Chidswell & Kirklees

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Samantha Kerr (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Leeds City Council,

I refer to your disclosure at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Under FOIA can you please provide please provide all correspondence including but not limited
to and not exclusive of exchange of letters emails/minutes of meetings and
ministerial briefs (official sensitive information can be redacted)
including telephone calls & records, text messages, conference calls & records etc. In relation to any undertaking Leeds Council have in this development.

Please advise if Leeds Council have responsible to HM treasury for the reporting of funding spent or would Kirklees be responsible for this?

Please supply all detail in electronic format, and within the 20 day time scale

Yours faithfully,

S Kerr

DPFOI, Leeds City Council

Dear Ms. Kerr

Freedom of information request Ref 20475 : Correspondences relating to proposed development at Chidswell in Kirklees

Thank you for your request for the above information which we received 11, February 2018. We will respond to your request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

We have passed your request onto Richard Brook, Information Governance Officer, City Development, [email address] who will arrange a response within the appropriate statutory time limit.

Please remember to quote reference number FOI 20475 in any future communications.

Yours sincerely

Malika Doust
Information Governance Support Officer
Information Governance and Managements Team (City and Communities)
Digital Information Service

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

IMG.CC.requests, Leeds City Council

5 Atodiad

Dear Ms. Kerr

 

FOI Request: Proposed Development at Chidswell in Kirklees

 

I write in response to your above Freedom of Information request, received
in this office on 11 February 2018.

 

In dealing with your request, please note that we have considered it under
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as opposed to under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is because the information you have
requested is information involving ‘activities’ and ‘administrative
measures’ which are likely to affect elements of the environment under Reg
2(1)(c).  I am advised that both the domestic and European courts give
wide meaning to the Regulations and have indicated that they will adopt a
broad construction of the definition of environmental information.

Your request asked:

 

I refer to your disclosure at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

 

Under FOIA can you please provide please provide all correspondence
including but not limited to and not exclusive of exchange of letters
emails/minutes of meetings and ministerial briefs (official sensitive
information can be redacted) including telephone calls & records, text
messages, conference calls & records etc. In relation to any undertaking
Leeds Council have in this development.

 

Please advise if Leeds Council have responsible to HM treasury for the
reporting of funding spent or would Kirklees be responsible for this?

 

The information below is in reference to the development of the Chidswell
Site and meetings directly with Leeds City Council Planning or through the
Strategic (Planning) Duty to Co-Operate group.

Table of Attachments and/or other information:

Filename Description
Chidswell Note for Leeds.docx A short note from November 2016 from
Kirklees to outlining the proposed
details of the Chidswell site (MX1905)
including proposed indicative delivery
timescales.
Copy of DTC meeting sites.xlsx A Spreadsheet created by Leeds City
Council identifying sites that would
needs to be addressed through the DtC
process.
Leeds Comment Nov2016.docx Specific comments from Leeds City
Council to Kirklees on Kirklees
proposed sites.
Notes of DtC meeting Leeds-Kirklees Specific comments from Leeds City
5-3-15.docx Council to Kirklees on Kirklees
proposed sites.
North Kirklees.jpg Map including Chidswell (Kirklees)
site
Tingley.jpg Map including Tingley (Leeds) site
Appendix 1: Below Excerpts from Strategic DtC (Planning)
Meetings

 
Appendix 1:

1 - Kirklees CS Extracts.doc – 24/04/2012

 

6.7       As described in paragraphs 5.32 – 5.42, if the need for new jobs
is to be provided for, new land is required for employment in locations
around Kirklees. In most of these locations it will be necessary to change
green belt boundaries to accommodate the necessary development which will
take the form of urban extensions (see policy SCS23).  As described in
paragraph 5.49 it will also be necessary to change green belt boundaries
to accommodate housing pressures in south Dewsbury and to provide for
housing development associated with provision for employment and north of
Chidswell, Dewsbury (see policy SCS25)[1][1]. In addition, when
determining where new housing provision should be made in each settlement
tier, it may be that green belt sites are shown to offer more sustainable
opportunities for urban extensions than non green belt alternatives. In
these cases it will be necessary to consider the extent to which the
removal of the land in question from the green belt would be contrary to
the purposes of including land in the green belt specified in PPG2. Where
the green belt boundary change would result in significant conflict with
one or more of the specified purposes it would not be appropriate to
allocate the land for development. In this context policy SCS1B sets out
how green belt boundaries will be revised.

