leisure, recreation and open space local plan retail and ......

Local Development Framework

www.wakefield.gov.uk

A N E W V I S I O N F O R D E V E L O P I N G W A K E F I E L D D I S T R I C T

Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local PlanRetail and Town Centre Local Plan

Examination

Modifications

Andrew Wallhead, Corporate DirectorRegeneration and Economic Growth Wakefield Council July 2016

Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local PlanRetail and Town Centre Local Plan

Examination

Modifications

1

Information

This document is available to view and download on the Council’s website at: www.wakefield.gov.uk/ldf. Copies are also available to view at main libraries and Council offices. If you would like to talk to a planning officer working on the Local Development Framework about any aspect of this document please contact the Spatial Policy Group on (01924) 306417. If you would like an extract or summary of this document on cassette, in large type, in Braille or any other format, please call the Spatial Policy Group on (01924) 306417.

Planning Aid England provides a free, independent and professional planning advice service

to individuals and groups who cannot afford professional fees. Please visit

www.planningaid.co.uk for more information and to access a range of guidance notes. A free

email advice service can be accessed by sending details to: [email protected]

http://www.planningaid.co.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

3

Contents:

1. Introduction 5

2. Main Modifications to the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan 9

3. Minor Modifications to the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan 13

4. Main Modifications to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan 17

5. Minor Modifications to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan 31

6. Sustainability Appraisal 35

7. Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report 61

5

Chapter 1

Introduction

7

The Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan (LROS) sets out policies and

site allocations to promote leisure development, opportunities for the provision, use,

protection and enhancement of leisure, recreation and open space within the

Wakefield district. The Retail and Town Centre Local Plan (RTC) sets out policies

and land allocations promoting retail and town centre uses within the Wakefield

district. The Local Plans will be used to bring forward development proposals and to

assess such proposals. Both plans were submitted to the Secretary of State for

public examination to allow an independent Planning Inspector to assess their

soundness and legal compliance.

The Inspector held public hearings on 14 and 15 June 2016. The Council requested,

prior to the hearings, the inspector recommend main modifications to both plans as

part of the examination. The examination is on-going and the Council is consulting on

the main modifications to provide an opportunity for people to make comments.

For each Local Plan a separate chapter lays out the main and minor modifications.

Please note only the main modifications and accompanying sustainability

appraisal are open to comment by the public. Minor modifications are provided for

information only.

Comments must relate as to whether the main modifications are legally compliant

and if they are sound.

The main modifications and sustainability appraisal are available for inspection and

comment from Thursday 14 July to Wednesday 24 August 2016. Any comments

received will be considered by the Planning Inspector, as part of the examination of

both plans. Persons making representations may request to be notified at a specified

address of the publication of the Inspector’s recommendations and reasons for the

recommendations and / or the adoption of the Local Plans.

The preferred method to comment is online at http://consult.wakefield.gov.uk.

Alternatively comment forms are available and can be returned by email to

[email protected], or by post to:

Wakefield Council,

Spatial Policy Group,

Planning, Transportation and Highways,

PO Box 700,

Wakefield One,

Burton Street,

Wakefield,

WF1 2EB

Comments should be addressed to the Examination Programme Officer, care

of Wakefield Council, and should reach us by 5.00 pm on Wednesday 24

August 2016

http://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/


8

Details of the Examination hearings and Local Plan documents are available to view

and download on the Council’s web pages:

Examination: http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-

plan/examinations-commencing-14-june-2016

Consultation portal: http://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/portal.

Retail and Town Centre Local Plan:

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/retail-town-centres

Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan:

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/leisure-recreation-

open-spaces

The documents are also available to view at Wakefield One Customer Access Point,

Burton Street, Wakefield (Mon-Fri 8.30-5.00) and libraries during their normal

opening hours.

For further information please contact 01924 306417 or [email protected]

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/examinations-commencing-14-june-2016

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/examinations-commencing-14-june-2016

http://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/portal

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/retail-town-centres

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/leisure-recreation-open-spaces

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/residents/planning/policy/local-plan/leisure-recreation-open-spaces


9

Chapter 2

Main Modifications to the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan

11

Ref No Page No Policy/ Paragraph Modification Reason for modification

LMIQ62 - 63

64 Monitoring and Implementation

Amend Indicators in Table 4 Delivery and Monitoring as laid out below. Align Indictors and Targets.

Table 4 Delivery and Monitoring

Proposal Type Proposed Indicators Proposed Targets Delivery Agency Implementation Monitoring Proposal

Strategic Leisure Corridors

Land safeguarded for Strategic Leisure Corridors maintained and/or new links implemented (new indicator)

All schemes implemented in accordance with LROS policy requirements and Transport Policies

Developers, Wakefield Council and partners

Pro-actively manage planning applications and related processes, allocation of land through LDF, grant funding and developer investment

Incorporate into Monitoring framework to be reported in Annual Monitoring Report

Sports Facilities Number of New sports facilities with planning permission (new indicator)

All schemes implemented in accordance with LROS policy requirements




Leisure Opportunity Areas

Number of Planning permissions for development in Leisure Opportunity Areas (new indicator)





Green Infrastructure and Public Open Space

Number of Planning permissions affecting open space identified in the Greenspace Audit i) Amount of New recreational open space created





12

Proposal Type Proposed Indicators Proposed Targets Delivery Agency Implementation Monitoring Proposal

ii) Amount of recreational open space lost (new indicator)

Zero in areas of shortage identified in the Greenspace Audit

Protected Areas of Open Land (Local Green Space)

D13/1 Number of planning permissions affecting Protected Areas of Open Land (existing indicator)

Zero Developers, Wakefield Council and partners

Pro-actively manage planning applications and related processes


13

Chapter 3

Minor Modifications to the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan

15

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph

Modification Reason for modification

L1 - General Miscellaneous minor text corrections, policy numbers and grammatical changes.

Factual corrections as required.

L2 20 2.55 Healthy Wakefield Health Improvement Plan 2015. Factual correction. Name of plan has been changed.

L3 24 3.4 Table1 Section 3

Amend text “Historic Parks & Gardens and grounds of Scheduled Ancient Monuments …”

For clarification – LROSSUB9.

L4 27 3.10 Add site to list – Spring Mill playing fields, Ossett Factual correction.

L5 28 3.10 Wintersett and Cold Hiendley Reservoirs (LNR6) (LWS6) Factual correction. Error in text.

L6 29 3.18 Amend second sentence “Wakefield Council has recently announced that it no longer intends to accepts the transfer of ownership of open space provided on new developments, although in reality this is already custom and practice”.

Factual correction.

LMIQ7 30 3.23 Amend first sentence to “The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was adopted on 1 April 2016”.

Factual correction.

L7 31 3.26 Amend second sentence “There are proposals policies and allocations for recreational open space and playing fields to be safeguarded as Local Green Space in the Walton Neighbourhood Plan.

Factual correction.

L8 37 4.20 Add sentence before and amend final sentence “The Wakefield Cycle Strategy and Rights of Way Improvement Plan identify proposed new/enhanced routes. It is impossible to allocate all these in the Local Plan but they will be enhanced and developed as transport funding becomes available and wherever opportunities arise through the planning process.

For clarification - LROSSUB16.

L9 48

5.7 Amend final sentence “Minsthorpe swimming pool has been closed but is scheduled to be replaced by a new facility located at and managed by Minsthorpe Community College to serve the South East Area of the district”.

Factual correction. Location of swimming pool at Minsthorpe College no longer viable.

