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: ldf@leeds.gov.uk

Web: www.leeds.gov.uk/ldf