 

SCS1B

Green belt boundaries will be revised:

 

i) To accommodate development at the following strategic locations (see
key diagram 1):

SL1 Cooper Bridge, Huddersfield: employment (see policy SCS23)

SL2 Chidswell, Dewsbury: employment and housing (see policies SCS23 and
SCS25)

SL3 South Dewsbury: housing (see policy SCS25)

 

ii) To accommodate urban extensions which are in accordance with policy
SCS1A and SCS23, provided that any boundary change would not significantly
prejudice the purposes of the green belt specified in PPG2

 

Policy SCS23 Provision of employment land

 

240 hectares of land for employment will be provided in the following
locations:

 

 

Location Hectares

 
Strategic Locations:
Huddersfield – Cooper Bridge (SL1)[2][2] 42
Dewsbury – A653 north-east of Chidswell (SL2)[3][3] 35
Urban Extensions:
Birstall area (more than one site may be allocated) 15
Cleckheaton area (more than one site may be allocated) 10
Clayton West 15
Meltham 5
UDP allocations (> 5 hectares):
Lindley 31
Slipper Lane, Mirfield 11
Birstall Smithies 5
Previously developed unallocated land:
Kirklees Strategic Economic Zone (KSEZ) 15
Other sites:

 

 

2 - Kirklees 2012-04-17 DTC LCR.DOC – 24/04/2012

 

3 It is suggested that the potential “strategic matters[4][4]” raised by
the Kirklees core strategy are as follows:

a.    the housing requirement (2010-28) being set at 22,470, 27% less than
RSS when other authorities are broadly meeting their RSS requirement

b.    the requirement for new jobs (2010-2028) being set at 37,533

c.    the transport implications of the proposed distribution of
development

d.    the location and scale of green belt release for employment (Cooper
Bridge, Chidswell, Cleckheaton, Birstall, Clayton West and Meltham) and
housing (Chidswell and south Dewsbury)

e.    the range of employment proposed in out of centre locations

 

c Transport (see key diagram)

The core strategy proposals have taken account of the LCR transport
strategy and have been discussed with the HA. There have been discussions
with Calderdale re the strategic proposal at Cooper Bridge and with Leeds
and Wakefield re the strategic proposal at Chidswell.

d Location and scale of green belt release for employment and housing (see
appendix p11 for relevant core strategy text)

Releases close to the Kirklees boundary – at Cooper Bridge and Chidswell –
could have an impact on green belt in Calderdale and Leeds and Wakefield.

e The range of employment proposed in out of centre locations (see
appendix p12 for relevant core strategy text)

Policy SCS22 permits office development on existing and allocated
employment sites where an applicant can demonstrate that there is no
suitable or available site in or on the edge of the nearest town centre.
Under this policy offices could be established at Cooper Bridge and
Chidswell, with possible implications for town centres in Calderdale and
Wakefield.

 

 

3 - Item 4a Kirklees 2012-05-18 DtC table v1.doc – 18/05/2012

 

Strategic issue Areas affected Information Resolution/mitigation
3 Potential for Calderdale Policy SCS22 Kirklees to consult
office location (Brighouse allows for Calderdale or Wakefield
policy to potentially office use on when considering
prejudice affected by employment sites “leapfrog” office
investment in Cooper Bridge rather than edge proposals for Cooper
edge of centre development) of centre Bridge or Chidswell
locations in Wakefield locations when
neighbouring (Wakefield city capacity in
areas centre nearest centres
potentially not suitable or
affected by available
Chidswell
development)
4 Pressure on      
strategic
transport      
network:
b M62 J28 Leeds, Accommodating Landowner is undertaking
Wakefield Chidswell some minimal specific
development gravity modelling to
potentially understand the level and
affects M62/M621 distribution of trips on
the network.  This
focuses on the A653.
After discussions with HA
and interrogating their
model it has been
verbally agreed that
provision of minor
junction improvements
will be needed
5 Pressure on Leeds, Accommodating Need to agree whether
local transport Wakefield Chidswell models exist to test the
network: development impact of trips on the
potentially local road network. If
Chidswell(1) affects Tingley not then Kirklees will
& Ossett seek to increase the
scope of local models to
take Chidswell into
account. Then need to