L10 48 5.9 Amend first sentence “Improvements to sports facilities for community use will be supported having regard to the Playing Pitch Strategy, at the following academies, high schools and colleges:”

For clarification – LROSSUB47

L11 49 SF9 Amend text “A new swimming pool with indoor fitness facilities is to be developed within the existing Minsthorpe College sports complex provides an important community sports hub. This will replace the closed pool and The Council will support proposals which will enhance the offer and quality of facilities serving the college and communities in the South East Area”.

Factual correction. Location of swimming pool at Minsthorpe College no longer viable.

L12 50 5.14 Amend fourth sentence “Proposals for leisure development will be assessed against policies in the Core Strategy, Development Policies Plan and other LDF documents, and evidence in the Playing Pitch Strategy.”

For clarification – LROSSUB48

LMIQ7 50 SF15 Add “(LC32)” to end of second sentence. For clarification.

16

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph


L13 51 LA2 Amend first and second sentence “Playing fields and former swimming pool site with potential to be enhanced/developed for a new swimming pool, indoor and outdoor sport/ fitness facilities and community leisure uses. The site adjoins Minsthorpe College sports complex where the new swimming pool will be relocated offering opportunities to enhance the range and quality of facilities serving the South East Area”.

Factual correction. Location of swimming pool at Minsthorpe College no longer viable, however LA2 could accommodate the replacement swimming pool.

17

Chapter 4

Main Modifications to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan

19

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


RMIQ13 14 RTC116 Amend policy title: “Retail Development in Shopping Centres Town Centres” Amend policy text: “Retail development will be encouraged and permitted in the retail policy area of the town centres and within other centres, or sites allocated for retail use, as defined on the Policies Map. In other recognised centres retail development will be encouraged on a scale appropriate to the needs of the area served by these centres. Development will be subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations, viewed in the context of the needs of people who live in or near the areas affected. will provide customer choice and reflect the individuality of the centres.”

To align with National Planning

Policy Framework.

RMIQ13 14 3.1 Add additional sentence at end of paragraph: “Throughout this plan the term retail policy area should be considered as having the same meaning and definition as the term primary shopping area as laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

For clarification and consistency with adopted local plans

RMIQ14 14 RTC117 Amend policy title: “Retail Development on the Edge of Shopping Centres Retail Policy Areas” Amend first sentence: “Large retail outlets (foodstores and retail warehouses) which cannot be accommodated within the defined retailing retail policy areas of centres as shown on the Policies Map will be permitted on the fringe edge of these areas provided that the development:” Amend “i) Lies within the existing urban area settlement boundary as defined on the Policies Map; Amend iii) “Does not involve land allocated for other uses, unless there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for the allocated use, or the land is allocated for retail use.” Delete iv) “Is on a scale appropriate to the needs of the area served by the established shopping centre.”

To align with National Planning Policy Framework.

20

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


Amend last 2 sentences: “Development will be subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations, and viewed in the context of the needs of people who live in or near the areas affected. The retail outlets should complement the provision within the established shopping centre.” will provide customer choice and reflect the individuality of the centres.”

RMIQ14 14 3.2 Add after final sentence: “This policy should be read in conjunction with RTC Policy 173 in determining whether an impact assessment will be required.”

For clarification.

RMIQ15 15 RTC122 Amend policy title: “Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages” Amend policy: “In primary shopping frontages as shown on the Policies Map shall be defined as Primary Shopping Frontages. non-retail uses will be permitted at ground floor level unless they would either: i) create a continuous frontage of more than three non-retail uses (classes A3 - A5), or 20 metres of non-retail uses; ii) result in more than 25% of the total length of street primary frontage in any one street or of any one block being in non-retail use.”


RMIQ15 15 3.4 Amend paragraph: “Policy RTC122 aims to ensure that changes of use within the primary shopping frontages of town centres take place without undermining their shopping function.”

For clarification and to align with National Planning Policy Framework.

RMIQ16 15 3.6 Amend paragraph 3.6: “Wakefield Council and its partners in Wakefield Together are committed to improving the health of the district's residents. There is no single solution to this issue as there are many contributory factors. However, the planning process can influence choices over food/diet. Wakefield District has one of the highest density of fast food outlets per 100,000 population within the country. In addition the vast majority of hot food takeaways (74%) are located outside existing centres. Evidence shows that school children in the district are consuming too many takeaway meals. Children of all ages who eat more

For clarification

21

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


than two takeaways a week are also less likely to eat fruit and vegetables frequently and more likely to drink fizzy beverages, eat crisps and sweets. A significant proportion of school children (55% of primary school pupils and 40% of secondary school pupils) walk or cycle to school in the district. On these journeys there is by restricting hot food take-aways in the vicinity of schools, there by reducing the temptation to purchase this type of food on the way to/from school and at lunch times. A buffer zone of 400 metres has been applied to the policy in relation to schools. This is recognised as the equivalent of around a 10 minute walk which the Council considers will assist in reducing school children’s access to fast food outlets. Consequently this policy will aid the Council in meeting its objective to reduce detrimental health impacts.”

RMIQ18 18 RTC 173 Amend policy: “An impact assessment will be required for retail, leisure and office proposals which are outside of a centre, as identified on the Policies Map, and not in accordance with the Local Plan. The following minimum gross external floorspace thresholds will apply: 1. For the Sub-regional City, Principal Towns and Main Towns - 700square metres. 2. For the District Centres and Local Retail Centres - 300square metres.”

For clarification –RTCSUB36.

RMIQ18 18 After 3.12 Add new paragraphs: “It is not considered retail development less than 700m

2 has an adverse

impact on these categories of town centre in the district. 700m2 has been

used by the Council as a benchmark for determining what is considered a large retail outlet in its edge of centre development plan policy and a minimum unit size for sub-dividing larger units in edge of centre retail development. It has been used in conditions attached to planning permissions for edge of centre retail warehouse parks in Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract. The threshold of 300m

2 is intended to exclude the need for assessments for

small shops, leisure and office development, but to require assessments for mini-market food stores and similar sized non-food stores, leisure and office development. 300m

2 relates closely to the floorspace limit applied for Sunday

trading purposes, as well as the Council’s view about what constitutes a local shop. The Council’s Local Shops policy encourages and permits local

For clarification

22

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


shopping facilities to meet day-to-day needs of the immediate locality, subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations. There is no restriction in relation to proximity to defined centres. Consequently, it is not appropriate to include a threshold below 300m

2. Above 300m

2 the Council

considers the development would not be a local shop and should be located in a centre. The sequential approach would apply and the impact on nearby district and local centres should be assessed given the relatively small size of the centres.”

RMIQ19 18 After 3.13 Add new paragraph: “300m

2 relates closely to the floorspace limit applied for Sunday trading

purposes, as well as the Council’s view about what constitutes a local shop. Above 300m

2 the Council considers the development would not be a local

shop and should be located in a centre. The sequential approach would apply and the impact on nearby district and local centres should be assessed given the relatively small size of the centres. A similar threshold should apply to define other small scale rural development, based on the size of rural development approved around the district outside of centres, which is typically between 200 – 300m

2.”

For clarification

RMIQ21c RMIQ27b RMM1 RMIQ32a RMM2 RMM3 RMM4 RMM5 RMIQ37a

21 26 32 34 35 37 39 40 41

RTC 20 RTC 66 RTC 32 RTC 40 RTC 72 RTC90 RTC 81 RTC 107 RTC 99

Amend 2nd

sentence: “Beyond this area there will be a presumption against retailing unless it can be proven that the proposed development could not be accommodated within the designated Retail Policy Area retailing will generally only be permitted where it can be proven there are no suitable sequentially preferable sites available.”

For clarification - RTCSUB41 & RTCSUB33.

