UDP policies on Section 106 contributions (GP7), Planning Obligations in the City Centre (CC1) and Public Spaces (CC9). It is anticipated that these policies will eventually be replaced by policies in the Core Strategy and the City Centre Area Action Plan DPDs which will form part of the Leeds LDF.
7.3 The SPD is part of the Council’s Local Development Framework and formalises the process of securing developer contributions as required and advised in Circular 05/2005. Proposals for monitoring
7.4 Monitoring allows the actual significant effects of implementation of the SPD to be tested against those predicted in the SA. It can also be used to collect baseline where gaps have been identified for use in future assessments.
7.5 Monitoring the sustainability impacts of the SPD should be incorporated into the overall monitoring of the LDF. This can be done by linking the monitoring arrangements for the City Centre Area Action Plan with the monitoring of the SPD’s sustainability impacts.
7.6 The SPD monitoring can also be linked to the Leeds City Centre Audit which is produced in accordance with PPS6. The audit process involves collecting data on various indicators. Some of these indicators are relevant to the SPD including those on:
• Development value, • Housing, • Pedestrian flow, • Employment and travel, • Leisure, • Community safety, and • Environment.
Table 7.1 below proposes a monitoring framework that the Council can adopt and modify. It shows areas where SPD monitoring can be linked to LDF and the Leeds City Centre Audit monitoring.
45
Table 7.1 Monitoring framework
SA Objective Methodology Linkages FrequencyMaintain or improve the conditions which enable business success
Conduct a survey of occupancy rates of tall buildings
This could be linked to the Leeds City Centre Audit.
Annually
Reduce the overall rate of crimes and reduce disparities in crime rates across Leeds.
Crime surveys already undertaken by other departments or bodies for example the police.
Leeds City Centre Audit looks at community safety.
Annually
Increase Community Cohesion
Access to public open space
City Centre AAP Annually
Preserve and enhance the historic environment
Visual assessments of key views and settings
City Centre AAP Half-yearly/ project led.
7.7 Baseline data that needs to be monitored for future purposes includes:
• The amount of footfall traffic within walking distance for all City Centre users and transport facilities.
• Quality of key views and settings, • Amount of public realm/ green spaces available in the City Centre and their
quality and accessibility • Public realm improvements made from developer funding per year. • Social, economic and environmental benefits achieved from occupancy rates
and uses. • Land use densities.
A
PPEN
DIX
1
Th
e Su
stai
nabi
lity
App
rais
al F
ram
ewor
k fo
r the
SA
of t
he T
all B
uild
ings
–A
Gui
de fo
r Lee
ds S
PD
SA
OB
JEC
TIVE
S
DEC
ISIO
N M
AK
ING
C
RIT
ERIA
IN
DIC
ATO
RS
TA
RG
ETS
FRO
M O
THER
PP
Ps (K
ey to
abb
revi
atio
ns a
t end
of
tabl
e.)
ECO
NO
MIC
OB
JEC
TIVE
S 1.
Mai
ntai
n or
impr
ove
good
qu
ality
em
ploy
men
t op
portu
nitie
s an
d re
duce
the
disp
ariti
es in
the
Leed
s’
labo
ur m
arke
t.
i. W
ill it
mai
ntai
n or
impr
ove
curr
ent
empl
oym
ent r
ates
in L
eeds
?
j. W
ill it
supp
ort e
mpl
oym
ent o
ppor
tuni
ties
for p
eopl
e w
ho li
ve in
or c
lose
to th
e ar
ea?
k. W
ill it
supp
ort e
qual
em
ploy
men
t op
portu
nitie
s?
l. W
ill it
redu
ce th
e di
spar
ities
in
empl
oym
ent r
ates
bet
wee
n de
priv
ed a
nd
afflu
ent p
arts
of L
eeds
? m
. Will
it im
prov
e ac
cess
to a
fford
able
and
qu
ality
chi
ldca
re?
1. A
mou
nt
of
com
plet
ed
offic
e de
velo
pmen
t in:
(i)
lo
catio
ns
whe
re
tall
build
ings
are
pro
mot
ed
(ii)
loca
tions
w
here
ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re e
xclu
ded
• In
crea
se
the
num
ber
of
Leed
s’
resi
dent
s m
ovin
g in
to w
ork.
(VFL
2)
2. M
aint
ain
or im
prov
e th
e co
nditi
ons
whi
ch h
ave
enab
led
busi
ness
suc
cess
, ec
onom
ic g
row
th a
nd
inve
stm
ent.
i. W
ill it
enco
urag
e in
vest
men
t?
N
o re
leva
nt
data
av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
ef
fect
s of
the
SP
D
agai
nst t
his
obje
ctiv
e.
• In
crea
se th
e w
ealth
cre
ated
in L
eeds
and
the
regi
on e
very
yea
r (VF
L2)
SOC
IAL
OB
JEC
TIVE
S 3.
Incr
ease
par
ticip
atio
n in
ed
ucat
ion
and
life-
long
le
arni
ng a
nd re
duce
the
disp
arity
in p
artic
ipat
ion
and
qual
ifica
tions
ach
ieve
d ac
ross
Lee
ds.
a. W
ill it
prov
ide
acce
ssib
le tr
aini
ng a
nd
lear
ning
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r adu
lts a
nd
youn
g pe
ople
?
No
rele
vant
da
ta
avai
labl
e to
m
easu
re t
he
effe
cts
of t
he S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive.
• N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
4. Im
prov
e co
nditi
ons
and
serv
ices
that
eng
ende
r goo
d he
alth
and
redu
ce d
ispa
ritie
s in
hea
lth a
cros
s Le
eds
d. W
ill it
prom
ote
heal
thy
life-
styl
es, a
nd
help
pre
vent
ill-h
ealth
? e.
Will
it im
prov
e ac
cess
to h
igh
qual
ity,
heal
th fa
cilit
ies?
f.
Will
it ad
dres
s he
alth
ineq
ualit
ies
acro
ss
No
rele
vant
da
ta
avai
labl
e to
m
easu
re t
he
effe
cts
of t
he S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
• N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
SA O
BJE
CTI
VES
D
ECIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
CR
ITER
IA
IND
ICA
TOR
S
TAR
GET
S FR
OM
OTH
ER
PPPs
(Key
to a
bbre
viat
ions
at e
nd
of ta
ble.
) Le
eds?
5. R
educ
e ov
eral
l rat
es o
f cr
ime,
and
redu
ce th
e di
spar
ities
in c
rime
rate
s ac
ross
Lee
ds.
e. W
ill it
enco
urag
e cr
ime
redu
ctio
n th
roug
h de
sign
?
1. R
ecor
ded
crim
e le
vels
in
lo
catio
ns
whe
re
tall
build
ings
ar
e pr
omot
ed
• M
ake
sure
tha
t no
indi
vidu
al c
omm
unity
has
cr
ime
leve
ls m
ore
than
tw
ice
as h
igh
as t
he
city
ave
rage
(VFL
2)
6. M
aint
ain
and
impr
ove
cultu
re, l
eisu
re a
nd
recr
eatio
nal a
ctiv
ities
that
ar
e av
aila
ble
to a
ll
f. W
ill it
incr
ease
pro
visi
on o
f cul
ture
, le
isur
e an
d re
crea
tiona
l (C
LR)
activ
ities
/ven
ues?
g.
Will
it in
crea
se n
on-c
ar b
ased
CLR
ac
tiviti
es?
h. W
ill it
incr
ease
par
ticip
atio
n in
CLR
ac
tiviti
es b
y (i)
loca
l peo
ple
and
(ii)
tour
ists
? i.
Will
it pr
eser
ve, p
rom
ote
and
enha
nce
loca
l cul
ture
and
her
itage
?
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
• Bu
ild a
t lea
st th
ree
new
hig
h-qu
ality
cul
tura
l fa
cilit
ies
(VFL
2)
7. Im
prov
e th
e ov
eral
l qua
lity
of h
ousi
ng a
nd re
duce
the
disp
arity
in h
ousi
ng m
arke
ts
acro
ss L
eeds
g. W
ill it
mak
e ho
usin
g av
aila
ble
to p
eopl
e in
nee
d (ta
king
into
acc
ount
requ
irem
ents
of
loca
tion,
siz
e, ty
pe a
nd a
fford
abili
ty)?
h.
Will
it re
duce
(the
risk
of)
low
hou
sing
de
man
d in
som
e pa
rts o
f the
city
, and
re
duce
the
num
ber o
f em
pty
prop
ertie
s?
i. W
ill it
help
impr
ove
the
qual
ity o
f the
ho
usin
g st
ock
and
redu
ce th
e nu
mbe
r of
unfit
hom
es?
j. W
ill it
impr
ove
ener
gy e
ffici
ency
in
hous
ing
to re
duce
fuel
-pov
erty
and
ill-
heal
th?
k. W
ill it
enco
urag
e th
e us
e of
sus
tain
able
de
sign
and
sus
tain
able
bui
ldin
g m
ater
ials
in
con
stru
ctio
n?
1. H
ousi
ng
com
plet
ions
(a
nnua
l nu
mbe
r) in
loc
atio
ns w
here
tal
l bu
ildin
gs a
re p
rom
oted
2.
Ann
ual
com
plet
ions
of
af
ford
able
hou
sing
in
loca
tions
w
here
ta
ll bu
ildin
gs
are
prom
oted
3.
%
of
tota
l dw
ellin
gs
that
ar
e va
cant
in
lo
catio
ns
whe
re
tall
build
ings
are
pro
mot
ed
4. %
of
dwel
lings
in
tall
build
ings
by
te
nure
(o
wne
r-occ
upie
d,
priv
ate
rent
ed a
nd s
ocia
l ren
ted)
in
loca
tions
whe
re t
all b
uild
ings
ar
e pr
omot
ed
• 50
0 ho
mes
per
yea
r to
be
deve
lope
d in
the
ci
ty c
entre
, of
whi
ch 2
5 pe
r ye
ar b
etw
een
2004
-7,
and
30 p
er y
ear
betw
een
April
200
7 an
d Ap
ril 2
012.
(LH
S)
• A
red
uctio
n in
the
pro
porti
on o
f al
l ho
mes
em
pty
to 1
.5%
by
Apr
il 20
12. (
LHS
) •
By
2010
brin
g al
l so
cial
hou
sing
int
o de
cent
co
nditi
on (U
K&
VFL
2 &
LH
S)
• A
ll ho
mes
to a
chie
ve a
SA
P r
atin
g of
at l
east
55
by
Apr
il 20
12. (
LHS
) •
By
2010
brin
g al
l so
cial
hou
sing
int
o de
cent
co
nditi
on (U
K&
VFL
2 &
LH
S)
8. In
crea
se s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on
and
activ
e co
mm
unity
pa
rtici
patio
n
Soc
ial i
nclu
sion
a.
Will
it pr
ovid
e m
ore
serv
ices
and
faci
litie
s th
at a
re a
ppro
pria
te to
the
need
s of
et
hnic
min
oriti
es, o
lder
peo
ple,
you
ng
peop
le a
nd d
isab
led
peop
le?
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
• In
crea
se
volu
ntar
y an
d co
mm
unity
en
gage
men
t, es
peci
ally
am
ongs
t tho
se a
t ris
k of
soc
ial e
xclu
sion
. (U
K)
SA O
BJE
CTI
VES
D
ECIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
CR
ITER
IA
IND
ICA
TOR
S
TAR
GET
S FR
OM
OTH
ER
PPPs
(Key
to a
bbre
viat
ions
at e
nd
of ta
ble.
) b.
Doe
s it
enab
le le
ss-w
ell r
esou
rced
gr
oups
to ta
ke p
art?
c.