agree improvements needed
on basis of local
modelling
6 Potential for Calderdale, Cooper Bridge Agree limits of GB
green belt Leeds, proposals abuts release in Kirklees which
releases to Wakefield Calderdale will avoid adverse
prejudice boundary; impacts on GB in
purposes of Chidswell neighbouring areas
green belt in narrows GB
neighbouring separation of
areas Kirklees, Leeds
& Wakefield

 

 

4 – ITEM 3 LCR update.doc – 21/05/2012

 

Appendix B Cross Boundary Impacts

 

Briefing for Leaders Private Meeting – 2^nd Feb 12 (updated)

This note sets out the detailed responses from individual authorities to
the request made (following a discussion at the Chief Executives meeting
in November) for information on cross boundary impacts of development. It
provides background for you to aid the discussion of this matter in the
public meeting

 

Current Cross Boundary Issues

Kirklees

Chidswell which lies to the north of Dewsbury and south of the M62 at
junction 28. This has significant  cross boundary interactions with both
Wakefield and Leeds. In particularly there are common transport issues
that need to be considered in a strategic sense. The site, which comprises
35 hectares of employment land and 500 homes, is within the Green Belt at
present. The presence of this allocation will make the A653 corridor
between Dewsbury and Leeds strategically significant particularly when one
takes into account aspirations in and around South Leeds and Morley.

 

Leeds

Kirklees Core Strategy (concern re. housing proposals at Chidswell for 500
dwellings)

 

Wakefield

Chidswell, cross boundary implications with Wakefield - see Kirklees
above. 

 

 

5 – 2012-05-31 DtC table v2.doc – 03/07/2012

 

DRAFT 2 Kirklees LDF core strategy: duty to co-operate

 

Ref Strategic Impact Areas Evidence Resolution / Monitoring Actions / NPPF Para
Issue affected Mitigation Response 156 link
Ref Summary of Description Details of Evidence to Details of How the Agreed actions Relevant
the issue of why it is the show there is how the issue issue will (including who strategic
an issue for authorities an issue can be be lead & priority
neighbouring affected by (including overcome or monitored timescale) in para
authorities the issue links to managed including 156
source key
documents) indicators
and
trigger
points
4b M62 J28   Leeds, Accommodating Landowner is   Highways  
Wakefield Chidswell undertaking colleagues
development some minimal collaborating
potentially specific
affects gravity
M62/M621 modelling to
understand
the level and
distribution
of trips on
the network. 
This focuses
on the A653.
After
discussions
with HA and
interrogating
their model
it has been
verbally
agreed that
provision of
minor
junction
improvements
will be
needed

 
5 Pressure on   Leeds, Accommodating Need to agree      
local Wakefield Chidswell whether
transport development models exist
network: potentially to test the
affects impact of
Chidswell(1) Tingley & trips on the
Ossett local road
network. If
not then
Kirklees will
seek to
increase the
scope of
local models
to take
Chidswell
into account.
Then need to
agree
improvements
needed on
basis of
local
modelling
6 Proposed Possible Calderdale, Cooper Bridge Agree limits   LCC would want  
green belt prejudice to Leeds, proposals of GB release to be involved
releases at purposes of Wakefield abuts in Kirklees in any
Cooper green belt Calderdale which will narrowing of
Bridge and in boundary; avoid adverse gaps between
Chidswell neighbouring Chidswell impacts on GB Leeds/Kirklees
areas narrows GB in settlements. 
separation of neighbouring Await
Kirklees, areas? Note Kirklees’ note
Leeds & to be for comment.
Wakefield circulated

 

 

6 – 2012-07-30 DtC table v3 (revised after the meeting).doc – 31/05/2012

 