RMM6 RMM7 RMM8 RMM9 RMM10 RMM11

22 28 34 36 37 39

Heading to paragraph: 4.14 4.29 5.11 5.16 5.23 5.28

Amend heading: Possible Development Site(s) Amend 1st Sentence: “Possible Development Sites are areas of land that are considered to have potential for redevelopment.”

For clarification

23

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


RMM12 41 5.37

RMM13 22 4.14 Add after 1st sentence:

“The following sites are allocated as Development Sites and are identified on the Castleford inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ21b 22 RTC22 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed primarily for retail use and may contain other main town centre uses and health care provision.” Amend 1st paragraph of the policy: “This site is located adjacent to Aire Street and to the rear of properties on the northern side of Carlton Street. It is currently used primarily for car parking. Planning permission has been granted for a large format foodstore, and was renewed in 2012, but has not been implemented. The site remains suitable for development whether it be the approved scheme or some variation. It is well located for retail use and the town centre would benefit from a central foodstore. The site could also accommodate other town centre uses that would be complementary to the existing offer. Development proposals would need to include details of how links to the waterfront would be maintained and enhanced and how the development would relate to proposals for improving Castleford Waterfront (RTC24). In particular, the development would need to contribute to the Aire Street highway improvements including crossing points and improving the public realm. Any scheme would need to assess the need for replacement parking provision and its delivery. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32.”

For clarification and to ensure consistency with Core Strategy policy CS2.

RMIQ21b 22 RTC23 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed primarily for retail use and may contain other main town centre uses.” Amend 1st paragraph of the policy: “This site is located at the eastern end of Carlton Street/Carlton Lanes and is currently used for car parking. Planning permission was granted for retail in but has not been implemented. The site is well located for retail use as it would form an extension to Carlton Street and the Carlton Lanes shopping centre. Alternatively, it could accommodate other town centre uses that would


24

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


be complementary to the existing offer. This is a prominent site in a gateway location, consequently development should incorporate high quality, innovative design.”

RMIQ22 23 RTC24 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for a range of main town centre uses which could include leisure, office, residential use and retail development. It may also contain residential development.” Delete 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph of the policy: “The area is suitable for a range of town centre uses including leisure, offices, small scale retail and residential. Development proposals will need to have regard to the area's location alongside the river and maximise opportunities to provide public access to the waterfront. Development proposals would also need to include details of how the area relates to the rest of the town centre, in particular RTC22. The development would need to accommodate and contribute to works to Aire Street including a cycle route, crossing points and improving the public realm.”

For clarification

RMIQ22 24 RTC115 Add new sentence at start of policy “This site should be developed for a range of main town centre uses which could include leisure, office, retail, health care and service uses.” Amend 3

rd sentence of policy:

“This site is located between the town centre's retail area and the bus station, which has been redeveloped. It includes shops to the Albion Street/Carlton Street frontages and health and community facilities. The redevelopment of this site provides the opportunity to create improved pedestrian links between the bus station, train station and Carlton Street. Proposals will be considered on their merits and the site is suitable for a range of town centre uses including office, leisure, health, retail and service uses. Car parking provision should be retained and enhanced for users of the train station and other facilities. The council will adopt a flexible approach towards proposals and they do not need to involve clearance of the entire site. A desk-based archaeological assessment will need to be carried out before the determination of any planning application.”

For clarification

RMIQ23 24 4.15 Amend second sentence: For clarification

25

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


“The following route within Castleford Town Centre is to be designated as an Enhanced Pedestrian Route and is identified on the Castleford inset map.”

RMM14 26 4.25 Add final sentence to paragraph 4.25: “Southgate is an important road in the town centre and carries substantial traffic. However, many of the adjoining properties do not face onto Southgate and there is no clear relationship between the road and these properties and indeed the rest of the town centre. Southgate has assumed the role of an inner relief road with its primary function being to transport traffic past the town centre as quickly as possible. Consequently there has been deterioration in the quality of the physical environment in the road corridor from Town End to Walkergate. As a result the Council wishes to designate Design Improvement Areas to positively enhance the environment within Southgate.”

For clarification

RMM15 26 New Design Improvement Areas Policy after modification above

Delete paragraph 4.26: Development within the Design Improvement Area will need to make a positive contribution/improvement to the Area by:

buildings being constructed up to the back of footways, avoiding large areas of car parking or outdoor storage

between the road/footway and buildings;

frontages to Southgate generally being active at ground level. Delete paragraph 4.27: Works in and adjacent to the highway will be designed/implemented in a manner that improves the general environment of the road corridor by:

the use of appropriate materials particularly for footways and other areas of the public realm;

the planting of trees and other vegetation.

construction of new, and improvements to, existing walls and entrances.

Add new policy: Design Improvement Areas Development within the Design Improvement Areas, as identified on the Pontefract inset map, will need to make a positive contribution and improvement to the area by:

For clarification

26

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


ensuring buildings are constructed up to the back of footways, avoiding large areas of car parking or outdoor storage between the road/footway and buildings;

frontages to Southgate generally being active at ground level. Works in and adjacent to the highway will need to be designed and implemented in a manner that improves the general environment of the road corridor by:

the use of appropriate materials, particularly for footways and other areas of the public realm;


construction of new, and improvements to existing, walls and entrances.

All the designated Design Improvement Areas are in locations with high archaeological potential. Significant development proposals in these areas should be accompanied by an archaeological desk based assessment.

RMM16 26 4.28 Amend sentence: “The following sections of Southgate are designated Design Improvement Areas and are identified on the Pontefract inset map:”

For clarification

RMM17 RMM18 RMM19 RMM20

26 - 27

RTC60 RTC61 RTC62 RTC63

Delete text under each policy name: “This area is of high archaeological potential and significant development proposals should be accompanied by an archaeological desk-based assessment.”

For clarification. This information is now incorporated into the new policy 167 Design Improvement Areas.

RMM21 27 Additional supporting text at start of Special Policy Area section

Add new sentence under section heading: “Special Policy Areas allow mixed use development. Further information about these allocations can be found in Section 9 of the Site Specific Policies Local Plan.”

For clarification


Add 2nd

sentence: “The following site is allocated as a Special Policy Area and is identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

RMM23 27 RTC54 Add new sentence at start of policy For clarification

27

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


“This site should be developed for office, leisure and employment uses.” Amend 2

nd paragraph of the policy:

“This Special Policy Area, to the south of Stuart Road, currently encompasses a former nightclub and a car park/storage area for the adjacent Haribo factory. The Kiko’s nightclub site on Front Street is a low quality two storey dark brick building which provides an opportunity to secure an alternative use which will better contribute to the objectives of the design vision of the Tanshelf Study providing an opportunity to ensure high quality design on this gateway site. This site is located opposite the Fire Station site, close to Park Road and is therefore highly visible from both vehicles and pedestrians upon approach from the north. This should be considered as another key gateway site and it is imperative, therefore that any new building on this site should be appropriate to this key location and its surrounding context (again, with particular reference to the former Queens Hotel building on the opposite side of Park Road and any new development on the fire station site). A building of three storeys would be appropriate on this site. The remainder of the Special Policy Area is suitable for redevelopment for commercial uses including offices and leisure. An important factor here is the quality of the general environment that is achieved taking into consideration the area's location at a main entrance to the town centre. The area would benefit from improvements to boundary treatment, landscaping and surfacing. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32. The incorporation of high quality public realm treatments has been identified as vital in ensuring that a legible and safe pedestrian environment is created throughout the Tanshelf area. The pedestrian route along Colonel's Walk will continue along Sessions Yard with enhancements to the public realm.”