Doe
s it
take
ste
ps to
invo
lve
not y
et re
ach
grou
ps?
Com
mun
ity p
artic
ipat
ion
d. W
ill it
give
the
com
mun
ity o
ppor
tuni
ties
to
parti
cipa
te in
or t
owar
ds m
akin
g de
cisi
ons?
e.
Will
loca
l com
mun
ity o
rgan
isat
ions
be
supp
orte
d to
iden
tify
and
addr
ess
thei
r ow
n pr
iorit
ies?
9.
Incr
ease
com
mun
ity
cohe
sion
e. W
ill it
build
bet
ter r
elat
ions
hips
acr
oss
dive
rse
com
mun
ities
and
inte
rest
s?
f. W
ill it
incr
ease
peo
ple’
s fe
elin
gs o
f be
long
ing?
g.
Will
it en
cour
age
com
mun
ities
to v
alue
di
vers
ity?
h. C
ould
it c
reat
e or
incr
ease
tens
ions
and
co
nflic
t loc
ally
or w
ith o
ther
com
mun
ities
?
Indi
cato
rs to
be
incl
uded
from
C
omm
unity
Coh
esio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
whe
n fin
alis
ed (i
f rel
evan
t)
Targ
ets
to b
e in
clud
ed fr
om C
omm
unity
C
ohes
ion
Act
ion
Pla
n w
hen
final
ised
(if r
elev
ant)
ENVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L O
BJE
CTI
VES
10. I
ncre
ase
the
quan
tity,
qu
ality
and
acc
essi
bilit
y of
gr
eens
pace
e. W
ill it
incr
ease
the
quan
tity
of p
ublic
ly
acce
ssib
le g
reen
spac
e?
f. W
ill it
addr
ess
defic
ienc
ies
of g
reen
spac
e in
are
as th
at a
re u
nder
-pro
vide
d?
g. W
ill it
impr
ove
the
secu
rity
of
gree
nspa
ce?
1. Q
uant
ity o
f gre
ensp
ace
in
loca
tions
whe
re ta
ll bu
ildin
gs
are
prom
oted
2.
Acc
essi
bilit
y of
gre
ensp
ace
to
loca
tions
whe
re ta
ll bu
ildin
gs
are
prom
oted
• Ev
eryo
ne i
n Le
eds
is a
ble
to w
alk,
or
have
ea
sy a
cces
s, to
a lo
cal o
pen
gree
n ar
ea a
nd
be
able
to
se
e a
tree
or
gree
n sp
ace
whe
reve
r the
y ar
e. (V
FL2)
•
Prov
ide
2.8h
a of
Loc
al R
ecre
atio
nal
Area
s w
ithin
40
0m
and
12ha
of
N
eigh
bour
hood
/Dis
trict
Par
ks w
ithin
800
m o
f re
side
ntia
l are
as (U
DP
)
11. M
inim
ise
the
pres
sure
on
gre
enfie
ld la
nd b
y ef
ficie
nt la
nd u
se p
atte
rns
that
mak
e go
od u
se o
f de
relic
t and
pre
viou
sly
used
si
tes
& pr
omot
e ba
lanc
ed
deve
lopm
ent
c. D
oes
it m
ake
effic
ient
use
of l
and
by
prom
otin
g de
velo
pmen
t on
prev
ious
ly
used
land
, re-
use
of b
uild
ings
and
hig
her
dens
ities
? d.
Will
it pr
omot
e th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
com
mun
ities
with
acc
essi
ble
serv
ices
, em
ploy
men
t, sh
ops
and
leis
ure
faci
litie
s?
1. %
of
resi
dent
ial
units
bui
lt on
pr
evio
usly
de
velo
ped
land
in
lo
catio
ns w
here
tall
build
ings
are
pr
omot
ed
2. %
of
em
ploy
men
t flo
orsp
ace
bu
ilt
on
prev
ious
ly
deve
lope
d la
nd
in
loca
tions
w
here
ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re p
rom
oted
• 80
% o
f ne
w h
omes
on
prev
ious
ly d
evel
oped
la
nd b
etw
een
1998
and
201
6 (V
FL2)
12. M
aint
ain
and
enha
nce,
re
stor
e or
add
to b
iodi
vers
ity
or g
eolo
gica
l con
serv
atio
n
h. W
ill it
mak
e us
e of
opp
ortu
nitie
s to
cre
ate
and
enha
nce
habi
tats
as
part
of
deve
lopm
ent p
ropo
sals
?
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
a. N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
SA O
BJE
CTI
VES
D
ECIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
CR
ITER
IA
IND
ICA
TOR
S
TAR
GET
S FR
OM
OTH
ER
PPPs
(Key
to a
bbre
viat
ions
at e
nd
of ta
ble.
) in
tere
sts
i. W
ill it
prot
ect /
miti
gate
eco
logi
cal
inte
rest
s on
pre
viou
sly-
deve
lope
d si
tes?
13. R
educ
e gr
eenh
ouse
gas
em
issi
ons
Will
it re
duce
gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s fro
m:
d. H
ouse
hold
s?
e. C
omm
erci
al a
nd in
dust
rial a
ctiv
ities
? f.
Tran
spor
t
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
a. N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
14. I
mpr
ove
Leed
s’ a
bilit
y to
m
anag
e ex
trem
e w
eath
er
cond
ition
s in
clud
ing
flood
ris
k an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
Floo
d R
isk
d. W
ill it
prev
ent i
napp
ropr
iate
dev
elop
men
t on
floo
d pl
ains
and
pre
pare
for t
he
likel
ihoo
d of
incr
ease
d flo
odin
g in
futu
re?
O
ther
clim
ate
chan
ge e
ffect
s e.
Will
it im
prov
e th
e ca
paci
ty to
cop
e w
ith
the
incr
ease
s in
stro
ng w
inds
and
st
orm
s?
f. W
ill it
impr
ove
the
capa
city
to c
ope
with
hi
gher
tem
pera
ture
s?
1. N
o. o
f pla
nnin
g in
volv
ing
deve
lopm
ent o
f tal
l bui
ldin
gs
gran
ted
cont
rary
to th
e ad
vice
of
the
Envi
ronm
ent A
genc
y on
flo
od d
efen
ce g
roun
ds
• Fu
ture
PP
Ps
to b
e m
onito
red
for t
arge
ts
15. P
rovi
de a
tran
spor
t ne
twor
k w
hich
max
imis
es
acce
ss, w
hils
t min
imis
ing
detri
men
tal i
mpa
cts
i. W
ill it
redu
ce th
e ne
ed to
trav
el b
y in
crea
sing
acc
ess
to k
ey s
ervi
ces
and
faci
litie
s by
mea
ns o
ther
than
the
car?
j.
Will
it ea
se c
onge
stio
n on
the
road
ne
twor
k?
k. W
ill it
prov
ide/
impr
ove/
prom
ote
info
rmat
ion
abou
t alte
rnat
ives
to c
ar-
base
d tra
nspo
rt?
l. W
ill it
redu
ce th
e nu
mbe
r of j
ourn
eys
by
pers
onal
mot
or tr
ansp
ort?
m
. Will
it m
ake
the
trans
port/
envi
ronm
ent
attra
ctiv
e to
non
-car
use
rs?
1. D
ista
nce
of p
ublic
tran
spor
t st
ops/
stat
ions
to lo
catio
ns w
here
ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re p
rom
oted
• N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
16. I
ncre
ase
the
prop
ortio
n of
loca
l nee
ds th
at a
re m
et
loca
lly
f. W
ill it
supp
ort t
he u
se o
f mor
e lo
cal
supp
liers
for a
gric
ultu
re, m
anuf
actu
re,
cons
truct
ion,
reta
iling
and
oth
er s
ervi
ces?
g.
Will
it en
sure
that
ess
entia
l ser
vice
s (e
.g.
empl
oym
ent,
heal
th s
ervi
ces
and
shop
s)
and
reso
urce
s to
ser
ve c
omm
uniti
es a
re
with
in re
ason
able
non
-car
bas
ed
trave
lling
dis
tanc
e?
h. W
ill it
prov
ide
appr
opria
te h
ousi
ng fo
r
1. P
ropo
rtion
of l
and
in lo
catio
ns
whe
re ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re
prom
oted
that
are
loca
ted
with
in
800m
of:
a G
P p
rem
ises
, pr
imar
y sc
hool
, sup
erm
arke
t or
conv
enie
nce
stor
e, p
ost o
ffice
.
• M
eet
targ
ets
for
jour
ney
times
to
scho
ols,
fu
rther
ed
ucat
ion
colle
ges,
G
Ps,
ho
spita
ls,
jobs
and
maj
or s
hopp
ing
cent
res,
onc
e th
ey
are
set i
n th
e Lo
cal T
rans
port
Pla
n.
SA O
BJE
CTI
VES
D
ECIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
CR
ITER
IA
IND
ICA
TOR
S
TAR
GET
S FR
OM
OTH
ER
PPPs
(Key
to a
bbre
viat
ions
at e
nd
of ta
ble.
) lo
cal n
eeds
? i.
Will
it su
ppor
t the
vib
ranc
y of
city
and
to
wn
cent
res?
17. R
educ
e th
e gr
owth
in
was
te g
ener
ated
and
la
ndfil
led.
d. W
ill it
min
imis
e w
aste
? e.
Will
it pr
omot
e re
-use
, rec
over
y an
d re
cycl
ing
of w
aste
? f.
Will
it he
lp to
pro
vide
faci
litie
s fo
r re
cycl
ing
and
reco
verin
g w
aste
?
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
a. N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
18. R
educ
e po
llutio
n le
vels
e. W
ill it
prom
ote
the
clea
n-up
of
cont
amin
ated
land
? f.
Will
it re
duce
air,
wat
er, l
and,
noi
se a
nd
light
pol
lutio
n?
g. W
ill it
redu
ce th
e ris
k of
pol
lutio
n in
cide
nts
and
envi
ronm
enta
l acc
iden
ts?
h. W
ill it
help
to p
rom
ote
neig
hbou
rhoo
d cl
eanl
ines
s?
1. A
rea
of c
onta
min
ated
land
in
loca
tions
whe
re ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re
prom
oted
2.
Num
ber o
f Air
Qua
lity
Man
agem
ent A
reas
and
are
as
of c
once
rn /
no. o
f dw
ellin
gs
affe
cted
in lo
cate
d w
here
tall
build
ings
are
pro
mot
ed
• A
ll pa
rts o
f Lee
ds to
mee
t nat
iona
l air-
qual
ity
stan
dard
s (V
FL2)
19. M
aint
ain
and
enha
nce
land
scap
e qu
ality
f. W
ill it
mai
ntai
n an
d en
hanc
e ar
eas
of
high
land
scap
e va
lue?
g.
Will
it pr
otec
t and
enh
ance
indi
vidu
al
feat
ures
suc
h as
tree
s?
h. W
ill it
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e la
ndsc
ape
qual
ity o
f the
City
’s ri
vers
and
oth
er
wat
erw
ays?
i.
Will
it ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
geo
mor
phol
ogy
of th
e la
nd?
No
rele
vant
dat
a av
aila
ble
to
mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e S
PD
ag
ains
t thi
s ob
ject
ive
b. N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
20. M
aint
ain
and
enha
nce
the
qual
ity a
nd
dist
inct
iven
ess
of th
e bu
ilt
envi
ronm
ent
d. W
ill it
ensu
re n
ew d
evel
opm
ent i
s w
ell
desi
gned
and
app
ropr
iate
to it
s se
tting
? e.
Will
it en
sure
dev
elop
men
t is
cons
iste
nt
with
Lee
ds C
ity C
ounc
il de
sign
gui
danc
e fo
r the
bui
lt, n
atur
al a
nd h
isto
ric
envi
ronm
ent?
f.