DRAFT 3

Kirklees LDF core strategy: duty to co-operate

Leeds city region authorities

 

Ref Strategic Impact Areas Evidence Resolution / Monitoring Actions / NPPF Para
Issue affected Mitigation Response 156 link
Ref Summary of Description Details of Evidence to Details of How the Agreed Relevant
the issue of why it is the show there is how the issue issue will actions strategic
an issue for authorities an issue can be be (including priority
neighbouring affected by (including overcome or monitored who is to in para
authorities the issue links to managed including lead & 156
source key timescale)
documents) indicators
and
trigger
points
4b M62 J28   Leeds, Accommodating Landowner is      
Wakefield Chidswell undertaking
development some minimal
potentially specific
affects gravity
M62/M621 modelling to
understand
the level and
distribution
of trips on
the network. 
This focuses
on the A653.
After
discussions
with HA and
interrogating
their model
it has been
verbally
agreed that
provision of
minor
junction
improvements
will be
needed
5 Pressure on   Leeds, Accommodating Need to agree      
local Wakefield Chidswell whether
transport development models exist
network: potentially to test the
affects impact of
Chidswell(a) Tingley & trips on the
Ossett local road
network. If
not then
Kirklees will
seek to
increase the
scope of
local models
to take
Chidswell
into account.
Then need to
agree
improvements
needed on
basis of
local
modelling
6 Proposed Possible Calderdale Cooper Bridge Discussions N/A Cooper  
green belt prejudice to (Cooper proposals continuing Bridge: ?
releases at purposes of Bridge), abuts with
Cooper green belt Leeds, Calderdale Calderdale. Chidswell:
Bridge and in Wakefield boundary; none
Chidswell neighbouring (Chidswell) Chidswell Leeds and
areas narrows GB Wakefield are
separation of satisfied
Kirklees, that the
Leeds & Chidswell
Wakefield proposal will
not prejudice
green belt
purposes

 

 

7 – 2012-08-24 DtC table for cab rpt LCR.docx – 27/09/2012

 

DRAFT FOR CABINET 11/09/2012

Kirklees LDF core strategy: duty to co-operate

 

Ref Strategic Impact Areas/bodies Evidence Resolution / Monitoring Actions / NPPF Para 156
Issue affected Mitigation Response link
Ref Summary Description Details of Evidence to Details of How the Agreed Relevant
of the of why it is the show there is how the issue issue will actions strategic
issue an issue for authorities an issue can be be (including priority in
neighbouring affected by (including overcome or monitored who is to para 156
authorities the issue links to managed including lead &
source key timescale)
documents) indicators
and
trigger
points
4 Pressure on strategic transport network  
4b M62 J28 Potential Highways Preliminary The level of n/a To be Provision of
for Agency NAT modelling mitigation determined infrastruct-ure
disruption suggests that required has in the
of accommodating not yet been light of
the  identified the
traffic Chidswell but the HA modelling
flows on the development has indicated
M62 (in addition that there
to that will be an
planned in expectation
Leeds) will for the
require developer/
further developers
improvement (where a
than those number of
planned under proposals
the Agency’s have a
LNMS (a cumulative
funding impact) to
programme contribute to
that any
addresses improvements.
existing
capacity  
issues)
Clearly the
level of
contribution
from each
developer in
Kirklees
(including
but maybe
only
Chidswell)/
Leeds and
possibly the
Local
Authority,
will need to
be carefully
determined.

 

 

 

 

 
6 Proposed Possible Calderdale Cooper Bridge Discussions N/A Cooper  
green prejudice to (Cooper proposals continuing Bridge: ?
belt purposes of Bridge), abuts with
releases green belt Leeds, Calderdale Calderdale. Chidswell:
at Cooper in Wakefield boundary; none
Bridge neighbouring (Chidswell) Chidswell Leeds and
and areas narrows GB Wakefield are
Chidswell separation of satisfied
Kirklees, that the
Leeds & Chidswell
Wakefield proposal will
not prejudice
green belt
purposes

 

 

8 – Kirklees Duty to Cooperate (6Dec12).doc – 17/01/2013

 