RMM24 28 4.29 Add after 1st sentence: “The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ28 28 4.30 Amend second sentence: “The following a number of routes within Pontefract Town Centre are to be designated as Enhanced Pedestrian Routes and identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

28

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


RMM25 28 RTC53 Add new sentence at start of policy “This site should be developed as a discount foodstore or for leisure use.” Delete 4

th sentence of the policy:

“A review of leisure provision across the district has been carried out and the existing pool on Stuart Road may close and a new pool be provided in Pontefract Park. Whilst the Retail Study concluded that there is no need to plan for new convenience provision in Pontefract over the emerging plan period given that existing stores, primarily the edge-of-centre Morrison’s, are found to be under-trading despite inflows from surrounding catchments which are to be reversed, the site of the existing pool is suitable for a discount foodstore. There is currently no such provision in or on the edge of the town centre. The site would also be suitable for leisure and other specialist uses. Development would be expected to contribute to the enhancement of the pedestrian route from Colonel's Walk to King Charles II house. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32.”

For clarification

RMIQ28 33 Additional supporting text at start of Enhanced Pedestrian Route section

Add new sentence: “The following route within Normanton Town Centre is designated as an Enhanced Pedestrian Route and is identified on the Normanton inset map.”

For clarification and consistency.


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Featherstone inset map.”

For clarification

RMM27 34 RTC157 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for retail or other main town centre uses.” Amend 1

st paragraph of the policy:

“This site is located to the rear of the The Precinct on the western side of Station Lane. It was previously occupied by a Kwik Save supermarket which has now been demolished. Planning permission was granted in 2009, and renewed in 2012, for one A1 retail store and car parking. Development has not yet commenced, probably influenced by the grant of planning permission

For clarification

29

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


for a foodstore on the Crystal Drinks site as mentioned in 5.7. The site is well located for development for town centre uses including retail and to provide links through to SPA10 (Special Policy Area – Land at Lister Close) allocated in the Site Specific Policies Local Plan.”

RMIQ33 36 5.16 Add after 1st sentence:

“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Knottingley inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ33 36 RTC160 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed as a foodstore.” Delete final sentence of 1st paragraph of the policy: “This is previously developed land within the settlement of Knottingley, which is classified as an urban area. It lies within the Knottingley town centre inset map boundary and as such will be covered by the relevant policy statements for that area. Planning permission has been granted for a Lidl foodstore. In the event that the planning permission is not implemented the Local Plan will identify that the site is suitable for a supermarket or other town centre uses.”

For clarification


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the South Elmsall inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ34 37 RTC91 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed as a discount foodstore. Additional small scale retail units (no larger than 300 square metres each) would also be acceptable along with other main town centre uses.” Delete 2

nd sentence of the 1

st paragraph of the policy:

“This site is located at the western end of the retail area in South Elmsall and is occupied by the Fire Station, the library, a health centre (now closed), a pay and display car park and a building previously used as a small supermarket. The site is suitable for retail and other commercial uses. It could accommodate the discount foodstore identified in the Retail Study and other small retail units, no larger than 300sqm each. Any scheme would need to address the issue of car parking. The site currently includes a pay and display car park and it is important to retain car parking provision to serve visits to the

For clarification

30

Ref No Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


town centre as well as to businesses located on the site itself. Development proposals do not necessarily need to relate to the entire site, for example the library is unlikely to be available for development.”


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Hemsworth inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ35 39 RTC159 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for main town centre uses. Residential development would also be acceptable.” Delete second sentence of the policy: “It is suitable for a range of uses including residential.”

For clarification


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Ossett inset map.”

For clarification

RMIQ37b 41 RTC101 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed as a foodstore.”

For clarification

31

Chapter 5

Minor Modifications to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan

33

Ref

No

Page

No

Policy/

Paragraph


R1 - General Miscellaneous minor text corrections, policy numbers and grammatical

changes.

Factual corrections as required.

R2 5 1.15 Fifth bullet point on page 5

Wakefield Health and Wellbeing Plan Strategy 2013 - 2016 Factual correction.

R3 11 2.19 Amend section title: Healthy Wakefield Health Improvement Plan 2015 Amend 1

st sentence:

“The Healthy Wakefield Health Improvement Plan …”

Factual correction. Name of plan has been changed.

R4 18 3.12 Add after 2nd sentence: "Due to the relatively small size of the retail centres in Wakefield District it is considered appropriate to set impact thresholds below the default threshold in the National Planning Policy Framework."

For clarification – RTCSUB7, RTCSUB37, RTCSUB39.

R5 20 4.5 Amend 3rd

sentence: “The proposed Five Towns Park development, if approved and developed, will be located one and a half miles …” Amend 5

th sentence:

“Whilst the development will help to retain comparison expenditure that currently leaves the Five Towns for higher order centres the Council’s view at the time of determining the application was that it will have a significant adverse impact on Castleford town centre and impact on other centres within and outside Wakefield district. The mitigation measures identified in the S106 Agreement may mitigate the impact to some extent.”

Factual correction. Planning permission has now been granted. For clarification – RTCSUB34.

R6 22 RTC 22 Amend 2nd

sentence: “Planning permission has been granted for a large format foodstore, and was renewed in 2012, but has not been implemented now expired." Amend 3

rd sentence “The site remains suitable for development whether it be

the previously approved scheme or some variation.”

Factual correction. The planning permission at Aire Street has now expired.

R7 26 New Paragraph after 4.25

Add new paragraph: New building work is encouraged with work places at ground floor level and residential accommodation at first floor/second floor level designed as to allow access to rear of existing Ropergate properties.

Further explanation of policy – RTCSUB76.

35

Chapter 6

Sustainability Appraisal

37

Information note:

The following sections contain Sustainability Appraisal (including Strategic Environmental Assessment) and Habitat Regulations Screening of main modifications made to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan and the Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan, as a result of the Examination hearing sessions held on 14 and 15 June 2016. These should be read in conjunction with the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Screening Reports published at previous stages of Local Plans preparation – Early Engagement, Consultation Draft, Publication and Submission.

38

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

Retail and Town Centre Local Plan – Examination Main Modifications

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph

Main Modification Reason for modification

Sustainability Appraisal Implications

RMIQ13 14 RTC116 Amend policy title: “Retail Development in Shopping Centres Town Centres” Amend policy text: “Retail development will be encouraged and permitted in the retail policy area of the town centres and within other centres, or sites allocated for retail use, as defined on the Policies Map. In other recognised centres retail development will be encouraged on a scale appropriate to the needs of the area served by these centres. Development will be subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations, viewed in the context of the needs of people who live in or near the areas affected. will provide customer choice and reflect the individuality of the centres.”


Whilst this modification provides a better alignment with National Planning Policy Framework, and clarifies where retail development will be encouraged and permitted, it is not considered to alter the principle of the policy to direct appropriate retail development towards defined centres to cater for local needs having regard to local circumstances. Therefore, this modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMIQ13 14 3.1 Add additional sentence at end of paragraph: “Throughout this plan the term retail policy area should be considered as having the same meaning and definition as the term primary shopping area as laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

For clarification and consistency with adopted local plans

Throughout the Plan the SA was carried out on the understanding that the term retail policy area had the same meaning as the term primary shopping area in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, there are no significant implications for earlier conclusions of the SA as a result of this modification.

