Village Web Site Forum

Paul Wilkinson
Sunday, October 12, 2008 09:52
LDFs - Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Could this explain why several landowners have been surprised to see their land designated as a building plot on the SHELAA map? The following is taken from the Government's Planning Portal website at

and refers to laws brought in by the Government in 2004:

"The government has introduced a new plan system to manage how development takes place in towns and the countryside.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced a new "two tiered" plan system, made up of:

Regional Spatial Strategies - prepared by the regional planning bodies. These set out a broad spatial planning strategy for how a region should look in 15 to 20 years time and possibly longer.

Local Development Frameworks - a folder of local development documents prepared by district councils, unitary authorities or national park authorities that outline the spatial planning strategy for the local area.

The Local Development Framework, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy, will determine how the planning system will help to shape your community."

So, there you have it - the LDF is part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It appears the landowners don't even get a say in it!

Glusburn (ex Suttoner)
Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:47
very interesting. thanks for posting
Sunday, October 12, 2008 13:19
And our councils can be found here, did anyone know it was supposed to be up for consultation, last date 10 October?
Sunday, October 12, 2008 15:55
From Simon Jenkins, in today's "Sunday Times":

'The green belt, threatened by Hazel Blears’s craven kowtowing to speculators, can breathe a sigh of relief. The government’s spurious “eco-towns” should be halted and its “pathfinder” bulldozers should fall silent across northern cities.'

The economic downturn seems to have come not a moment too soon. With £100bn per annum central government borrowing on the cards, I'd not put my shirt on any of the odd pennies dropping this way, that might have been left after the developers had finished their "infrastructure".

One does have to wonder what the point of "representative democracy" is, if we have to rely on financial meltdown, and large-scale personal supervision of council work, to keep CDC (and others) from being monumentally stupid.
Sunday, October 12, 2008 16:34
If you look at the minutes from the recent Leeds City Region meetings, all sites identified for 'eco towns' had been rejected and replaced with 'New Growth Point' (aka the 2000 new houses in Cross Hills/Glusbrn/Sutton) and then resold to the government (Point 5) (Point 27)

Attending - Clr Chris Knowles-Fitton and Colin Walker

Perhaps they could not find a site for the 'eco-town' as nobody wanted one in their area?
Paul Wilkinson
Sunday, October 12, 2008 17:32
Brilliant find, Adam!

I've included hot links below...

LeadersBoard June 2008 PDF

LeaderBoard August 2008 PDF

Sunday, October 12, 2008 20:33
This was the start. Note the date.


Performance and Resources Committee 14th March 2007

Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board Agreement

Ward(s) affected: All.

Report of : Head of Economic and Community Development

1. Purpose of Report –

To set out the terms of the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board Agreement and the draft proposals for the operation of the City Region Leaders’ Board, as set out in the Draft Procedures and Protocols handbook

2. Recommendations –

Members are recommended to:

2.1. Agree to the terms of the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board Agreement.
2.2. Note the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board Draft Procedures and Protocols.
2.3. Agree that the Leader of the Council shall be the representative for Craven District Council on the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board.
2.4. Agree that the Deputy Leader should be the substitute for the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board.

3. Background

3.1 The Leeds City Region is the area covered by the five West Yorkshire districts – Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield, Craven, Harrogate, Selby and York in North Yorkshire, and Barnsley in South Yorkshire. This area has a culturally and ethnically diverse population of nearly 2.8 million of which 1.4 million are economically active, is home to over 70,000 businesses, sits astride nationally strategic east-west and north-south transport corridors, and has a striking mix of rural and urban environments and areas of outstanding countryside.

3.2 The political Leaders of the eleven Partner Councils made a collective commitment to work together for the benefit of the city region and to deliver sustainable economic growth and improved competitiveness. To that end the Partnership previously agreed a city region concordat setting out the mission to ‘Work together differently: to develop an internationally recognised city region, to raise our economic performance, to spread prosperity across the whole of our city region, and to promote a better quality of life for all of those who live and work here.’

3.3 Some clarity regarding city region governance arrangements is now required to enable pursuit of the ambitions of the city region set out in the Leeds City Region Development Programme (CRDP), which includes the long term Vision for Transport. Accordingly, the city region Leaders agreed on 11 September 2006 to develop a formal structure, a proposal for which is outlined in the attached Agreement - Appendix 2.

3.4 The new governance proposals are set within the context of a number of key principles, namely :

• The city region agenda should focus entirely on furthering the economic competitiveness of the area, and therefore governance proposals should be constructed solely around economic matters, based on the CRDP and the long term Vision for Transport
• Proposals should focus on identifying what needs to be done/can be done better at a city region level and should not seek to duplicate the existing roles/responsibilities of constituent authorities, proposals should also be complementary to the roles of Yorkshire Forward and the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly,
• The new partnership body should be capable of engaging effectively with Government and Regional Bodies on issues such as on Regional Funding Allocations.
• A mayoral system is not supported.