Ref Strategic Impact Areas/bodies Evidence Resolution / Monitoring Actions / NPPF Para 156
Issue affected Mitigation Response link
Ref Summary Description Details of Evidence to Details of How the Agreed actions Relevant
of the of why it is the show there how the issue issue will (including who strategic
issue an issue for authorities is an issue can be be is to lead & priority in
neighbouring affected by (including overcome or monitored timescale) para 156
authorities the issue links to managed including
source key
documents) indicators
and
trigger
points
4 Pressure on strategic transport network  
4b M62 J28 Potential Highways Preliminary The level of N/A The Highways Provision of
for Agency modelling mitigation Agency has infrastructure
disruption suggests that required has made a
of accommodating not yet been representation
the Chidswell identified supporting
traffic development but the HA proposals and
flows and (in addition has indicated requesting
capacity to that that there refinement to
issues on planned in will be an the highways
the M62 Leeds) will expectation proposals. it
require for the is accepted
further developer/ that this
improvement developers refinement
than those (where a will take
planned under number of place as
the Agency’s proposals proposals come
LNMS (a have a forward but
funding cumulative will be
programme impact) to carried out in
that contribute to such a way to
addresses any ensure that 
existing improvements. the impact of
capacity new
issues)   development
will need to
Clearly the be regulated
level of and mitigated
contribution to ensure that
from each it does not
developer in compromise the
Kirklees effectiveness
(including of the
but maybe Motorway
only network and
Chidswell)/ junctions
Leeds and under the
possibly the Highways
Local Agency control
Authority, to accommodate
will need to traffic
be carefully movement
determined. safely and
effectively
6 Proposed Possible Calderdale Cooper Bridge Define new N/A Calderdale  
green prejudice to (Cooper proposal green belt have made a
belt purposes of Bridge), abuts boundaries representation
releases green belt Leeds, Calderdale making use of that
at Cooper in Wakefield boundary; existing exceptional
Bridge neighbouring (Chidswell) Chidswell landscape circumstances
and areas narrows green features to justifying
Chidswell belt minimise release of
separation of adverse green belt at
Kirklees, impacts on Cooper Bridge
Leeds and purposes of have not been
Wakefield. green belt in adequately
these demonstrated.
Kirklees locations. The
Green Belt exceptional
Review circumstances
(November, justification
2011) for green belt
assesses the release will
potential be tested at
impact on the examination.
purposes of Calderdale and
green belt in Kirklees have
these agreed to have
locations. further
The Strategic discussions on
Locations this matter.
Assessment
(September Wakefield have
2012) sets made a
out the representation
exceptional stating that
circumstances the Chidswell
for green proposal will
belt release. not undermine
the strategic
function of
the green belt
in this
locality.

Leeds have not
made a
representation
but “notes the
substantial
development
proposals in
the green belt
between West
Ardsley and
Chidswell.
There is
concern about
the scale of
intrusion into
the green belt
and the extent
to which the
relatively
narrow gap
between the
communities is
reduced even
further.”

Kirklees
consider that
the
preparation of
the LDF
allocations
document
(DPD2)
provides the
opportunity to
mitigate
impact on the
green belt
through the
definition of
allocation
boundaries.

 

 

 

9 – Leeds-Kirklees Meeting 14-1-13.doc – 18/01/2013

 

Leeds Core Strategy Pre-Submission Duty to Cooperate Meeting with Kirklees
14/1/13

 

Present:               Patrick Auterson, Planning Manager

                                Sarah Lewis, Planner

                                Tim Harvey, Leeds Project Manager
Transport Initiatives

                                Robin Coghlan, Leeds Planning Policy Team
Leader

                                David Feeney, Head of Forward Planning and
Implementation

 

Agenda:               i) address issues identified in Leeds’ DtC table

 

Aim:                      To agree one of the following conclusions on
each of the issues:

                                A.  no longer an issue of material
significance

                                B.  differences remain that may be left to
the Planning Inspector

                                C.  the measures proposed to resolve the
issue by Leeds are accepted as satisfactory mitigation

 

Issues raised through Leeds’ DtC Table

 

1.              2 Scale of employment growth and the role of Leeds

1.1.         SL – Leeds’ quantum of growth is not an issue for Kirklees
subject to two provisos:

i) when planning applications for offices and other town centre uses are
made, it would be helpful if Leeds makes sure that sequential test
exercises consider town centre opportunities of neighbouring authorities

ii) dialogue needed for the Morley area in terms of plans for employment
growth.  Coupled with employment growth at Chidswell, is the market being
flooded?