RMIQ14 14 RTC117 Amend policy title: “Retail Development on the Edge of Shopping Centres Retail Policy Areas” Amend first sentence: “Large retail outlets (foodstores and retail warehouses) which cannot be accommodated within the defined retailing retail policy areas of centres as shown on the Policies Map will be permitted on the fringe edge of these areas provided that the development:”


This modification is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the policy upon which SA has already been carried out. However, the amendment to part iii) of the policy increases the flexibility of the policy in relation to the reuse of land which will support regeneration, with associated social, economic and environmental benefits. The modification also clarifies that development sites allocated for retail

39

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



Amend “i) Lies within the existing urban area settlement boundary as defined on the Policies Map;” Amend iii) “Does not involve land allocated for other uses, unless there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for the allocated use, or the land is allocated for retail use.” Delete iv) “Is on a scale appropriate to the needs of the area served by the established shopping centre.” Amend last 2 sentences:

“Development will be subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations, and viewed in the context of the needs of people who live in or near the areas affected. The retail outlets should complement the provision within the established shopping centre.” will provide customer choice and reflect the individuality of the centres.”

purposes are suitable for retail development on the edge of the RPAs. However, overall the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ14 14 3.2 Add after final sentence:

“This policy should be read in conjunction with RTC Policy 173 in determining whether an impact assessment will be required.”

For clarification.

This modification is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the application of policy RTC173 upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ15 15 RTC122 Amend policy title: “Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages”

Amend policy:

“In primary shopping frontages as shown on the Policies Map shall be defined as Primary Shopping Frontages. non-retail uses will be permitted at ground floor level unless they would either:

i) create a continuous frontage of more than three non-


This modification is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the policy upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

40

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



retail uses (classes A3 - A5), or 20 metres of non-retail uses;

ii) result in more than 25% of the total length of street primary frontage in any one street or of any one block being in non-retail use.”

RMIQ15 15 3.4 Amend “Policy RTC122 aims to ensure that changes of use within the primary shopping frontages of town centres take place without undermining their shopping function.”

For clarification and to align with National Planning Policy Framework.


RMIQ16 15 3.6 Amend paragraph 3.6:

“Wakefield Council and its partners in Wakefield Together are committed to improving the health of the district's residents. There is no single solution to this issue as there are many contributory factors. However, the planning process can influence choices over food/diet. Wakefield District has one of the highest density of fast food outlets per 100,000 population within the country. In addition the vast majority of hot food takeaways (74%) are located outside existing centres. Evidence shows that school children in the district are consuming too many takeaway meals. Children of all ages who eat more than two takeaways a week are also less likely to eat fruit and vegetables frequently and more likely to drink fizzy beverages, eat crisps and sweets. A significant proportion of school children (55% of primary school pupils and 40% of secondary school pupils) walk or cycle to school in the district. On these journeys there is by restricting hot food take-aways in the vicinity of schools, there by reducing the temptation to purchase this type of food on the way to/from school and at lunch times. A buffer zone of 400 metres has been applied to the policy in relation to schools. This is recognised as the equivalent of around a

For clarification


41

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



10 minute walk which the Council considers will assist in reducing school children’s access to fast food outlets. Consequently this policy will aid the Council in meeting its objective to reduce detrimental health impacts.”

RMIQ18 18 RTC173 Amend policy: An impact assessment will be required for retail, leisure and office proposals which are outside of a centre, as identified on the Policies Map, and not in accordance with the Local Plan. The following minimum gross external floorspace thresholds will apply:

1. For the Sub-regional City, Principal Towns and Main Towns - 700square metres.

2. For the District Centres and Local Retail Centres - 300square metres.

For clarification –RTCSUB36.

This modification provides clarification that the relevant floorspace threshold is gross external rather than internal. This strengthens the ability of the policy to ensure out of centre retail development does not have a detrimental impact on existing identified centres. Whilst this may be interpreted as reducing the flexibility for some types of retailers that prefer out of centre locations, in general this will have an overall positive impact for town centre vitality and viability with other associated social, environmental and economic benefits. As such the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ18 18 After 3.12 Add new paragraphs:

“It is not considered retail development less than 700m2

has an adverse impact on these categories of town centre in the district. 700m

2 has been used by the Council as a

benchmark for determining what is considered a large retail outlet in its edge of centre development plan policy and a minimum unit size for sub-dividing larger units in edge of centre retail development. It has been used in conditions attached to planning permissions for edge of centre retail warehouse parks in Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract.

The threshold of 300m2 is intended to exclude the need for

assessments for small shops, leisure and office development, but to require assessments for mini-market

For clarification

This modification clarifies the logic behind the proposed thresholds, but is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the application of policy RTC173, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

42

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



food stores and similar sized non-food stores, leisure and office development. 300m

2 relates closely to the

floorspace limit applied for Sunday trading purposes, as well as the Council’s view about what constitutes a local shop. The Council’s Local Shops policy encourages and permits local shopping facilities to meet day-to-day needs of the immediate locality, subject to local planning, traffic and environmental considerations. There is no restriction in relation to proximity to defined centres. Consequently, it is not appropriate to include a threshold below 300m

2.

Above 300m2 the Council considers the development

would not be a local shop and should be located in a centre. The sequential approach would apply and the impact on nearby district and local centres should be assessed given the relatively small size of the centres.”

RMIQ19 18 After 3.13 Add new paragraph:

“300m2 relates closely to the floorspace limit applied for

Sunday trading purposes, as well as the Council’s view about what constitutes a local shop. Above 300m

2 the

Council considers the development would not be a local shop and should be located in a centre. The sequential approach would apply and the impact on nearby district and local centres should be assessed given the relatively small size of the centres. A similar threshold should apply to define other small scale rural development, based on the size of rural development approved around the district outside of centres, which is typically between 200 – 300m

2.”

For clarification

This modification clarifies the logic behind the proposed thresholds, but is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the application of policy RTC176, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ21c RMIQ27b RMM1 RMIQ32a RMM2 RMM3 RMM4 RMM5

21 26 32 34 35 37 39 40

RTC 20 RTC 66 RTC 32 RTC 40 RTC 72 RTC 90 RTC 81 RTC 107

Amend 2nd

sentence “Beyond this area there will be a presumption against retailing unless it can be proven that the proposed development could not be accommodated within the designated Retail Policy Area retailing will generally only be permitted where it can be proven there are no suitable sequentially preferable sites available.”

For clarification - RTCSUB41 & RTCSUB33.

This modification relates to the retail policy areas across the district as identified on the Policies Map. This modification clarifies and strengthens the original intention of the policies to ensure retail development is directed towards the town centres first within the district, in accordance with National Planning Policy.

43

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



RMIQ37a 41 RTC 99 This approach has already been identified through earlier SA assessment as resulting in social, economic and environmental benefits associated with supporting town centre vitality and viability. Therefore, the proposed modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMM6 RMM7 RMM8 RMM9 RMM10 RMM11 RMM12

22 28 34 36 37 39 41

Heading to paragraph: 4.14 4.29 5.11 5.16 5.23 5.28 5.37

Amend heading:

Possible Development Site(s)

Amend 1st Sentence:

“Possible Development Sites are areas of land that are considered to have potential for redevelopment.”

For clarification

This modification clarifies that the purpose of the allocations is for development relating to the respective uses as set out in the associated policies. However, the sustainability of the sites has already been assessed on the understanding that this is the case. Therefore, the proposed modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.


“The following sites are allocated as Development Sites and are identified on the Castleford inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Development Sites (RTC22, RTC23, RTC24 and RTC115) or the principles of the application of these policies, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMIQ21b 22 RTC22 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed primarily for retail use and may contain other main town centre uses and health care provision.”