Will
it su
ppor
t loc
al d
istin
ctiv
enes
s?
g. W
ill it
enco
urag
e lo
cal s
ourc
ing
of
mat
eria
ls?
1. C
onsi
sten
cy o
f dev
elop
men
t in
corp
orat
ing
tall
build
ings
with
Le
eds
City
Cou
ncil
desi
gn
guid
ance
• Fu
ture
PP
Ps
to b
e m
onito
red
for t
arge
ts
21. P
rese
rve
and
enha
nce
the
hist
oric
env
ironm
ent
c. W
ill it
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce s
ites,
feat
ures
an
d ar
eas
of h
isto
rical
, arc
haeo
logi
cal
and
cultu
ral v
alue
in u
rban
and
rura
l
1. N
o. o
f lis
ted
build
ing
of e
ach
grad
e, c
onse
rvat
ion
area
s an
d sc
hedu
led
anci
ent m
onum
ents
• N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s
SA O
BJE
CTI
VES
D
ECIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
CR
ITER
IA
IND
ICA
TOR
S
TAR
GET
S FR
OM
OTH
ER
PPPs
(Key
to a
bbre
viat
ions
at e
nd
of ta
ble.
)
area
s?
d. W
ill it
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce li
sted
bu
ildin
gs, c
onse
rvat
ion
area
s an
d ot
her
desi
gnat
ed h
isto
ric fe
atur
es a
nd th
eir
setti
ngs?
with
in o
r clo
se to
(i) l
ocat
ions
w
here
tall
build
ings
are
pr
omot
ed
(ii)
loca
tions
whe
re ta
ll bu
ildin
gs
wou
ld b
e ex
clud
ed
2. A
reas
of k
now
n si
gnifi
cant
ar
chae
olog
ical
inte
rest
of
natio
nal,
regi
onal
or l
ocal
in
tere
st in
loca
tions
pro
mot
ed fo
r ta
ll bu
ildin
gs
22. M
ake
effic
ient
use
of
ener
gy a
nd n
atur
al
reso
urce
s an
d pr
omot
e su
stai
nabl
e de
sign
.
h. W
ill it
incr
ease
ene
rgy
from
rene
wab
le
sour
ces?
i.
Will
it pr
omot
e th
e en
ergy
, wat
er a
nd
reso
urce
effi
cien
cy o
f bui
ldin
gs?
j. W
ill it
incr
ease
use
of s
usta
inab
le u
rban
dr
aina
ge?
k. W
ill it
incr
ease
effi
cien
cy in
use
of r
aw
mat
eria
ls?
l. W
ill it
min
imis
e th
e lo
ss o
f hig
h qu
ality
ag
ricul
tura
l lan
d an
d so
ils?
1. U
se o
f SU
DS
and
inte
rcep
tor
mea
sure
s in
tall
build
ing
deve
lopm
ents
2.
Ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y ca
paci
ty
inst
alle
d in
tall
build
ings
by
type
• A
t lea
st 1
0% o
f ene
rgy
gene
rate
d fro
m
rene
wab
le s
ourc
es b
y 20
10 (R
SS)
A
PPEN
DIX
2
R
evie
w o
f Oth
er P
olic
ies,
Pla
ns a
nd P
rogr
amm
es R
elev
ant t
o th
e Su
stai
nabi
lity
App
rais
al
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
EUR
OPE
AN
PO
LIC
IES
Euro
pean
Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t Str
ateg
y (2
001)
•
Com
batin
g po
verty
and
soc
ial e
xclu
sion
•
Dea
ling
with
the
econ
omic
and
soc
ial i
mpl
icat
ions
of a
n ag
ing
soci
ety
• Li
mit
clim
ate
chan
ge a
nd in
crea
se th
e us
e of
cle
an e
nerg
y;
• A
ddre
ss th
reat
s to
pub
lic h
ealth
; •
Man
age
natu
ral r
esou
rces
resp
onsi
bly;
•
Impr
ove
the
trans
port
syst
em a
nd la
nd u
se m
anag
emen
t
• M
eet K
yoto
com
mitm
ent t
hen
aim
to re
duce
atm
osph
eric
gr
eenh
ouse
gas
em
issi
ons
by a
n av
erag
e of
1%
per
yea
r ove
r 19
90 le
vels
up
to 2
020.
•
Brin
g ab
out a
shi
ft in
tran
spor
t use
from
road
to ra
il, w
ater
and
pu
blic
pas
seng
er tr
ansp
ort s
o th
at th
e sh
are
of ro
ad tr
ansp
ort
in 2
010
is n
o gr
eate
r tha
n in
199
8 (th
e m
ost r
ecen
t yea
r for
w
hich
dat
a ar
e av
aila
ble)
Key
Eur
opea
n co
ntex
t
EU S
ixth
Env
ironm
enta
l Act
ion
Prog
ram
me
– En
viro
nmen
t 201
0: O
ur F
utur
e, O
ur C
hoic
e (2
001)
•
To s
tabi
lise
the
atm
osph
eric
con
cent
ratio
ns o
f gre
enho
use
gase
s at
a
leve
l tha
t will
not
cau
se u
nnat
ural
var
iatio
ns o
f the
ear
th's
clim
ate.
•
To p
rote
ct a
nd re
stor
e th
e fu
nctio
ning
of n
atur
al s
yste
ms
and
halt
the
loss
of b
iodi
vers
ity in
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
and
glo
bally
. To
prot
ect s
oils
ag
ains
t ero
sion
and
pol
lutio
n.
• To
ach
ieve
a q
ualit
y of
the
envi
ronm
ent w
here
the
leve
ls o
f man
–
mad
e co
ntam
inan
ts, i
nclu
ding
diff
eren
t typ
es o
f rad
iatio
n, d
o no
t giv
e ris
e to
sig
nific
ant i
mpa
cts
on o
r ris
ks to
hum
an h
ealth
. •
To e
nsur
e th
e co
nsum
ptio
n of
rene
wab
le a
nd n
on-r
enew
able
re
sour
ces
does
not
exc
eed
the
carr
ying
cap
acity
of t
he e
nviro
nmen
t. To
ach
ieve
a d
e-co
uplin
g of
reso
urce
use
from
eco
nom
ic g
row
th
thro
ugh
sign
ifica
ntly
impr
oved
reso
urce
effi
cien
cy, d
emat
eria
lisat
ion
of
the
econ
omy,
and
was
te p
reve
ntio
n.
Num
erou
s ac
tions
are
iden
tifie
d bu
t few
spe
cific
targ
ets
othe
r tha
n fo
r gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s:
• In
the
shor
t ter
m, t
he E
U is
com
mitt
ed, u
nder
the
Kyo
to
Pro
toco
l, to
ach
ievi
ng a
n 8%
redu
ctio
n in
em
issi
ons
of
gree
nhou
se g
ases
by
2008
-201
2 co
mpa
red
to 1
990
leve
l (in
th
e lo
nger
term
a g
loba
l red
uctio
n of
20-
40%
will
be
need
ed).
Key
Eur
opea
n co
ntex
t
NA
TIO
NA
L PO
LIC
IES
Secu
ring
the
Futu
re –
the
UK
Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t Str
ateg
y (2
005)
G
uidi
ng p
rinci
ples
: •
Livi
ng w
ithin
env
ironm
enta
l lim
its
• A
chie
ving
a s
usta
inab
le e
cono
my
Sha
red
prio
ritie
s:
• S
usta
inab
le c
onsu
mpt
ion
and
prod
uctio
n •
Clim
ate
chan
ge a
nd e
nerg
y •
Nat
ural
reso
urce
pro
tect
ion
and
envi
ronm
enta
l enh
ance
men
t •
Sus
tain
able
com
mun
ities
Incl
udes
68
stra
tegy
indi
cato
rs a
nd 2
0 fra
mew
ork
indi
cato
rs.
The
rele
vant
fram
ewor
k in
dica
tors
are
: 1.
Gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s: K
yoto
targ
et a
nd C
O2
emis
sion
s 2.
Res
ourc
e us
e: D
omes
tic M
ater
ial C
onsu
mpt
ion
and
GD
P
8. E
cono
mic
out
put:
Gro
ss D
omes
tic P
rodu
ct
10. C
rime:
crim
e su
rvey
and
reco
rded
crim
e fo
r (a)
veh
icle
s (b
) do
mes
tic b
urgl
ary
(c) v
iole
nce
11. E
mpl
oym
ent:
peop
le o
f wor
king
age
in e
mpl
oym
ent
16. H
ealth
ineq
ualit
y: (a
) inf
ant m
orta
lity
(by
soci
o-ec
onom
ic
grou
p) (b
) life
ex
pect
ancy
(by
area
) for
men
and
wom
en
17. M
obili
ty: (
a) n
umbe
r of t
rips
per p
erso
n by
mod
e (b
) dis
tanc
e tra
velle
d pe
r per
son
per y
ear b
y br
oad
trip
purp
ose
Key
nat
iona
l obj
ectiv
es a
nd in
dica
tors
(als
o ta
rget
s)
SA
fram
ewor
ks m
ust e
ncom
pass
the
guid
ing
prin
cipl
es, s
hare
d pr
iorit
ies
and
key
targ
ets.
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
19. E
nviro
nmen
tal e
qual
ity:(e
nviro
nmen
tal m
easu
res
to b
e de
velo
ped)
20
. Wel
l bei
ng: (
mea
sure
s to
be
deve
lope
d)
The
rele
vant
key
targ
ets
are:
•
Red
uce
gree
nhou
se g
as e
mis
sion
s to
12.
5% b
elow
199
0 le
vels
and
mov
e to
war
ds a
20%
red
uctio
n in
CO
2 em
issi
ons
belo
w 1
990
leve
ls b
y 20
10.
• E
nabl
e at
lea
st 2
5% o
f ho
useh
old
was
te t
o be
rec
ycle
d or
co
mpo
sted
by
2005
-06,
with
furth
er im
prov
emen
ts b
y 20
08.
• R
aise
the
tre
nd r
ate
of g
row
th (
GD
P)
over
the
eco
nom
ic
cycl
e.
• N
arro
w
the
gap
in
prod
uctiv
ity
with
ou
r m
ajor
in
dust
rial
com
petit
ors.
•
Red
uce
crim
e by
15%
and
fur
ther
in
high
crim
e ar
eas,
by
2007
-08.
•
Incr
ease
th
e em
ploy
men
t ra
te
and
redu
ce
the
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n th
e em
ploy
men
t rat
es o
f dis
adva
ntag
ed g
roup
s an
d th
e ov
eral
l rat
e.
• In
crea
se t
he s
tock
of
Ofs
ted-
regi
ster
ed c
hild
care
by
10%
by
2008
. •
By
2010
, in
crea
se t
he u
se o
f pu
blic
tra
nspo
rt (b
us a
nd li
ght
rail)
by
mor
e th
an 1
2% in
Eng
land
com
pare
d w
ith 2
000
leve
ls,
with
gro
wth
in e
very
regi
on.
• B
y 20
10, b
ring
all s
ocia
l hou
sing
into
a d
ecen
t con
ditio
n w
ith
mos
t of t
his
impr
ovem
ent t
akin
g pl
ace
in d
epriv
ed a
reas
, and
fo
r vul
nera
ble
hous
ehol
ds in
the
priv
ate
sect
or, i
nclu
ding
fa
mili
es w
ith c
hild
ren,
incr
ease
the
prop
ortio
n w
ho li
ve in
ho
mes
that
are
in d
ecen
t con
ditio
n.