3.1 A copy of the Agreement is attached as Appendix 2, which sets out the details that have been agreed by city region Leaders.

3.2 The Agreement establishes the Board and provides a framework for its operation. Detailed Standing Orders and other documentation dealing with operational matters will be formulated by the Board itself.

3.3 Voting Arrangements: The Board will be constituted on a one member one vote arrangement. Decisions will therefore be determined by a majority of the representatives present at any meeting.

3.4 Local Authority Obligations: Each Partner authority will appoint the Leader to represent their authority on the Board. In the event that a Leader cannot attend a meeting of the Board, a senior Member substitute such as a Deputy Leader or Executive Member will be allowed.

3.5 Although the Agreement provides for the Board to discharge the function of promoting the improvement of economic wellbeing in the City Region, this will not preclude or constrain member local authorities from promoting economic wellbeing in their own areas - even where this entails the adoption of a position at variance with that of the city region.

3.6 Panels: Whilst the Board will be empowered to appoint and delegate powers to sub-committees and officers, Leaders are of the view that all ex3cutive decision-making should reside with the Board in the first instance. Accordingly, it is likely that the Board will appoint theme-based Working Groups (to be referred to as Panels) to oversee specific city region work.

3.7 The Panels will be chaired by a Member of the Board and will primarily comprise of Board Members / Member representatives, although senior representatives of relevant organisations may be invited onto the Panels. The Panels will be able to establish multi-agency task groups to support them and the Board. Unlike the Board, Access to Information provisions will not apply to these Panels and Task Groups.

3.8 Resources: Current revenue spend on City Region work is primarily related to staffing of the secretariat, undertaking research, preparing published documents such as the CRDP, and organising events such as the national and regional launches of the CRDP. Currently, staffing costs are primarily borne by Leeds City Council, with financial and in-kind contributions from West Yorkshire Capacity Building, The Northern Way and a range of partner authorities.

3.9 It is not envisaged that additional resources will be required in the next financial year 2007/08, as ongoing arrangements can continue to be utilised. The Board will consider longer term resource requirements, and it has been agreed that any future council contributions should be in proportion to respective population levels.

3.10 Review: The operation of the Agreement will be reviewed by the Board after 12 months and annually thereafter.

3.11 Support Services Authority: Leeds City Council will be the initial Support Services Authority for the Board, continuing the existing city region support arrangements.

3.12 The new arrangements for the Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board will take effect on 1 April 2007. The first meeting of the Board will take place on 2 April 2007.

4. Implications

4.1 Financial Implications

This Council’s financial contribution has been fixed at 1% of the total.

The Protocol Terms of Reference states that the Board is to set its own budget but there is no limit set on the amount of the budget nor any mechanism whereby the constituent Councils can restrict the Board's spending. The expenditure is expected to cover costs for a small secretariat team plus items such as an annual conference, research and production of reports. Estimates of these costs are not expected until October 2007 but at present total costs are in the region of £250,000. It is expected that a 3 year budget will be agreed by the Leaders ready for the budget rounds for 2008/9.

Agreement Clause 7(b) contemplates the possibility, at least, that a Council which has left the Group must continue to contribute to ongoing spending commitments which the Group entered into while that Council was still a member.

4.2 Legal Implications

The requirement for a full financial year's notice to be given by a Council wishing to withdraw (Agreement Clause 7) means that if Craven DC wishes to leave for any reason we would potentially have to continue with payments and other commitments for up to nearly 2 years if a decision to leave was taken in April.

4.3 Contribution to Corporate Priorities

The Leeds City Region directly contributes to the following corporate priorities:

• Creating a Prosperous District
• Stronger Communities with Excellent and Accessible Services

4.4. Risk Management


5. Consultations with Others

Other units within the Council including the Chief Executive, Finance, Legal Services, and Democratic Services.

6. Access to Information: Background Documents –


7. Author of the Report

David Smurthwaite, Head of Economic and Community Development
Telephone 01756 706212 email

8. Appendices

Appendix 1: Draft Procedures and Protocols Handbook
Appendix 2: Leeds City Region Leaders’ Board Agreement

Sunday, October 12, 2008 20:58
Nice spot John.
The bit that caught my eye was the following,

3.7 The Panels will be chaired by a Member of the Board and will primarily comprise of Board Members / Member representatives, although senior representatives of relevant organisations may be invited onto the Panels. The Panels will be able to establish multi-agency task groups to support them and the Board. Unlike the Board, Access to Information provisions will not apply to these Panels and Task Groups.