Amend 1st paragraph of the policy:

“This site is located adjacent to Aire Street and to the rear of properties on the northern side of Carlton Street. It is currently used primarily for car parking. Planning


The sustainability impacts of this allocation have previously been assessed in relation to the development of the site for retail use in addition to other of main town centre uses. This inclusion of health care provision within the range of possible uses increases the flexibility of the allocation to contribute to the regeneration of the Main Town and creating links with the special

44

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



permission has been granted for a large format foodstore, and was renewed in 2012, but has not been implemented. The site remains suitable for development whether it be the approved scheme or some variation. It is well located for retail use and the town centre would benefit from a central foodstore. The site could also accommodate other town centre uses that would be complementary to the existing offer. Development proposals would need to include details of how links to the waterfront would be maintained and enhanced and how the development would relate to proposals for improving Castleford Waterfront (RTC24). In particular, the development would need to contribute to the Aire Street highway improvements including crossing points and improving the public realm. Any scheme would need to assess the need for replacement parking provision and its delivery. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32.”

policy area. There would also be an increase in the opportunities to use sustainable modes of transport by locating healthcare facilities in a central location, with associated benefits for environmental sustainability. However, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ21b 22 RTC23 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed primarily for retail use and may contain other main town centre uses.”


“This site is located at the eastern end of Carlton Street/Carlton Lanes and is currently used for car parking. Planning permission was granted for retail in but has not been implemented. The site is well located for retail use as it would form an extension to Carlton Street and the Carlton Lanes shopping centre. Alternatively, it could accommodate other town centre uses that would be complementary to the existing offer. This is a prominent site in a gateway location, consequently development should incorporate high quality, innovative design”

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability impacts of the allocation have already been assessed in relation to the site being developed for retail and town centre uses. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ22 23 RTC24 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for a range of main town

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability

45

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



centre uses which could include leisure, office, residential use and retail development. It may also contain residential development.”

Delete 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph of the policy:

“The area is suitable for a range of town centre uses including leisure, offices, small scale retail and residential. Development proposals will need to have regard to the area's location alongside the river and maximise opportunities to provide public access to the waterfront. Development proposals would also need to include details of how the area relates to the rest of the town centre, in particular RTC22. The development would need to accommodate and contribute to works to Aire Street including a cycle route, crossing points and improving the public realm.”

impacts of the allocation have already been assessed in relation to the site being developed for these proposed uses. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ22 24 RTC115 Add new sentence at start of policy “This site should be developed for a range of main town centre uses which could include leisure, office, retail, health care and service uses.”

Amend 3rd

sentence of policy:

“This site is located between the town centre's retail area and the bus station, which has been redeveloped. It includes shops to the Albion Street/Carlton Street frontages and health and community facilities. The redevelopment of this site provides the opportunity to create improved pedestrian links between the bus station, train station and Carlton Street. Proposals will be considered on their merits and the site is suitable for a range of town centre uses including office, leisure, health, retail and service uses. Car parking provision should be retained and enhanced for users of the train station and other facilities. The council will adopt a flexible approach towards proposals and they do not need to involve

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability impacts of the allocation have already been assessed in relation to the site being developed for these proposed uses. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.

46

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



clearance of the entire site. A desk-based archaeological assessment will need to be carried out before the determination of any planning application.”

RMIQ23 24 4.15 Amend second sentence:

“The following route within Castleford Town Centre is to be designated as an Enhanced Pedestrian Route and is identified on the Castleford inset map.”

For clarification

This modification is not considered to significantly alter the principles of the application of policy RTC151 upon which SA has already been carried out, and does not alter the route of the enhanced pedestrian link. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment.

RMM14 26 4.25 Add final sentence to paragraph 4.25:

“Southgate is an important road in the town centre and carries substantial traffic. However, many of the adjoining properties do not face onto Southgate and there is no clear relationship between the road and these properties and indeed the rest of the town centre. Southgate has assumed the role of an inner relief road with its primary function being to transport traffic past the town centre as quickly as possible. Consequently there has been deterioration in the quality of the physical environment in the road corridor from Town End to Walkergate. As a result the Council wishes to designate Design Improvement Areas to positively enhance the environment within Southgate.”

For clarification

This modification is for clarification and is not considered to alter the principles behind the designation of the design improvement areas. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessment relating to those policies (RTC60, RTC61, RTC62 and RTC63).

RMM15 26 New Design Improvement Areas Policy after modification above

Delete paragraph 4.26:

Development within the Design Improvement Area will need to make a positive contribution/improvement to the Area by:

buildings being constructed up to the back of footways, avoiding large areas of car parking or outdoor storage

between the road/footway and buildings;

For clarification

As this modification has resulted in the creation of a new policy, which has not previously been subject to Sustainability Appraisal a full Sustainability Appraisal is included in the following section of the report.

47

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



frontages to Southgate generally being active at ground level.

Delete paragraph 4.27:

Works in and adjacent to the highway will be designed/implemented in a manner that improves the general environment of the road corridor by:

the use of appropriate materials particularly for footways and other areas of the public realm;


construction of new, and improvements to, existing walls and entrances.

Add new policy:

Design Improvement Areas

Development within the Design Improvement Areas, as identified on the Pontefract inset map, will need to make a positive contribution and improvement to the area by:

ensuring buildings are constructed up to the back of footways, avoiding large areas of car parking or outdoor storage between the road/footway and buildings;

frontages to Southgate generally being active at ground level.

Works in and adjacent to the highway will need to be designed and implemented in a manner that improves the general environment of the road corridor by:

the use of appropriate materials, particularly for footways and other areas of the public realm;


construction of new, and improvements to

48

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



existing, walls and entrances.

All the designated Design Improvement Areas are in locations with high archaeological potential. Significant development proposals in these areas should be accompanied by an archaeological desk based assessment.

RMM16 26 4.28 Amend sentence: “The following sections of Southgate are designated Design Improvement Areas and are identified on the Pontefract inset map:”

For clarification

The design improvement areas have already been assessed in relation to their location as identified on the Policies Map. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of this earlier SA assessment.

RMM17 RMM18 RMM19 RMM20

26 - 27

RTC60 RTC61 RTC62 RTC63

Delete text under policy name: “This area is of high archaeological potential and significant development proposals should be accompanied by an archaeological desk-based assessment”

For clarification. This information is now incorporated into the new policy RTC 167 Design Improvement Areas.

This amendment relates to the fact that design improvement areas are of high archaeological potential and requires significant development proposals to be accompanied by an archaeological desk-based assessment. This text has been incorporated into the new Design Improvement Areas policy, to be applied in conjunction with the individual Design Improvement Areas as identified on the policies map. Therefore, the requirement for an archaeological desk-based assessment will remain effective as originally intended in these locations. As such, it is considered the modification does not significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.


Add new sentence under section heading:

“Special Policy Areas allow mixed use development. Further information about these allocations can be found in Section 9 of the Site Specific Policies Local Plan.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification and is not considered to alter the principles of the application of RTC54 upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

49

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph




Add 2nd

sentence:

“The following site is allocated as a Special Policy Area and is identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Special Policy Area RTC54 upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMM23 27 RTC54 Add new sentence at start of policy “This site should be developed for office, leisure and employment uses.”

Amend 2nd

paragraph of the policy:

“This Special Policy Area, to the south of Stuart Road, currently encompasses a former nightclub and a car park/storage area for the adjacent Haribo factory. The Kiko’s nightclub site on Front Street is a low quality two storey dark brick building which provides an opportunity to secure an alternative use which will better contribute to the objectives of the design vision of the Tanshelf Study providing an opportunity to ensure high quality design on this gateway site. This site is located opposite the Fire Station site, close to Park Road and is therefore highly visible from both vehicles and pedestrians upon approach from the north. This should be considered as another key gateway site and it is imperative, therefore that any new building on this site should be appropriate to this key location and its surrounding context (again, with particular reference to the former Queens Hotel building on the opposite side of Park Road and any new development on the fire station site). A building of three storeys would be appropriate on this site. The remainder of the Special Policy Area is suitable for redevelopment for commercial uses including offices and leisure. An important factor here is the quality of the general environment that is achieved taking into consideration the area's location at a main entrance to the town centre. The area would benefit

For clarification


50

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



from improvements to boundary treatment, landscaping and surfacing. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32. The incorporation of high quality public realm treatments has been identified as vital in ensuring that a legible and safe pedestrian environment is created throughout the Tanshelf area. The pedestrian route along Colonel's Walk will continue along Sessions Yard with enhancements to the public realm.”