PPS1
: Del
iver
ing
Sust
aina
ble
Dev
elop
men
t (O
DPM
200
4)
Sus
tain
able
dev
elop
men
t is
iden
tifie
d as
the
key
prin
cipl
e un
derly
ing
plan
ning
. Pla
nnin
g is
cha
rged
with
add
ress
ing
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent
thro
ugh:
•
Mak
ing
suita
ble
land
ava
ilabl
e fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
line
with
eco
nom
ic,
soci
al a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal o
bjec
tives
to im
prov
e pe
ople
’s q
ualit
y of
life
; •
Con
tribu
ting
to s
usta
inab
le e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t; •
Pro
tect
ing
and
enha
ncin
g th
e na
tura
l and
his
toric
env
ironm
ent,
the
qual
ity a
nd c
hara
cter
of t
he c
ount
rysi
de, a
nd e
xist
ing
com
mun
ities
; •
Ens
urin
g hi
gh q
ualit
y de
velo
pmen
t thr
ough
goo
d an
d in
clus
ive
desi
gn,
and
the
effic
ient
use
of r
esou
rces
; and
, •
Ens
urin
g th
at d
evel
opm
ent s
uppo
rts e
xist
ing
com
mun
ities
and
co
ntrib
utes
to th
e cr
eatio
n of
saf
e, s
usta
inab
le, l
ivea
ble
and
mix
ed
com
mun
ities
with
goo
d ac
cess
to jo
bs a
nd k
ey s
ervi
ces
for a
ll m
embe
rs o
f the
com
mun
ity.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs.
Key
pol
icy
cont
ext.
Key
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
how
pla
nnin
g sh
ould
add
ress
su
stai
nabl
e de
velo
pmen
t.
PPS3
: Hou
sing
(DC
LG, 2
006)
Th
e sp
ecifi
c ou
tcom
es th
at th
e pl
anni
ng s
yste
m s
houl
d de
liver
are
: •
Hig
h qu
ality
hou
sing
that
is w
ell-d
esig
ned
and
built
to a
hig
h st
anda
rd.
• A
mix
of h
ousi
ng, b
oth
mar
ket a
nd a
fford
able
, par
ticul
arly
in te
rms
of
tenu
re a
nd p
rice,
to s
uppo
rt a
wid
e va
riety
of h
ouse
hold
s in
all
area
s,
both
urb
an a
nd ru
ral.
Loca
l Pla
nnin
g A
utho
ritie
s sh
ould
set
out
in L
ocal
Dev
elop
men
t D
ocum
ents
: •
The
likel
y ov
eral
l pro
porti
ons
of h
ouse
hold
s th
at re
quire
mar
ket
or a
fford
able
hou
sing
, for
exa
mpl
e, x
% m
arke
t hou
sing
and
y%
af
ford
able
hou
sing
.
Em
phas
is o
n th
e de
liver
y of
new
hou
sing
, bot
h m
arke
t an
d af
ford
able
to m
eet i
dent
ified
nee
ds.
Pro
posa
ls s
houl
d pr
omot
e w
ell-d
esig
ned,
hig
h qu
ality
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• A
suf
ficie
nt q
uant
ity o
f hou
sing
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt n
eed
and
dem
and
and
seek
ing
to im
prov
e ch
oice
. •
Hou
sing
dev
elop
men
ts in
sui
tabl
e lo
catio
ns, w
hich
offe
r a g
ood
rang
e of
co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s an
d w
ith g
ood
acce
ss to
jobs
, key
ser
vice
s an
d in
frast
ruct
ure.
•
A fl
exib
le, r
espo
nsiv
e su
pply
of l
and
– m
anag
ed in
a w
ay th
at m
akes
ef
ficie
nt a
nd e
ffect
ive
use
of la
nd, i
nclu
ding
re-u
se o
f pre
viou
sly-
deve
lope
d la
nd, w
here
app
ropr
iate
.
• Th
e lik
ely
prof
ile o
f hou
seho
ld ty
pes
requ
iring
mar
ket h
ousi
ng
eg m
ulti-
pers
on, i
nclu
ding
fam
ilies
and
chi
ldre
n (x
%),
sing
le
pers
ons
(y%
), co
uple
s (z
%).
• Th
e si
ze a
nd ty
pe o
f affo
rdab
le h
ousi
ng re
quire
d.
• Th
e na
tiona
l ann
ual t
arge
t is
that
at l
east
60
per c
ent o
f new
ho
usin
g sh
ould
be
prov
ided
on
prev
ious
ly d
evel
oped
land
. •
A d
ensi
ty o
f 30
dwel
lings
per
hec
tare
(dph
) net
sho
uld
be u
sed
as a
nat
iona
l ind
icat
ive
min
imum
to g
uide
pol
icy
deve
lopm
ent
and
deci
sion
-mak
ing,
unt
il lo
cal d
ensi
ty p
olic
ies
are
in p
lace
hous
ing
in a
cces
sibl
e lo
catio
ns. G
ood
acce
ss to
jobs
is
emph
asis
ed
PPG
4: In
dust
rial,
com
mer
cial
dev
elop
men
t and
sm
all f
irms
(DoE
, 199
2)
• E
nsur
e su
ffici
ent l
and
is a
vaila
ble
whi
ch is
cap
able
for
indu
stria
l/com
mer
cial
dev
elop
men
t and
is w
ell s
erve
d by
infra
stru
ctur
e;
• E
nsur
e a
var
iety
of s
ites
are
avai
labl
e to
mee
t diff
erin
g ne
eds
• E
ncou
rage
indu
stria
l/com
mer
cial
dev
elop
men
t int
o lo
catio
ns th
at
min
imis
e tri
p le
ngth
, red
uce
cong
estio
n an
d ca
n be
ser
ved
by e
nerg
y ef
ficie
nt m
odes
of t
rans
port;
•
Mix
resi
dent
ial a
nd in
dust
rial/c
omm
erci
al u
ses
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Man
y ta
ll bu
ildin
gs a
re u
sed
for c
omm
erci
al p
urpo
ses.
Th
ey c
reat
e th
e op
portu
nity
for r
elat
ivel
y la
rge
amou
nts
of c
omm
erci
al fl
oors
pace
to b
e pr
ovid
ed o
n sm
all s
ites
PPS6
: Pla
nnin
g fo
r Tow
n C
entr
es (O
DPM
, 200
5)
Key
obj
ectiv
e fo
r tow
n ce
ntre
s is
to p
rom
ote
thei
r vita
lity
and
viab
ility
by:
•
plan
ning
for t
he g
row
th a
nd d
evel
opm
ent o
f exi
stin
g ce
ntre
s; a
nd
• pr
omot
ing
and
enha
ncin
g ex
istin
g ce
ntre
s, b
y fo
cusi
ng d
evel
opm
ent i
n su
ch c
entre
s an
d en
cour
agin
g a
wid
e ra
nge
of s
ervi
ces
in a
goo
d en
viro
nmen
t, ac
cess
ible
to a
ll.
Oth
er o
bjec
tives
are
: •
enha
ncin
g co
nsum
er c
hoic
e by
mak
ing
prov
isio
n fo
r a ra
nge
of
shop
ping
, lei
sure
and
loca
l ser
vice
s, w
hich
allo
w c
hoic
e to
mee
t the
ne
eds
of th
e en
tire
com
mun
ity, a
nd p
artic
ular
ly s
ocia
lly-e
xclu
ded
grou
ps;
• su
ppor
ting
effic
ient
, com
petit
ive
and
inno
vativ
e re
tail,
leis
ure,
tour
ism
an
d ot
her s
ecto
rs, w
ith im
prov
ing
prod
uctiv
ity; a
nd
• im
prov
ing
acce
ssib
ility
, ens
urin
g th
at e
xist
ing
or n
ew d
evel
opm
ent i
s,
or w
ill b
e, a
cces
sibl
e an
d w
ell-s
erve
d by
a c
hoic
e of
mea
ns o
f tra
nspo
rt.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
The
city
cen
tre is
a k
ey lo
catio
n fo
r tal
l bui
ldin
gs.
PPG
8: T
elec
omm
unic
atio
ns (D
LTR
, 200
1)
• E
nsur
e pe
ople
hav
e a
choi
ce a
s to
who
pro
vide
s th
eir
tele
com
mun
icat
ions
ser
vice
, a w
ider
rang
e of
ser
vice
s fro
m w
hich
to
choo
se a
nd e
quita
ble
acce
ss to
the
late
st te
chno
logi
es.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Tele
com
mun
icat
ions
equ
ipm
ent i
s of
ten
loca
ted
at th
e to
p of
tall
build
ings
PPG
13: T
rans
port
(DTL
R, 2
001)
•
Pro
mot
e m
ore
sust
aina
ble
trans
port
choi
ces
for b
oth
peop
le a
nd fo
r m
ovin
g fre
ight
; •
Pro
mot
e ac
cess
ibili
ty to
jobs
, sho
ppin
g, le
isur
e fa
cilit
ies
and
serv
ices
by
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort,
wal
king
and
cyc
ling,
and
•
Red
uce
the
need
to tr
avel
, esp
ecia
lly b
y ca
r.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Tall
build
ings
pro
mot
e hi
gher
den
sitie
s of
de
velo
pmen
t and
are
ther
efor
e si
gnifi
cant
gen
erat
ors
of tr
avel
whi
ch s
houl
d be
loca
ted
in a
cces
sibl
e pl
aces
.
PPG
15: P
lann
ing
and
the
His
toric
Env
ironm
ent (
DoE
, 199
4)
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• P
rovi
de e
ffect
ive
prot
ectio
n fo
r all
aspe
cts
of th
e hi
stor
ic e
nviro
nmen
t; •
Rec
onci
le th
e ne
ed fo
r eco
nom
ic g
row
th w
ith n
eed
prot
ect t
he h
isto
ric
and
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t •
Def
ine
the
capa
city
of t
he h
isto
ric e
nviro
nmen
t to
acco
mm
odat
e ch
ange
•
Iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties
whi
ch th
e hi
stor
ic fa
bric
of a
n ar
ea c
an o
ffer a
s a
focu
s fo
r reg
ener
atio
n
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Inap
prop
riate
ly lo
cate
d an
d po
orly
des
igne
d ta
ll bu
ildin
gs c
ould
impa
ct a
dver
sely
on
hist
oric
bui
ldin
gs
and
area
s.
PPG
16: A
rcha
eolo
gy a
nd P
lann
ing
(DoE
199
0)
• P
rovi
de e
ffect
ive
prot
ectio
n, e
nhan
cem
ent a
nd p
rese
rvat
ion
of s
ites
of
arch
aeol
ogic
al in
tere
st a
nd o
f the
ir se
tting
. N
o sp
ecifi
c ta
rget
s an
d in
dica
tors
In
appr
opria
tely
loca
ted
tall
build
ings
cou
ld im
pact
ad
vers
ely
on s
ites
of a
rcha
eolo
gcia
l int
eres
t.
PPS2
2: R
enew
able
Ene
rgy
(OD
PM, 2
004)
•
Ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y de
velo
pmen
ts s
houl
d be
cap
able
of b
eing
ac
com
mod
ated
in lo
catio
ns w
here
the
tech
nolo
gy is
via
ble
and
envi
ronm
enta
l, ec
onom
ic,a
nd s
ocia
l im
pact
s ca
n be
add
ress
ed
satis
fact
orily
; •
Pro
mot
e an
d en
cour
age,
rath
er th
an re
stric
t, th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y re
sour
ces;
•
Sho
uld
not m
ake
assu
mpt
ions
abo
ut th
e te
chni
cal a
nd c
omm
erci
al
feas
ibili
ty o
f ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y pr
ojec
ts T
echn
olog
ical
cha
nge
can
mea
n th
at s
ites
curr
ently
exc
lude
d as
loca
tions
for p
artic
ular
type
s of
re
new
able
ene
rgy
deve
lopm
ent m
ay in
futu
re b
e su
itabl
e.