The last sentence is the killer. Is that why the Craven new housing scheme (aka the 2000 houses) was not known until recently?

Sunday, October 12, 2008 21:56
Hey guys, I found this little gem. It is a recent report that sets out the agenda for strategic housing needs in relation to the growth point bid and proposed " Eco town" initiatives.

The parts I f ound very interesting indeed are as follows:

2.4 this point clearly indicates that the government expected regional councils to enter into public consultation over the growth point proposals and analyse the long term ramifications. Clearly Skipton council failed to do this and were outed trying to hush the plans up.

3.6 This is an interesting point that indicates that the proposals may actualy be flawed legaly. Id love to know why.

6.5 There is a clear indication here that the plans are up against time on a serious level and that the public consultation can definitely be the way to hinder progress!

7.1 this point in the conclusions section names the top man in this whole plan. Lain Wright MP. Im wondering if we should write to him and explain the underhanded methods employed by his underlings?

This document is launchable on the knowledgbase page of ( growth point agenda)
Monday, October 13, 2008 10:56
Thanks Adam. Also we need to be 100% correct on our facts, when dealing with the council. This is all bad enough without the wrong figures being used. Do not give them any leeway! Where has 2000 houses come from? That's not what was quoted at the 24 September meeting. See below



The Director of Environmental Services submitted a report informing the Committee of recent developments in relation to the Leeds City Region Growth Point status, and in particular: -

a. Revised housing allocation figures resulting from the award of Growth Point status – additional growth for the purposes of Growth Point 50 new dwellings per annum for the period to 2016/17 over and above the 250 dwellings per annum for the District within the final Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), giving a total of 300 dwellings per annum for that period.

In the period to 2016 South Craven would be expected to accommodate 920 new dwellings.

Note: The Director delivered a brief presentation correcting the figures within his report in respect of the housing allocation.

b. Preparation of a Growth Point Programme of Development submission which would cover the four Councils’ (ie. those awarded Growth Point status within the City Region) cases for bringing forward additional housing development on an earlier timetable than RSS. The key output for Craven would be the request for funding for feasibility and modelling work in connection with:

- Community facilities,
- Highways and transportation modelling, (which included the impact of additional development on the local and strategic highway network including the development of the local strategic highway network, including the development of a South Craven Transport Model,
- An option appraisal into the consequences of closing the Skipton Road rail crossing and what infrastructures were needed to alleviate the consequences of that closure,
- All feasibility and preparatory modelling work and business case preparation in relation to a new rail station,
- Funding (or part funding) for a South Craven Masterplan and associated public consultation.

c. Details of an expression of interest submitted in respect of a Community Infrastructure Bid which related solely to possible infrastructure provision as follows:

- New Crosshills Railway Station facilities on County Council and Network Rail land located between Station Road and Skipton Road.
- Parking and rail based Park and Ride facilities serving the station.
- Mitigation measures on Station Road including bridge improvements to provide additional pedestrian and vehicle capacity.
- Main Street Station Road junction signalisation to mitigate the impact of diverting traffic.
- Active signing on the approaches to Kildwick level crossing to inform driver choices and thus reduce queuing.
- Improvements to Kildwick Roundabout to maximise capacity.
- Environmental improvements on Main Street to optimise facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

d. The possible need for a detailed master plan for South Craven.

It was pointed out that by accepting the figure of 300 through Growth Point, this Council would be ensuring that growth would be accompanied by substantial infrastructure and economic improvements, which might not be delivered if the numbers were to be imposed at a later date through the RSS review. A description and summary of the implications for Growth Points produced by the consultancy firm Arups had been circulated with the Director’s report.

During the course of the ensuing discussion Members expressed concern at the late publication of the report now presented, and also indicated that bearing in mind their limited involvement to date, they required more time to fully understand the implications of Growth Point status. Accordingly, it was moved and

Resolved – That a Member seminar is arranged as a matter of urgency to enable Members to fully discuss the Growth Point Bid and it’s implications, and that a decision on the report now presented is deferred until such time as that seminar has taken place.

Note: Following a seminar the matter was considered at a special meeting of Council held on 8th October 2008."


24th September 2008

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 13, 2008 11:29
The correct figure is 2000, not 1400.

Adding up the numbers of dwellings for plots 304 to 327 on the SHELAA map gives a total of 1909. This is the map forming the basis of our campaign and was used at the "secret" CDC planning meeting on 1st October.

See forum topic titled "2000 houses - the map" which links to a high resolution copy of the SHELAA map together with documents from the CDC website giving details about the individual plots.

  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.