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of Development Site RTC53 or the principles of the application of the policy, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMIQ28 28 4.30 Amend second sentence:

Amend second sentence:

“The following a number of routes within Pontefract Town Centre are to be designated as Enhanced Pedestrian Routes and identified on the Pontefract inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Enhanced Pedestrian Routes (RTC152, RTC153 and RTC140) or the principles of the application of these policies, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMM25 28 RTC53 Add new sentence at start of policy “This site should be developed as a discount foodstore or for leisure use.

Delete 4th sentence of the policy:

“A review of leisure provision across the district has been carried out and the existing pool on Stuart Road may close and a new pool be provided in Pontefract Park. Whilst the Retail Study concluded that there is no need to

For clarification


51

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



plan for new convenience provision in Pontefract over the emerging plan period given that existing stores, primarily the edge-of-centre Morrison’s, are found to be under-trading despite inflows from surrounding catchments which are to be reversed, the site of the existing pool is suitable for a discount foodstore. There is currently no such provision in or on the edge of the town centre. The site would also be suitable for leisure and other specialist uses. Development would be expected to contribute to the enhancement of the pedestrian route from Colonel's Walk to King Charles II house. A transport assessment will be required to assess the impact on the local and strategic road networks, in particular M62 motorway Junction 32.”

RMIQ28 33 Additional supporting text at start of Enhanced Pedestrian Route section

Add new sentence:

“The following route within Normanton Town Centre is designated as an Enhanced Pedestrian Route and is identified on the Normanton inset map.”

For clarification and consistency.

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Enhanced Pedestrian Route (RTC156) or the principles of the application of this policy, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Featherstone inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Development Site (RTC157) or the principles of the application of this policy, upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMM27 34 RTC157 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for retail or other main town centre uses.”


“This site is located to the rear of the The Precinct on the western side of Station Lane. It was previously occupied

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability impacts of the allocation have already been assessed in relation to the site being developed for these proposed uses. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the

52

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



by a Kwik Save supermarket which has now been demolished. Planning permission was granted in 2009, and renewed in 2012, for one A1 retail store and car parking. Development has not yet commenced, probably influenced by the grant of planning permission for a foodstore on the Crystal Drinks site as mentioned in 5.7. The site is well located for development for town centre uses including retail and to provide links through to SPA10 (Special Policy Area – Land at Lister Close) allocated in the Site Specific Policies Local Plan.”

conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.

RMIQ33 36 5.16 Add after 1st sentence:

“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Knottingley inset map.”

For clarification.


RMIQ33 36 RTC160 Add new sentence at start of policy:

“This site should be developed as a foodstore.”

Delete final sentence of 1st paragraph of the policy:

“This is previously developed land within the settlement of Knottingley, which is classified as an urban area. It lies within the Knottingley town centre inset map boundary and as such will be covered by the relevant policy statements for that area. Planning permission has been granted for a Lidl foodstore. In the event that the planning permission is not implemented the Local Plan will identify that the site is suitable for a supermarket or other town centre uses.”

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability impacts of the allocation have already been assessed in relation to the site being developed for this proposed uses. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the earlier SA assessment.


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the South Elmsall inset map.”

For clarification

This additional text is for clarification, and does not alter the location of the Development Site (RTC91) or the principles of the application of this policy,

53

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



upon which SA has already been carried out. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of the earlier SA assessments.

RMIQ34 37 RTC91 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed as a discount foodstore. Additional small scale retail units (no larger than 300 square metres each) would also be acceptable along with other main town centre uses.”

Delete 2nd

sentence of the 1st paragraph of the policy:

“This site is located at the western end of the retail area in South Elmsall and is occupied by the Fire Station, the library, a health centre (now closed), a pay and display car park and a building previously used as a small supermarket. The site is suitable for retail and other commercial uses. It could accommodate the discount foodstore identified in the Retail Study and other small retail units, no larger than 300sqm each. Any scheme would need to address the issue of car parking. The site currently includes a pay and display car park and it is important to retain car parking provision to serve visits to the town centre as well as to businesses located on the site itself. Development proposals do not necessarily need to relate to the entire site, for example the library is unlikely to be available for development.”

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The policy already identifies the site as being suitable for retail and other commercial uses, including a discount foodstore and other small retail units, and has been assessed as such through the earlier SA assessment. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions in the SA assessment work.


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Hemsworth inset map.”

For clarification


RMIQ35 39 RTC159 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed for main town centre uses.

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability

54

Ref No Page No

Policy/ Paragraph



Residential development would also be acceptable.”

Delete second sentence of the policy: “It is suitable for a range of uses including residential.”

impacts of the development of this site for residential, retail and town centre uses has already been assessed through earlier SA assessment. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of this earlier assessment.


“The following site is allocated as a Development Site and is identified on the Ossett inset map.”


RMIQ37b 41 RTC101 Add new sentence at start of policy: “This site should be developed as a foodstore.”

For clarification

This modification is proposed for clarification purposes. The sustainability impacts of the development of this site, with a foodstore, has already been assessed. Therefore, the modification is not considered to significantly alter the conclusions of this earlier SA assessment.

55

New Policy: Design Improvement Areas

Option: RTC167

Examination Main Modification: Design Improvement Areas

SA Reference SA Objectives Effects Commentary / Explanation (including secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects)

Sh

ort

Term

Med

ium

Te

rm

Lo

ng

Term

Perm

an

en

ce

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f eff

ect

Geo

gra

ph

ica

l eff

ect

Economic

SA1 Good quality employment opportunities available to all

√ √ √ P M L Improving local design quality, within priority areas of the historic town of Pontefract, may help make the town a more attractive place to invest and carry out business, with associated new employment opportunities.

SA2 Conditions which enable business success, economic growth and investment

√ √ √ P M L Delivering good design does not necessarily result in higher development costs and improving local design quality within priority areas of the historic town of Pontefract may help make the town a more attractive place to invest and carry out business.

Social

SA3 Education and training opportunities to build skills and capacities

√ √ √ P M L On-the-job training opportunities as a result of new investment and businesses may become available.

SA4 Conditions and services to engender good health

− − − P M L

SA5 Safety and security for people and property

√ √ √ P M L Design improvements that support town centre vibrancy are likely to support town centre safety and security.

SA6 Vibrant communities to participate in decision making

√ √ √ P M L Improving local design quality and attracting new businesses will support town centre regeneration with knock on effects for community vibrancy.

56

SA7 Create, enhance and provide accessibility to culture, leisure and recreation activities

√ √ √ P M L Encouraging local business investment may result in enhanced leisure and cultural opportunities in the town.

SA8 Local needs met locally √ √ √ P M L The policy would support the provision of quality local facilities and services.

SA9 Quality housing available to everyone

− − − P M L Some new housing could be delivered within the design improvement areas. However, this is unlikely to be of a significant scale.

Environmental

SA10 To provide a transport network which maximises access whilst minimising detrimental impacts

_ _ _ P M L The policy supports the provision on new local facilities and services, which may have some indirect effects on reducing the need to travel outside of the town to access such provision. In turn this would provide increased opportunities for greater use of public transport.

SA11 A quality built environment that protects and enhances its historic assets, and efficient land use patterns that make good use of derelict sites, minimise travel and promote balanced development

√√ √√ √√ P M L The purpose of this policy is to improve the local quality of the built environment, whilst protecting and enhancing the significant historic assets of Pontefract. Improving the design quality in these locations represents efficient use of previously developed sites. And by making the town a more attractive place to live, work and invest the policy may also have knock on effects for reducing the need to travel

SA12 A bio-diverse and attractive natural environment

− − − P M L

SA13 Minimal pollution levels _ _ _ P M L Reducing the need to travel to access facilities and services may have a knock on effect in terms of the use of sustainable transport and associated levels of transport related pollution.

SA14 Minimal greenhouse gas emissions and a managed response to the effects of climate change

_ _ _ P M D Reducing the need to travel to access facilities and services may have a knock on effect in terms of the use of sustainable transport and associated levels of transport related pollution.

SA15 Prudent and efficient use of energy and natural resources, with minimal production of waste

√ √ √ P M D Improving the design quality within existing previously developed sites represents an efficient use of land and resources within these central locations.

57

Option Conclusion & Mitigation / Alternatives

Supporting design improvements within the historic town of Pontefract should help improve the quality of the built historic environment along one of the main vehicular route through the town. This will help to improve the image of the town with associated benefits of attracting investment and businesses. This would benefit town centre vitality and viability, community vibrancy and have potential benefits for tourism and the local economy. This also represents an efficient use of land. Making the town centre a more attractive place to live, work and invest may also have some knock on effects for sustainable transport and climate change by reducing the need to travel.

Key to Abbreviations Overall Compatibility and Magnitude of Effect

Likelihood of effect Geographical Scale of Effect Permanence of Effect

Definition of Timescales

√√ : Very Sustainable H : High G : Global T : Temporary Short Term : 0-10 years

√ : Sustainable M : Medium N : National P : Permanent Medium Term : 10-20 years

- : Neutral L : Low R : Regional Long Term : After the life of the plan

? : Uncertain SR : Sub Regional

× : Unsustainable D : District Wide

×× : Very unsustainable L : Localised to settlement or area

58

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan - Examination Main Modifications

The main modifications proposed to the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan relate to the Delivery and Monitoring section of the Plan (modification reference LMIQ62 – 63). This section of the Local Plan is itself not subject to sustainability appraisal. However, some of the Local Plan indicators are also duplicated in the Implementation and Monitoring section of the Final Sustainability Appraisal Report where proposals are set out for monitoring significant environmental effects. Therefore, it is necessary to include a schedule of associated modifications to table 12 of the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan - Final Sustainability Appraisal Report (page 77-78), which is set out below.

Schedule of Amendments to Table 12: Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Local Plan - Final Sustainability Appraisal Report

Significant / Uncertain Effect Effect Proposed Indicator Monitoring Proposals

SA4 Condition to engender good health

√√ Land safeguarded for Strategic Leisure Corridors maintained and/ or new links implemented, in accordance with LROS requirements.

Number of New sports facilities with planning permission, in accordance with LROS policy requirements.

Number of new Planning permissions for developments in accordance with LROS policy requirements.

Number of Planning permissions affecting open space identified in the Greenspace Audit.

Number of planning permissions affecting Protected Areas of Open Land.

Incorporate into AMR as a new Indicator.




Existing AMR Indicator D13/1.

SA7 Create, enhance and provide accessibility to culture, leisure and recreation activities

√√ Land safeguarded for Strategic Leisure Corridors maintained and/ or new links implemented, in accordance with LROS requirements.


Number of new Planning permissions for developments in Leisure Opportunity Areas in accordance with LROS policy requirements.







Existing AMR Indicator D13/1.

59

SA8 Local needs met locally √√ Land safeguarded for Strategic Leisure Corridors maintained and/ or new links implemented, in accordance with LROS requirements.


Number of new Planning permissions for developments in Leisure Opportunity Areas, in accordance with LROS policy requirements.







Incorporate into monitoring framework as an existing AMR Indicator D13/1.

SA12 A bio-diverse and attractive natural environment

√√ Areas of biodiversity importance.

Quality of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Number of new Planning permissions for developments in Leisure Opportunity Areas, in accordance with LROS policy requirements.

Existing AMR indicator CS10/4.

Existing AMR Indicators CS10/5, D4/1.


Conclusion Based on the above further assessment, it is concluded that the changes to the two Local Plans resulting from the main modifications would not significantly alter the conclusions of the Final Sustainability Appraisal Reports and Annexes submitted for the examination.

60

Sustainability Appraisal - Minor Modifications Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan and Retail and Town Centre Local Plan It is considered that the schedule of changes listed in the table of minor modifications for the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan and Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan do not collectively result in any significant effect that would necessitate further detailed sustainability appraisal.

61

Chapter 7 Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report

63

Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report

Examination Modifications - Retail and Town Centre Local Plan and Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan

Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive require Appropriate Assessment to be carried out for plans and projects that are likely to affect a Natura 2000 site such as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Special Protection Area (SPA) or a Ramsar Site. Appropriate Assessment (AA) is a process which assesses the implications and potential effects of plans such as the Local Development Framework on the conservation objectives of the site, and determines whether or not policies or proposals will significantly affect the integrity of these objectives. In Wakefield District there is one designated European site, Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC. Consequently, it was necessary to carry out an AA to assess the impact of the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan and Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan on the SAC. There are clear parallels between AA and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) since they are processes for assessing and minimising the environmental and sustainability impacts of plans. It is generally accepted that AA and SA should be undertaken in parallel. However, AA requires a clear, separate statement from the SA for each Development Plan Document. The AA is consistent with the SA of the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan and Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan.

Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of the Retail and Town Centre Plan was carried out at the Early Engagement, Consultation Draft, and Submission stages to determine the potential impacts of the Objectives, Issues, Policies and Proposals on any European sites. The Reports set out the principles for accepting or rejecting options on the basis of their potential impact on Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC; what the potential impacts might be and how these might be addressed as options are progressed; and conclude the Plan would have no significant impact on the integrity of Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC. Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of the Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Plan was carried out at the Early Engagement, Consultation Draft, and Submission stages to determine the potential impacts of the Objectives, Issues, Policies and Proposals on any European sites. The Reports set out the principles for accepting or rejecting options on the basis of their potential impact on Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC; what the potential impacts might be and how these might be addressed as options are progressed; and conclude the Plan would have no significant impact on the integrity of Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC.

Consultations on the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report The Council consulted Natural England and the Environment Agency whilst preparing the Appropriate Assessment Screening Reports for the two Local Plans at the Early Engagement, Consultation and Publication and Submission stages. No comments were received on the Reports at any of these stages.

Examination Modifications The main modifications to the Retail and Town Centre Local Plan, as set out above, relate to development sites outside the 2km buffer zone around Denby Grange Colliery Ponds. Some of the main modifications relate to the district-wide policies. However, the purpose of these policies is to direct retail and town centre development towards the town centres identified on the Policies Map, which fall outside of the 2km buffer zone around Denby Grange Colliery Ponds.

64

Therefore, the application of these policies should help to ensure that inappropriate / potentially harmful development does not occur within the buffer zone. The main modifications to the Leisure Recreation and Open Space Local Plan relate to the monitoring section of the Plan only, and do not propose any changes to the policies. Therefore, it is concluded the main modifications are not likely to have any impact on the integrity of the SAC and consequently a detailed assessment is not required.

leisure, recreation and open space local plan retail and ......

Documents