• S
mal
l-sca
le p
roje
cts
can
prov
ide
a lim
ited
but v
alua
ble
cont
ribut
ion
to
over
all o
utpu
ts o
f ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y an
d to
mee
ting
ener
gy n
eeds
bot
h lo
cally
and
nat
iona
lly;
• S
houl
d fo
ster
com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t in
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y pr
ojec
ts.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Tall
build
ings
cou
ld b
ecom
e an
impo
rtant
sou
rce
of
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y, fo
r exa
mpl
e by
inco
rpor
atin
g ph
otov
oltia
c ce
lls a
nd s
mal
l win
d tu
rbin
es.
PPG
24: P
lann
ing
and
Noi
se (D
oE, 2
001)
•
Pro
vide
for t
he s
epar
atio
n of
noi
se-s
ensi
tive
deve
lopm
ents
from
maj
or
sour
ces
of n
oise
(exi
stin
g or
pro
gram
med
). N
o sp
ecifi
c ta
rget
s an
d in
dica
tors
P
artic
ular
ly im
porta
nt w
here
tall
build
ings
inco
rpor
ate
a m
ix o
f use
s.
PPG
25: D
evel
opm
ent a
nd F
lood
Ris
k (D
LTR
, 200
1)
LPA
s sh
ould
pre
pare
and
impl
emen
t pla
nnin
g st
rate
gies
that
hel
p to
del
iver
su
stai
nabl
e de
velo
pmen
t by:
M
anag
ing
risk
• fra
min
g po
licie
s fo
r the
loca
tion
of d
evel
opm
ent w
hich
avo
id fl
ood
risk
to
peop
le a
nd p
rope
rty w
here
pos
sibl
e, a
nd m
anag
e an
y re
sidu
al ri
sk,
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
impa
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
; •
only
per
mitt
ing
deve
lopm
ent i
n ar
eas
of fl
ood
risk
whe
n th
ere
are
no
reas
onab
ly a
vaila
ble
site
s in
are
as o
f low
er fl
ood
risk
and
bene
fits
of th
e de
velo
pmen
t out
wei
gh th
e ris
ks fr
om fl
oodi
ng;
Red
ucin
g ris
k •
redu
cing
floo
d ris
k to
and
from
new
dev
elop
men
t thr
ough
loca
tion,
layo
ut
and
desi
gn, i
ncor
pora
ting
sust
aina
ble
drai
nage
sys
tem
s (S
UD
S);
Key
indi
cato
rs fr
om th
e E
nviro
nmen
t Age
ncy’
s H
igh
Leve
l Tar
get 5
(H
LT5)
repo
rt ar
e:
• th
e nu
mbe
r of p
lann
ing
appl
icat
ions
per
mitt
ed b
y LP
As,
w
here
the
outc
ome
is k
now
n, a
gain
st a
sus
tain
ed o
bjec
tion
from
the
Env
ironm
ent A
genc
y on
floo
d ris
k gr
ound
s, a
s a
perc
enta
ge o
f the
tota
l num
ber o
f app
licat
ions
to w
hich
the
Env
ironm
ent A
genc
y su
stai
ned
an o
bjec
tion
on fl
ood
risk
grou
nds;
•
the
num
ber o
f pla
nnin
g ap
plic
atio
ns fo
r maj
or d
evel
opm
ent
perm
itted
by
LPA
s, w
here
the
outc
ome
is k
now
n, a
gain
st a
su
stai
ned
obje
ctio
n fro
m th
e E
nviro
nmen
t Age
ncy
on fl
ood
risk
grou
nds,
as
a pe
rcen
tage
of t
he to
tal n
umbe
r of p
lann
ing
appl
icat
ions
per
mitt
ed a
gain
st s
usta
ined
Env
ironm
ent
Age
ncy
advi
ce o
n flo
od ri
sk;
• th
e la
ck o
f a F
RA
or a
n in
adeq
uate
FR
A c
ited
as th
e re
ason
fo
r an
Env
ironm
ent A
genc
y ob
ject
ion
to p
lann
ing
appl
icat
ions
, as
a pe
rcen
tage
of t
he to
tal n
umbe
r of i
ts
Are
as o
f the
city
cen
tre a
re w
ithin
hig
her r
isk
flood
zo
nes.
Thi
s ha
s im
plic
atio
ns fo
r the
use
, des
ign
and
layo
ut o
f tal
l bui
ldin
gs.
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
obje
ctio
ns o
n flo
od ri
sk g
roun
ds; a
nd
• th
e nu
mbe
r of d
ecis
ion
notic
es re
ceiv
ed fr
om L
PA
s by
the
Env
ironm
ent A
genc
y as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
the
num
ber o
f ob
ject
ions
the
Env
ironm
ent A
genc
y m
ade
to p
lann
ing
appl
icat
ions
on
flood
risk
gro
unds
.
Com
mun
ities
Pla
n: N
orth
ern
Way
Gro
wth
Str
ateg
y N
o sp
ecifi
c ob
ject
ives
– v
isio
n is
to “e
stab
lish
the
Nor
th o
f Eng
land
as
an
area
of e
xcep
tiona
l opp
ortu
nity
, com
bini
ng a
wor
ld-c
lass
eco
nom
y w
ith a
su
perb
qua
lity
of li
fe”.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Pro
mot
ion
of th
e Le
eds
City
regi
on a
nd th
e Le
eds
/ M
anch
este
r axi
s as
a d
river
of t
he N
orth
’s e
cono
mic
gr
owth
. Lee
ds C
ity R
egio
n de
velo
pmen
t pro
gram
me
bein
g pr
epar
ed
Stro
ng e
cono
mic
focu
s bu
t wea
k on
the
envi
ronm
ent
and
clim
ate
chan
ge
Gui
danc
e on
Tal
l Bui
ldin
gs (C
abe
and
Engl
ish
Her
itage
, 200
3)
Crit
eria
for e
valu
atin
g ta
ll bu
ildin
g pr
opos
als:
i) Th
e re
latio
nshi
p to
con
text
, inc
ludi
ng n
atur
al to
pogr
aphy
, sca
le, h
eigh
t, ur
ban
grai
n, s
treet
scap
e an
d bu
ilt fo
rm, a
nd th
e ef
fect
on
the
skyl
ine.
ii) T
he e
ffect
on
the
who
le e
xist
ing
envi
ronm
ent,
incl
udin
g th
e ne
ed to
en
sure
that
the
prop
osal
will
con
serv
e, o
r not
dam
age
or d
etra
ct fr
om:
• W
orld
Her
itage
site
s an
d th
eir s
ettin
gs, i
nclu
ding
buf
fer z
ones
•
Sch
edul
ed A
ncie
nt M
onum
ents
and
thei
r set
tings
•
List
ed b
uild
ings
and
thei
r set
tings
, inc
ludi
ng th
e fo
regr
ound
s an
d •
back
drop
s to
land
mar
k bu
ildin
gs
• C
onse
rvat
ion
Are
as a
nd th
eir s
ettin
gs
• A
rcha
eolo
gy
• H
isto
ric p
arks
and
gar
dens
, lan
dsca
pes
and
thei
r set
tings
•
Oth
er o
pen
spac
es, i
nclu
ding
rive
rs a
nd w
ater
way
s, th
eir
• se
tting
s an
d vi
ews
from
them
•
Oth
er im
porta
nt v
iew
s, p
rosp
ects
and
pan
oram
as.
iii) T
he re
latio
nshi
p to
tran
spor
t inf
rast
ruct
ure,
avi
atio
n co
nstra
ints
, and
, in
parti
cula
r, th
e ca
paci
ty o
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort,
the
qual
ity o
f lin
ks b
etw
een
trans
port
and
the
site
, and
the
feas
ibili
ty o
f mak
ing
impr
ovem
ents
, whe
re
appr
opria
te.
iv) T
he a
rchi
tect
ural
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ildin
g in
clud
ing
its s
cale
, for
m, m
assi
ng,
prop
ortio
n an
d si
lhou
ette
, fac
ing
mat
eria
ls a
nd re
latio
nshi
p to
oth
er
stru
ctur
es.
v) T
he c
ontri
butio
n th
at th
e de
velo
pmen
t will
mak
e to
ext
erna
l and
inte
rnal
pu
blic
spa
ces
and
faci
litie
s in
the
area
, inc
ludi
ng th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
mix
of
uses
, esp
ecia
lly o
n th
e gr
ound
floo
r of t
ower
s, a
nd th
e in
clus
ion
of th
ese
area
s as
par
t of t
he p
ublic
real
m.
vi) T
he e
ffect
on
the
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
incl
udin
g m
icro
clim
ate,
ov
ersh
adow
ing,
nig
ht-ti
me
appe
aran
ce, v
ehic
le m
ovem
ents
and
the
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Pot
entia
l con
stra
int o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
all b
uild
ings
in
som
e pa
rts o
f Lee
ds C
ity C
entre
giv
en th
e pr
esen
ce
of la
rge
num
bers
of l
iste
d bu
ildin
gs a
nd th
e w
ides
prea
d co
vera
ge o
f con
serv
atio
n ar
eas.
P
oten
tial c
onfli
ct w
ith s
trate
gies
pro
mot
ing
Leed
s, a
nd
the
city
cen
tre in
par
ticul
ar, a
s a
driv
er o
f eco
nom
ic
grow
th in
the
regi
on a
nd s
ub-r
egio
n
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
envi
ronm
ent a
nd a
men
ity o
f tho
se in
the
vici
nity
of t
he b
uild
ing.
vii)
The
cont
ribut
ion
mad
e to
the
perm
eabi
lity
of a
site
and
the
wid
er a
rea;
op
portu
nitie
s to
offe
r im
prov
ed li
nkag
es o
n fo
ot, a
nd, w
here
app
ropr
iate
, the
op
enin
g up
, or e
ffect
ive
clos
ure,
of v
iew
s to
im
prov
e th
e le
gibi
lity
of th
e ci
ty a
nd th
e w
ider
tow
nsca
pe.
viii)
The
pro
visi
on o
f a h
igh-
qual
ity e
nviro
nmen
t for
th
ose
who
use
the
build
ings
.
ix) T
he s
usta
inab
ility
of t
he p
ropo
sal.
REG
ION
AL
POLI
CIE
S R
PG12
: Reg
iona
l Spa
tial S
trat
egy
(GO
YH, 2
003)
•
Reg
ener
atio
n of
are
as d
amag
ed b
y pa
st in
dust
rial d
eclin
e as
wel
l as
capi
talis
ing
on e
cono
mic
gro
wth
poi
nts;
•
See
king
wid
er h
ousi
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
and
choi
ce;
• M
akin
g fu
ll us
e of
urb
an la
nd a
nd m
inim
isin
g lo
ss o
f gre
enfie
ld la
nd;
• Ta
cklin
g ur
ban
traffi
c co
nges
tion
and
redu
cing
tran
spor
t rel
ated
em
issi
ons;
•
Mak
ing
urba
n ar
eas
mor
e at
tract
ive,
hig
h qu
ality
, saf
e pl
aces
whe
re
peop
le c
hose
to li
ve;
• M
inim
isin
g tra
vel n
eeds
and
max
imis
ing
use
of e
nerg
y ef
ficie
nt m
odes
; •
Lim
iting
pol
lutio
n to
wha
t is
com
patib
le w
ith h
ealth
and
bio
sphe
re
capa
city
.
Indi
cato
rs a
nd ta
rget
s gi
ven
for e
ach
grou
p of
pol
icie
s
Pro
posa
ls w
ill p
rovi
de p
olic
y co
ntex
t for
the
LDF
until
the
revi
sed
RS
S is
app
rove
d C
ore
stra
tegy
is to
del
iver
a m
ore
sust
aina
ble
regi
on.
Rev
ised
Reg
iona
l Spa
tial S
trat
egy
(Con
sulta
tion
Dra
ft)
Ref
ers
to th
e A
dvan
cing
Tog
ethe
r vis
ion
and
obje
ctiv
es (s
ee b
elow
)
A
dvan
cing
Tog
ethe
r : C
reat
ing
a B
ette
r Yor
kshi
re a
nd H
umbe
r (R
egio
nal A
ssem
bly,
200
3)
York
shire
and
Hum
ber w
ill:
• H
ave
a w
orld
cla
ss, p
rosp
erou
s an
d su
stai
nabl
e ec
onom
y •
Hav
e ph
ysic
al in
frast
ruct
ure
and
com
mun
icat
ions
whi
ch m
eet t
he
need
s of
peo
ple,
bus
ines
ses,
pla
ces
and
the
envi
ronm
ent.
• H
ave
a hi
gh q
ualit
y an
d m
an-m
ade
envi
ronm
ents
•
Be
a so
cial
ly in
clus
ive
and
cohe
sive
regi
on. O
ur p
eopl
e w
ill h
ave
the
capa
city
, res
ourc
es, a
nd e
quita
ble
acce
ss to
qua
lity
serv
ices
nee
ded
to
live
wel
l.
32 in
dica
tors
– s
ee a
lso
the
repo
rt ‘P
rogr
ess
in th
e re
gion
’ V
isio
n fo
r reg
iona
l dev
elop
men
t
Pro
vide
s th
e ov
erar
chin
g vi
sion
for t
he R
egio
nal S
patia
l D
evel
opm
ent F
ram
ewor
k
Reg
iona
l Eco
nom
ic S
trat
egy
for Y
orks
hire
and
the
Hum
ber 2
006-
15 (Y
orks
hire
For
war
d)
The
Stra
tegy
’s s
ix k
ey o
bjec
tives
are
: 1.
Mor
e bu
sine
sses
2.
Com
petit
ive
busi
ness
es
3. S
kille
d P
eopl
e 4.
To
conn
ect p
eopl
e to
goo
d jo
bs
5. E
nhan
ced
trans
port,
infra
stru
ctur
e an
d th
e en
viro
nmen
t 6.
Stro
nger
citi
es, t
owns
and
rura
l com
mun
ities
• R
aise
tota
l priv
ate
sect
or m
anuf
actu
ring
and
serv
ices
in
vest
men
t by
50%
from
£5.
3 bi
llion
s in
200
2 to
£8b
•
Red
uce
gree
nhou
se g
as e
mis
sion
s (C
O2
equi
vale
nt) b
y 20
-25
% o
ver 1
990
base
line
•
Cut
the
% o
f loc
al ‘s
uper
out
put a
reas
’ in
the
regi
on in
the
10%
mos
t dep
rived
nat
iona
lly fr
om 1
6% (i
n 20
04) t
o 13
% -
halv
ing
the
gap
to n
atio
nal a
vera
ge
Pro
vide
s th
e ec
onom
ic p
olic
y co
ntex
t for
the
LDF
whi
ch
prom
otes
:
• th
e gr
owth
of b
usin
ess
clus
ters
in k
now
ledg
e ba
sed
indu
strie
s •
loca
tion
of n
ew jo
bs in
pla
ces
whe
re c
omm
uniti
es c
an
easi
ly a
cces
s th
em w
ithou
t a c
ar
• re
new
able
ene
rgy,
ene
rgy
cons
erva
tion
and
redu
ctio
n in
gre
en h
ouse
gas
em
issi
ons.
Reg
iona
l Hou
sing
Str
ateg
y (R
egio
nal A
ssem
bly,
200
3)
• R
egen
erat
ion
and
neig
hbou
rhoo
d re
new
al.
• R
educ
e va
cant
s fro
m 4
.3%
to 3
.5%
by
2016
C
onte
xt fo
r hou
sing
pol
icie
s
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• P
rovi
sion
of s
uffic
ient
new
hom
es, c
reat
ing
mix
ed in
com
e an
d su
stai
nabl
e co
mm
uniti
es.
• Im
prov
ing
hom
es to
mee
t dec
ent s
tand
ards
and
asp
iratio
ns.
• Fa
ir ac
cess
to q
ualit
y ho
usin
g fo
r all
grou
ps.
• %
of a
ll so
cial
hou
sing
bec
omin
g va
cant
eac
h ye
ar
• N
umbe
r of p
rope
rties
sol
d at
less
than
£20
k to
be
redu
ced
to N
IL b
y 20
16.
• C
ompl
etio
ns o
f affo
rdab
le h
omes
•
No.
of h
omes
judg
ed u
nfit
by s
ecto
r •
No.
of s
ocia
l ren
ted
and
priv
ate
hom
es fa
iling
to m
eet
dece
nt h
omes
sta
ndar
d •
Red
uce
num
ber o
f hou
seho
lds
in fu
el p
over
ty b
y 20
10.
• Te
nant
and
resi
dent
sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith a
ccom
mod
atio
n re
porte
d fro
m s
tand
ard
STA
TUS
sur
veys
•
Mea
sure
of c
once
ntra
tion
of e
thni
c m
inor
ity h
ouse
hold
s •
% o
f eth
nic
min
ority
hou
seho
lds
in o
verc
row
ded
hom
es
• %
of p
eopl
e ag
ed 6
5+ in
hom
es w
hich
do
not h
ave
cent
ral
heat
ing
• N
o of
new
or c
onve
rted
hous
ing
for p
eopl
e w
ith s
peci
al
need
s •
No
of h
omes
ada
pted
to m
eet n
eeds
of p
eopl
e w
ith
disa
bilit
ies
Focu
ses
on th
e so
cial
asp
ects
of s
usta
inab
ility
– li
ttle
abou
t sus
tain
able
con
stru
ctio
n, fo
r exa
mpl
e.
Reg
iona
l Cul
tura
l Str
ateg
y In
clud
es 1
9 ob
ject
ives
for c
ultu
ral d
evel
opm
ent i
nclu
ding
: •
Est
ablis
h th
e pr
inci
ples
of s
usta
inab
ility
at t
he h
eart
of th
e re
gion
s cu
ltura
l dev
elop
men
t
C
onte
xt fo
r cul
tura
l dev
elop
men
t Li
nks
cultu
ral d
evel
opm
ent a
nd s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent
Reg
iona
l Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t Fra
mew
ork
Upd
ate
2003
-05
(Reg
iona
l Ass
embl
y, 2
003)
15
regi
onal
aim
s fo
r Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t: •
Goo
d qu
ality
em
ploy
men
t opp
ortu
nitie
s av
aila
ble
to a
ll •
Con
ditio
ns e
nabl
ing
busi
ness
suc
cess
, eco
nom
ic g
row
th a
nd
inve
stm
ent
• E
duca
tion
and
train
ing
oppo
rtuni
ties
build
ing
the
skill
s an
d ca
paci
ties
of
the
popu
latio
n •
Saf
ety
and
secu
rity
for p
eopl
e an
d pr
oper
ty
• C
ondi
tions
and
ser
vice
s en
gend
erin
g go
od h
ealth
•
Cul
ture
, lei
sure
and
recr
eatio
n op
portu
nitie
s av
aila
ble
to a
ll •
Vib
rant
com
mun
ities
par
ticip
atin
g in
dec
isio
n m
akin
g •
Loca
l nee
ds m
et lo
cally
•
A tr
ansp
ort n
etw
ork
max
imis
ing
acce
ss w
hils
t min
imis
ing
detri
men
tal
impa
cts
• A
qua
lity
built
env
ironm
ent a
nd e
ffici
ent l
and
use
patte
rns
mak
ing
good
us
e of
der
elic
t site
s, m
inim
isin
g •
Trav
el a
nd p
rom
otin
g ba
lanc
ed d
evel
opm
ent
• Q
ualit
y ho
usin
g av
aila
ble
to e
very
one
• A
bio
-div
erse
and
attr
activ
e na
tura
l env
ironm
ent
• M
inim
al p
ollu
tion
leve
ls
• M
inim
al g
reen
hous
e ga
s em
issi
ons
and
a m
anag
ed re
spon
se to
the
effe
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
•
Pru
dent
and
effi
cien
t use
of e
nerg
y an
d na
tura
l res
ourc
es w
ith m
inim
al
prod
uctio
n of
was
te
Incl
udes
36
indi
cato
rs o
f Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t but
no
spec
ific
targ
ets.
A
ims
and
obje
ctiv
es fo
r a s
usta
inab
le re
gion
Fr
amew
ork
for S
A in
the
regi
on
LOC
AL
POLI
CIE
S
Leed
s U
DP
(Ado
pted
200
1)
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
Inco
rpor
ates
four
spe
cific
stra
tegi
c go
als
and
a nu
mbe
r of t
hem
atic
stra
tegi
c ai
ms.
•
SG
1: to
use
the
mec
hani
sm o
f lan
d us
e pl
anni
ng to
hel
p to
coo
rdin
ate
all t
he a
ims
and
aspi
ratio
ns o
f the
Cou
ncil’
s st
rate
gic
initi
ativ
es, w
ith
the
inte
nt o
f im
prov
ing
the
qual
ity o
f life
for a
ll th
e re
side
nts
of L
eeds
an
d th
ose
who
use
the
city
; •
SG
2: to
mai
ntai
n an
d en
hanc
e th
e ch
arac
ter o
f the
Dis
trict
of L
eeds
; •
SG
3: to
ens
ure
that
the
legi
timat
e ne
eds
of th
e co
mm
unity
are
met
; •
SG
4: to
ens
ure
that
dev
elop
men
t is
cons
iste
nt w
ith th
e ai
ms
of
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent
E
xist
ing
polic
y co
ntex
t for
the
LDF
Exi
stin
g po
licy
cont
ext f
or s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent i
n sp
atia
l pla
nnin
g
Leed
s Ec
onom
ic S
trat
egy
(200
0)
• Th
at L
eeds
sho
uld,
ove
r the
nex
t ten
yea
rs, b
ecom
e a
maj
or E
urop
ean
City
; •
That
Lee
ds s
houl
d de
velo
p a
succ
essf
ul C
ity C
entre
whi
ch is
reno
wn
for i
ts a
ttrac
tive
envi
ronm
ent;
• Th
at L
eeds
sho
uld
stre
ngth
en a
nd b
road
en it
s ex
istin
g ec
onom
ic b
ase;
•
That
all
citiz
ens
of L
eeds
mus
t ben
efit
from
impr
ovem
ents
to th
e C
ity;
• Th
at L
eeds
sho
uld
beco
me
one
of E
urop
e’s
lead
ing
busi
ness
cen
tres;
•
That
Lee
ds s
houl
d be
com
e a
maj
or s
ocia
l and
cul
tura
l cen
tre.
Lo
cal e
cono
mic
pol
icy
cont
ext
Wes
t Yor
kshi
re L
ocal
Tra
nspo
rt P
lan
2 (2
006-
2011
) •
To d
evel
op a
nd m
aint
ain
an in
tegr
ated
tran
spor
t sys
tem
that
sup
ports
ec
onom
ic g
row
th in
a s
afe
and
sust
aina
ble
way
and
enh
ance
s th
e ov
eral
l qua
lity
of li
fe fo
r the
peo
ple
of W
est Y
orks
hire
. •
To im
prov
e ac
cess
to jo
bs, e
duca
tion
and
othe
r key
ser
vice
s fo
r ev
eryo
ne.
• To
redu
ce d
elay
s to
the
mov
emen
t of p
eopl
e an
d go
ods.
•
To im
prov
e sa
fety
for a
ll hi
ghw
ay u
sers
•
To li
mit
trans
port
emis
sion
s of
air
pollu
tant
s, g
reen
hous
e ga
ses
and
nois
e.
• To
impr
ove
the
cond
ition
of t
he tr
ansp
ort i
nfra
stru
ctur
e
• A
10%
incr
ease
in o
vera
ll cy
clin
g le
vels
by
2010
/11
• A
5%
incr
ease
in b
us p
atro
nage
by
2010
/11
• A
40%
redu
ctio
n in
the
num
ber o
f peo
ple
KS
I fro
m th
e 19
94/9
8 av
erag
e by
201
0, s
tretc
hed
to a
30%
redu
ctio
n fro
m
the
2002
/04
aver
age
by 2
010.
•
A 5
0% re
duct
ion
in th
e nu
mbe
r of c
hild
ren
KS
I fro
m th
e 19
94/9
8 av
erag
e by
201
0, s
tretc
hed
to a
40%
redu
ctio
n fro
m
the
2002
/04
aver
age
by 2
010.
•
A 1
0% re
duct
ion
NO
2 in
the
Leed
s A
QM
As.
•
No
mor
e th
an a
5%
incr
ease
in 1
6 ho
ur w
eekd
ay tr
affic
flow
s,
wei
ghte
d by
road
leng
th, a
t a re
pres
enta
tive
sam
ple
of s
ites
from
200
3/04
leve
ls b
y 20
10/1
1 •
A 2
0% re
duct
ion
in N
Ox
from
200
4/05
to 2
010/
11.
Loca
l tra
nspo
rt po
licy
cont
ext.
Red
ucin
g ro
ad tr
ansp
ort
rem
ains
the
key
issu
e fo
r tac
klin
g cl
imat
e ch
ange
.
Visi
on fo
r Lee
ds 2
004-
2020
– L
eeds
Com
mun
ity S
trat
egy
(Lee
ds In
itiat
ive,
200
4)
Gen
eral
Obj
ectiv
es:
• R
egen
erat
e an
d re
stor
e co
nfid
ence
in e
very
par
t of t
he c
ity
• C
eleb
rate
the
dist
inct
iven
ess
of a
ll pl
aces
in L
eeds
•
Pro
vide
cul
tura
l opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r eve
ryon
e •
Ach
ieve
reco
gniti
on a
s a
lead
ing
artis
tic, c
ultu
ral a
nd s
porti
ng c
ity
• C
reat
e fir
st c
lass
cul
tura
l fac
ilitie
s •
Tack
le s
ocia
l, ec
onom
ic a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal d
iscr
imin
atio
n an
d in
equi
ty
• G
et lo
cal p
eopl
e an
d bu
sine
sses
invo
lved
in th
eir o
wn
envi
ronm
ent
• R
educ
e th
e ne
ed to
trav
el
• C
reat
e a
sust
aina
ble
trave
l cul
ture
•
Pro
vide
a b
ette
r qua
lity
envi
ronm
ent f
or o
ur c
hild
ren
• E
xten
d th
e su
cces
s of
the
city
cen
tre to
inne
r city
are
as
• Ta
ckle
bas
ic e
nviro
nmen
tal p
robl
ems
A n
umbe
r of i
ndic
ator
s an
d ta
rget
s ar
e id
entif
ied
for e
ach
of th
e ei
ght p
olic
y th
emes
: Th
ese
incl
udes
targ
ets
for:
• B
uild
ing
at le
ast t
hree
new
hig
h-qu
ality
cul
tura
l fac
ilitie
s;
• In
crea
sing
the
wea
lth c
reat
ed in
Lee
ds a
nd th
e re
gion
eve
ry
year
; •
Cre
atin
g at
leas
t 50,
000
new
jobs
; •
Impr
ovin
g Le
eds’
and
the
regi
on’s
pro
duct
ivity
by
at le
ast
15%
; •
Mak
ing
sure
that
eve
ryon
e in
Lee
ds is
abl
e to
wal
k, o
r hav
e ea
sy a
cces
s, to
a lo
cal g
reen
are
a an
d be
abl
e to
see
a tr
ee
or g
reen
spa
ce w
here
ver t
hey
are;
•
Red
ucin
g th
e am
ount
of C
O2
prod
uced
by
20%
of 1
990
leve
ls a
nd s
uppo
rting
regi
onal
targ
ets
for e
lect
ricity
from
re
new
able
sou
rces
;
As
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy it
mus
t be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt
in p
repa
ring
the
LDF.
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• M
anag
e ou
r env
ironm
enta
l res
ourc
es m
ore
effic
ient
ly
• A
var
ied
econ
omy
• A
reco
gnis
ed a
nd d
istin
ctiv
e E
urop
ean
city
cen
tre
• A
n in
tern
atio
nal i
mag
e •
Dev
elop
Lee
ds R
ole
as th
e re
gion
al c
apita
l
• 80
% o
f dev
elop
men
t to
be o
n br
ownf
ield
land
; •
Res
trict
ing
traffi
c gr
owth
on
all r
oads
; •
Incr
easi
ng th
e us
e of
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort a
nd in
crea
sing
the
relia
bilit
y of
ser
vice
s;
• R
educ
ing
the
leve
ls o
f pol
lutio
n;
• A
ll re
side
nts
bein
g sa
tisfie
d w
ith th
eir h
omes
, loc
al
envi
ronm
ent a
nd n
eigh
bour
hood
; •
Win
ning
loca
l, na
tiona
l or i
nter
natio
nal a
war
ds fo
r the
qua
lity
of u
rban
des
ign
outs
ide
the
city
cen
tre;
• R
educ
ing
city
-wid
e cr
ime
leve
ls a
nd m
akin
g su
re th
at n
o in
divi
dual
com
mun
ity h
as c
rime
leve
ls m
ore
than
twic
e as
hi
gh a
s th
e ci
ty a
vera
ge;
• In
crea
sing
by
25%
the
num
ber o
f bus
ines
ses
in th
e in
ner-
city
are
a.
Le
eds
Hou
sing
Str
ateg
y 20
05/0
6 –
2009
/10
– Fi
nal D
raft
(Lee
ds H
ousi
ng P
artn
ersh
ip, 2
005)
St
rate
gic
Aim
1: T
o en
sure
that
all
neig
hbou
rhoo
ds a
cros
s th
e ci
ty a
re
“dec
ent p
lace
s” w
here
peo
ple
wan
t to
live
Stra
tegi
c A
im 2
: To
achi
eve
dece
nt h
omes
for a
ll Le
eds
resi
dent
s St
rate
gic
Aim
3: T
o ta
ckle
diff
icul
ties
or d
isad
vant
ages
in a
cces
sing
ho
usin
g or
hou
sing
ser
vice
s
Targ
ets
are
incl
uded
und
er e
ach
aim
incl
udin
g ta
rget
s fo
r im
prov
ing
the
hous
ing
stoc
k; c
omm
unity
saf
ety;
fuel
pov
erty
; he
alth
and
soc
ial c
ondi
tions
Key
inpu
t int
o LD
F K
ey a
spec
t of t
he s
ocia
l age
nda
for s
usta
inab
le
deve
lopm
ent
Leed
s C
ultu
ral S
trat
egy
(Lee
ds In
itiat
ive,
200
2)
• M
akin
g Le
eds
a vi
bran
t pla
ce in
whi
ch to
live
, wor
k, le
arn
and
play
by
prov
idin
g ex
celle
nt c
ultu
ral o
ppor
tuni
ties,
exp
erie
nces
and
faci
litie
s fo
r ev
eryo
ne;
• S
uppo
rt fo
r cre
ativ
e in
dust
ries;
•
Ope
ning
doo
rs to
cul
tura
l opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r the
man
y, n
ot th
e fe
w;
• A
cces
s to
goo
d qu
ality
and
affo
rdab
le c
ultu
ral a
men
ities
; •
Sup
porti
ng in
divi
dual
s an
d co
mm
uniti
es to
acq
uire
the
skill
s an
d kn
owle
dge
to re
alis
e th
eir f
ull p
oten
tial;
• A
ddin
g th
e cu
ltura
l tha
t a m
ajor
city
nee
ds to
hav
e, w
hils
t mai
ntai
ning
an
d re
stor
ing
exis
ting
faci
litie
s.
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs.
Cul
tura
l dev
elop
men
t is
a ke
y so
cial
issu
e
Tour
ism
Str
ateg
y 20
02-2
007
(Lee
ds In
itiat
ive,
200
3)
• To
add
ress
the
over
all i
mag
e of
the
city
and
its
bran
d po
sitio
n in
re
latio
n to
aud
ienc
es ta
rget
ed
• A
lter v
isito
r per
cept
ions
of o
verc
row
ding
; •
Furth
er e
nhan
ce c
omm
unity
and
vis
itor s
afet
y;
The
desi
gn a
nd lo
catio
n of
tall
build
ings
cou
ld h
ave
a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct o
n th
e ci
ty’s
sky
line
and
imag
e fo
r vi
sito
rs.
Safe
r Lee
ds S
trat
egy
2005
-200
8 (L
eeds
Initi
ativ
e, 2
005)
•
To re
duce
dom
estic
bur
glar
y, p
artic
ular
ly re
peat
vic
timis
atio
n.
•
To re
duce
crim
e by
35%
by
07/0
8 (fr
om 2
003/
04 le
vels
)
Incl
ude
sust
aina
bilit
y ob
ject
ive
to re
duce
crim
e le
vels
.
Leed
s R
egen
erat
ion
Plan
200
5-20
08 (L
eeds
Initi
ativ
e, 2
005)
En
viro
nmen
t •
prov
ide
bette
r-qu
ality
env
ironm
ents
in d
epriv
ed n
eigh
bour
hood
s w
hich
w
ill la
st fo
r fut
ure
gene
ratio
ns; a
nd
• m
ake
sure
that
opp
ortu
nitie
s in
the
city
cen
tre b
enef
it ne
ighb
ourin
g de
priv
ed a
reas
and
com
mun
ities
. H
arm
onio
us c
omm
uniti
es
Targ
ets
By
2008
: •
mak
e su
re th
at a
t lea
st 7
5% o
f cou
ncil
hous
ing
mee
ts th
e G
over
nmen
t’s s
tand
ard
for d
ecen
t hom
es;
• in
crea
se th
e pe
rcen
tage
of l
ocal
peo
ple
who
feel
they
bel
ong
to th
eir l
ocal
are
a; a
nd
Hig
h ris
e so
cial
hou
sing
, par
ticul
arly
thos
e de
sign
ed a
nd
built
in th
e 19
60s
and
1970
s, h
ave
been
ass
ocia
ted
with
a
num
ber o
f soc
ial p
robl
ems
in d
isad
vant
aged
co
mm
uniti
es.
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• ta
ckle
soc
ial,
econ
omic
and
env
ironm
enta
l dis
crim
inat
ion
and
ineq
ualit
y fa
ced
by p
artic
ular
com
mun
ities
; •
redu
ce c
rime
and
the
fear
of c
rime
Thriv
ing
plac
es
• m
ake
sure
that
impr
ovem
ents
to b
uild
ings
and
the
envi
ronm
ent b
enef
it lo
cal p
eopl
e
By
2010
: •
mak
e su
re th
at a
ll of
the
hous
ing
owne
d by
regi
ster
ed s
ocia
l la
ndlo
rds
mee
ts th
e G
over
nmen
t’s s
tand
ard
for d
ecen
t ho
mes
; and
•
mak
e su
re th
at a
t lea
st 7
0% o
f vul
nera
ble
priv
ate-
sect
or
hous
ehol
ds a
re li
ving
in d
ecen
t hom
es.
H
ealth
and
Wel
l-Bei
ng S
trat
egy
(Lee
ds In
itiat
ive)
Fo
ur k
ey o
bjec
tives
: •
Mak
e su
re th
at s
ocia
l eco
nom
ic a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal c
ondi
tions
pro
mot
e a
heal
thy
and
posi
tive
soci
ety;
•
Pro
tect
peo
ples
hea
lth, s
uppo
rt pe
ople
to s
tay
heal
thy
and
prom
ote
equa
l cha
nces
of g
ood
heal
th;
• P
rovi
de h
igh
qual
ity lo
ng-te
rm a
nd a
cces
sibl
e se
rvic
es to
thos
e w
ho
need
them
whe
n th
ey n
eed
them
; •
Mak
e su
re th
at e
very
one
can
play
as
full
a pa
rt in
soc
iety
as
they
wan
t by
redu
cing
bar
riers
.
Eig
ht in
dica
tors
are
iden
tifie
d to
mea
sure
pro
gres
s E
asy
acce
ss to
hea
lth fa
cilit
ies,
for r
esid
ents
of t
all
build
ings
par
ticul
ar th
ose
in o
r clo
se to
the
city
cen
tre is
an
impo
rtant
issu
e. P
oorly
des
igne
d hi
gh-r
ise
soci
al
hous
ing
has
also
bee
n as
soci
ated
with
hea
lth a
nd w
ell-
bein
g pr
oble
ms
City
Cen
tre
Urb
an D
esig
n St
rate
gy
• E
nhan
ce o
vera
ll qu
ality
of d
evel
opm
ent
• E
nhan
ce d
istin
ctiv
e qu
aliti
es o
f Lee
ds C
ity C
entre
’s s
treet
s an
d sp
aces
•
Iden
tify
area
s of
poo
r qua
lity
urba
n de
sign
and
pro
duce
pro
posa
ls fo
r im
prov
emen
t •
Rec
ogni
se a
nd e
ncou
rage
pro
tect
ion
of v
iew
s an
d id
entif
y op
portu
nitie
s fo
r ope
ning
up
new
vie
ws,
iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties
for
land
mar
ks/g
atew
ays
in th
e C
ity C
entre
, bal
ance
d w
ith m
ore
subs
ervi
ent b
uilt
form
s •
Impr
ove
mov
emen
t pat
tern
s, p
artic
ular
ly p
erm
eabi
lity
for t
he
pede
stria
n (e
xam
ine
the
rela
tions
hip
(diu
rnal
ly) b
etw
een
use
and
mov
emen
t pat
tern
) •
Pro
vide
a s
timul
us fo
r app
ropr
iate
dev
elop
men
t - g
ood
urba
n de
sign
is
impo
rtant
to m
aint
aini
ng a
pro
sper
ous
City
Cen
tre
• E
ncou
rage
gre
ater
pub
lic in
tere
st, i
nvol
vem
ent a
nd e
njoy
men
t of
Leed
s C
ity C
entre
•
Impr
ove
effic
ienc
y an
d ef
fect
iven
ess
in th
e co
ntro
l of d
evel
opm
ent •
P
rovi
de a
pro
activ
e ap
proa
ch to
mee
ting
the
dem
ands
and
asp
iratio
ns
of th
e U
nita
ry D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
(mod
ified
RU
DP
) - in
clud
ing
Pre
stig
e D
evel
opm
ent A
reas
•
Dev
elop
the
Qua
rters
app
roac
h se
t out
in th
e m
odifi
ed R
UD
P
parti
cula
rly in
rela
tion
to c
hara
cter
are
as o
f Lee
ds C
ity C
entre
•
Pro
vide
Con
serv
atio
n A
rea
App
rais
als
and
Enh
ance
men
t •
Stra
tegi
es o
f all
the
City
Cen
tre c
onse
rvat
ion
area
s (8
in to
tal)
and
asse
ss lo
cal d
istin
ctiv
enes
s of
the
sub-
area
s of
the
City
Cen
tre
Con
serv
atio
n A
rea
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
• S
ets
out t
he k
ey u
rban
des
ign
prin
cipl
es fo
r Lee
ds
City
Cen
tre w
hich
is li
kely
to b
e th
e m
ain
focu
s fo
r tal
l bu
ildin
g de
velo
pmen
ts.
• M
aps
build
ing
heig
hts
and
exis
ting
tall
build
ings
in th
e C
ity C
entre
•
Iden
tifie
s 9
dist
inct
ive
stud
y ar
eas
Nei
ghbo
urho
od fo
r Liv
ing
(Lee
ds C
ity C
ounc
il Su
pple
men
tary
Pla
nnin
g G
uida
nce,
200
3)
Key
obj
ectiv
es re
leva
nt to
Pla
n an
d SP
D
Key
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Impl
icat
ions
for S
PD a
nd S
A
• To
cre
ate
neig
hbou
rhoo
ds th
at re
spec
t the
loca
l con
text
, offe
r a c
hoic
e of
hou
sing
and
pro
vide
goo
d ac
cess
to c
ompl
emen
tary
loca
l fac
ilitie
s w
ithin
wal
king
dis
tanc
e.
• To
cre
ate
vita
lity,
with
incr
ease
d de
velo
pmen
t den
sitie
s su
ppor
ting
a ra
nge
of s
ervi
ces,
mix
ed u
ses
and
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
• To
cre
ate
conn
ecte
d la
yout
s th
at p
rovi
de c
hoic
e, a
nd im
prov
e ac
cess
to
faci
litie
s an
d pu
blic
tran
spor
t •
To d
evel
op a
fram
ewor
k of
con
nect
ed s
pace
s th
at re
spec
t all
user
s by
of
ferin
g a
safe
attr
activ
e en
viro
nmen
t for
all
• To
cre
ate
safe
and
sec
ure
plac
es w
ith e
ffect
ive
natu
ral s
urve
illan
ce
• To
pro
vide
wel
l des
igne
d pr
ivat
e an
d se
mi-p
rivat
e op
en s
pace
for a
ll dw
ellin
gs, a
ppro
pria
te to
the
desi
gn c
hara
cter
of t
he a
rea
• To
pro
vide
a v
arie
d ne
twor
k of
attr
activ
e, u
sabl
e an
d sa
fe p
ublic
ly
acce
ssib
le s
pace
s •
To p
rovi
de a
ppro
pria
te p
arki
ng a
t dis
cree
t but
saf
e lo
catio
ns w
ithin
de
velo
pmen
t •
To re
tain
exi
stin
g im
porta
nt s
peci
es a
nd h
abita
ts a
nd m
axim
ise
oppo
rtuni
ties
for h
abita
t enh
ance
men
t, cr
eatio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t •
To e
nsur
e th
at p
ropo
sals
resp
ect t
he lo
cal c
hara
cter
by
enha
ncin
g th
e po
sitiv
e at
tribu
tes
whi
lst m
itiga
ting
nega
tive
aspe
cts
• To
pro
vide
bui
lt fo
rms
that
con
tribu
te p
ositi
vely
to th
e to
wns
cape
whi
lst
resp
ectin
g th
e sc
ale
of a
djac
ent s
pace
s •
To c
reat
e go
od d
esig
n th
at re
spec
ts k
ey v
iew
s, la
ndm
arks
, and
foca
l po
ints
•
To c
reat
e hi
gh q
ualit
y bu
ildin
g de
sign
with
app
ropr
iate
ly d
esig
ned
elem
ents
•
To d
evel
op w
here
ver p
ossi
ble
on b
row
nfie
ld s
ites
with
effi
cien
t ene
rgy
use,
min
imis
ing
was
te p
rodu
ctio
n an
d po
llutio
n •
To s
afeg
uard
priv
acy
and
amen
ity
No
spec
ific
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs
Set
s ou
t key
urb
an d
esig
n ob
ject
ives
for r
esid
entia
l dev
elop
men
ts
Ren
aiss
ance
Lee
ds
Abo
ut c
ontin
uity
and
tran
sfor
mat
ion
in a
dyn
amic
and
div
erse
city
. N
o re
leva
nt ta
rget
s.
Pro
vide
s ba
ckgr
ound
and
a s
igni
fican
t the
me
to b
e de
velo
ped.
P
rodu
ced
prop
osal
s fo
r a w
ell c
onne
cted
city
and
prin
cipl
es to
gui
de d
evel
opm
ent o
f a
sust
aina
ble
city
.
A
ppen
dix
3 R
espo
nse
to S
copi
ng R
epor
t Com
men
ts fr
om S
tatu
tory
B
odie
s an
d ot
her S
take
hold
ers
R
espo
nses
wer
e re
ceiv
ed fr
om E
nglis
h H
erita
ge a
nd E
nviro
nmen
t Age
ncy.
Eng
lish
Nat
ure
and
Yor
kshi
re F
orw
ard
also
resp
onde
d bu
t bot
h st
ated
that
they
had
no
com
men
ts
t
o m
ake
abou
t the
doc
umen
t at t
his
stag
e bu
t wel
com
ed o
ppor
tuni
ties
for i
nvol
vem
ent
a
s th
e gu
ide
is p
rogr
esse
d.
O
rgan
isat
ion
Com
men
t R
espo
nse
Env
ironm
enta
l Age
ncy
Pot
entia
l use
of b
uild
ing
and
its p
ossi
ble
loca
tion
with
in
an a
rea
of fl
ood
risk
Nee
d to
inco
rpor
ate
the
need
to m
anag
e th
e flo
od
risk
e.g.
A S
trate
gic
Floo
d R
isk
Ass
essm
ent –
par
t of
Env
ironm
enta
l ris
k as
sess
men
ts.
Eng
lish
Her
itage
C
once
rns
abou
t the
ba
selin
e in
form
atio
n e.
g.
does
it o
nly
appl
y to
the
2 ex
istin
g co
nser
vatio
n ar
eas.
Im
pact
of t
all b
uild
ings
on
hist
oric
bui
ldin
gs, t
heir
setti
ngs
and
char
acte
r ou
tsid
e th
e co
nser
vatio
n ar
eas
- par
ticul
arly
vis
ual
harm
. W
ider
env
ironm
enta
l effe
cts
of ta
ll bu
ildin
gs o
n ot
her
hist
oric
ass
ets
e.g.
par
ks
and
gard
ens.
Li
aiso
n w
ith c
onse
rvat
ion
offic
ers
reco
mm
ende
d.
Impo
rtant
key
vie
ws
and
setti
ngs
to b
e pr
otec
ted
from
the
prox
imity
of t
all
build
ings
by
geom
etric
de
finiti
on :
key
visu
al
cone
s on
pla
n an
d ar
eas
of e
xclu
sion
to b
e in
dica
ted
in g
uide
to
supp
lem
ent c
onse
rvat
ion
area
s to
geth
er w
ith
phot
ogra
phic
imag
es
indi
catin
g th
e im
plic
atio
n of
vis
ual h
arm
in
back
grou
nds
to h
isto
ric
asse
ts.
Con
serv
atio
n of
ficer
s in
volv
ed w
ith in
tern
al a
nd
exte
rnal
wor
ksho
ps.
Leeds Local Development Framework
Supplementary Planning DocumentNovember 2007
Contact Details
Write to: Henry SkrzypeckiUrban Design OfficerSustainable Development UnitLeeds City CouncilThoresby House, Level 32 Rossington StreetLEEDS LS2 8HD
Telephone: 0113 39 50638
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.leeds.gov.uk/ldf