 

 

10 – Developing the Narrative on green belt change V2 11Apr13.docx –
17/04/2013

 

Kirklees

 

Methodology described in a Core document (written in 2013) for the
submission draft of the Core Strategy.

 

A sieving process has been used

·         Exceptional circumstances provide the first stage of the sieve
as these determined that release of land from the green belt is only
required for strategic employment purposes.

·         Key attributes of employment land identified which narrows the
search area for sites

·         Sites with the requisite attributes are then tested against the
5 purposes of the green belt

 

One site at Chidswell also includes a housing component to the development
to help address the mismatch between existing housing in the area and
housing need; and to provide an enhancement to land values to enable the
employment opportunity to be brought forward.

 

 

11 – DtC 290915 – Minutes.docx

 

1.            Kirklees Local Plan – moving toward Publication

1.1.       RH explained that, as a consequence of meeting timings,
Kirklees had already reported to the Portfolio Holders Board.  The local
plan is shaping up, as advised by REM modelling, to deliver 32000 new
jobs, primarily in the advanced manufacturing sector.  Edge Analytics have
advised on the need for 30000 homes (1630pa) which is higher than the HH
projections, taking account of REM growth.  A supply of 3½ years of
safeguarded land is proposed.  For Gypsies and Travellers 12 permanent and
8 transit pitches are needed, with 4 further pitches for Travelling
Showpeople.

 

1.2.       In terms of site proposals, there are 3 major urban extensions:
Chidswell (1500 dwellings 35ha employment land), South Dewsbury (4500
dwellings with 2500 in the plan period) and North Huddersfield (Cooper
Bridge).  A Gypsy and Traveller site is proposed at Birstall.

12 – DtC 241115 – Item 3 – Minutes 29 September 2015.docx – 20/11/2015

 

8.            Kirklees Local Plan – Moving Towards Publication

8.1          RH explained that, as a consequence of meeting timings,
Kirklees had already reported to the Portfolio Holders Board.  The local
plan is shaping up, as advised by REM modelling, to deliver 32000 new
jobs, primarily in the advanced manufacturing sector.  Edge Analytics have
advised on the need for 30000 homes (1630pa) which is higher than the HH
projections, taking account of REM growth.  A supply of 3½ years of
safeguarded land is proposed.  For Gypsies and Travellers 12 permanent and
8 transit pitches are needed, with 4 further pitches for Travelling
Showpeople.

 

8.2          In terms of site proposals, there are 3 major urban
extensions: Chidswell (1500 dwellings 35ha employment land), South
Dewsbury (4500 dwellings with 2500 in the plan period) and North
Huddersfield (Cooper Bridge).  A Gypsy and Traveller site is proposed at
Birstall.

I trust that this response is satisfactory. Under Regulation 11, however,
you are entitled to make representations to us if it appears that we have
failed to comply with a requirement of the Regulations in relation to your
request. Representations must be made to us no later than 40 working days
after the date you believe we failed to comply with such a requirement.

 

We will then consider your representations and supporting evidence and
decide if we have complied, notifying you of our decision as soon as
possible, and no later than 40 working days after the date of receipt of
your representations.

 

Under Regulation 18, you are then entitled to apply to the Information
Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any specified respect, your
request has not been dealt with in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of the
Regulations.

 

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can write to
the following address: Office of the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

 

You may also contact the Commissioner via his website at [5]www.ico.gov.uk

 

I trust that this is self-explanatory.  If you have any queries please
contact me on 0113 3787100, or by return email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Richard Brook,

Information Governance Officer,

Information Management and Governance,

Digital and Information Service,

Leeds City Council.

Tel: 0113 37 87118

Email: [6][email address]

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir