Potential housing developments in Pool in Wharfedale

This page is now included in our website archives.

This page is available for you to share your views on the Leeds Site Allocations Plan Issues and Options. Your views will be posted anonymously but, hopefully, will help others with their response to this important consultation

Please email your views to poolinwharfedale@gmail.com

Contents of this page include:

  • General
  • Your comments
  • Flooding and surface water issues
  • Sewage works

General                                                                                                                                              A comprehensive and illustrated report has been published indicating reasons for objections to the Leeds City Council proposals for development in Pool In Wharfedale. The report includes the historical background to water and flooding in Pool, modern consequences, traffic issues in the village, covenants on existing buildings, the Conservation Area, and a comment on travellers’ accommodation. This document is available as an attachment from poolinwharfedale@gmail.com

Another website dealing with the potential housing proposals and with useful content is http://adelresidentssayno.blogspot.co.uk/  This site also includes a template letter that can be used and adapted for Pool in Wharfedale.

The Conservation Appraisal of 2009 granted by Leeds City Council states:
“The village on the whole is historic enough to require archaeological consideration even on a small scale development.  Development which involves below-ground excavation must have regard to the potential for archaeological finds”

Your comments

Site 1095A
‘The LCC report on this site states there are no objections from the Highways Agency. I am not aware of the extent of their responsibility for this area but the addition of any housing in the adjacent to the roads will aggravate a current traffic problem. The Shell garage junction is complicated by several entries and exits, commercial activity, and street parking. Additional entries and exits to more housing will exacerbate an already serious situation. The Access Comments in the LCC report confirms this situation’

‘The Green Belt assessment for this site understates the significance of this site that is part of the river landscape. The views towards the historic bridge are an essential part of the character of Pool In Wharfedale.’

‘Say if you oppose or support development of this site that lies on the south bank of the river. Leeds City Council (LCC) view is that it is too difficult to achieve development due to risk of flooding and it is marked Red and will not be put forward for immediate consideration. 

Site Ref: 1095B                                                                                                                         LCC suggest that 270 houses could be built on this site.  It is marked amber on the draft plan which indicates some issues will need to be addressed before development and it is not as favoured as other sites (they are marked green and there are none in Pool).  This site is currently Green Belt, LCC describes it as;

 ‘Potentially suitable for housing as extension to site 1369, however infrastructure would be required.  Development of both sites 1369 and 1095B would significantly increase the size of Pool in Wharfedale.  However, this site is essentially a large infill site between existing industry and the Protected Area of Search  (PAS)site 1369.’

‘You may want to record your views on traffic access, flooding, lack of infrastructure and affect such a large development would have on the character of Pool in Wharfedale.  In the LCC report it is noted that the West Yorkshire Ecology and LCC Ecology Officer do not support development of the site and mark it red.  The site scores 6 points overall towards development and support for development is only given if substantial works were to take place with regard to accessibility to education, transport, traffic control and access.  Even then the site is only suitable for development inconjunction with Site ref: 1369.  This site contains agricultural land and is very much part of the local green belt.’

1095B, 1369
The main issue with these sites is access and inadequate road capacity. The main road through Pool is a main route from Leeds to Harrogate and already extremely busy throughout the day with significant queues at peak times, both through the village and on Pool Bank. It is narrow with a narrow pavement and traffic does not respect the 30mph speed limit making it frightening as a pedestrian. Access to this development would presumably need to be via Old Pool Bank which is also very narrow, virtually single track and would not sustain the additional vehicles from this development. The junction on the other side near the Shell petrol station (A658/A659) is also busy. There have already been several accidents in the village with vehicles hitting street furniture and as a parent of two young children I am concerned that the inevitable increase in traffic will make an already dangerous situation worse.
The scale of the proposed development would entirely change the character of the village and impact negatively on the local ecology and agriculture. It is worth emphasising that the West Yorkshire Ecology and LCC Ecology Officer do not support development of this site (1095B)
The proposed development is on the flood plain of the River Wharfe and a high pressure gas main runs across the site which would present a safety issue and would need to be considered by potential developers; the fact that Persimmon Homes have withdrawn commercial interest suggests that the site is unsuitable for this scale of development.

Site Ref 1369                                                                                                                       Having lived at the Bar House at the top of Old Pool Bank for nearly 13 years, I have seen a marked increase in traffic using Old Pool Bank during this time. I have witnessed numerous accidents at the junction of Old Pool Bank and the A660 and have personally suffered damage to my property and vehicles due to traffic coming up and down Old Pool Bank. The building of another 500 properties at the bottom of Old Pool Bank will significantly increase the traffic using Old Pool Bank and will exacerbate the problems that I witness on a regular basis.

1095B, 1369
The main issue with these sites is access and inadequate road capacity. The main road through Pool is a main route from Leeds to Harrogate and already extremely busy throughout the day with significant queues at peak times, both through the village and on Pool Bank. It is narrow with a narrow pavement and traffic does not respect the 30mph speed limit making it frightening as a pedestrian. Access to this development would presumably need to be via Old Pool Bank which is also very narrow, virtually single track and would not sustain the additional vehicles from this development. The junction on the other side near the Shell petrol station (A658/A659) is also busy. There have already been several accidents in the village with vehicles hitting street furniture and as a parent of two young children I am concerned that the inevitable increase in traffic will make an already dangerous situation worse.
The scale of the proposed development would entirely change the character of the village and impact negatively on the local ecology and agriculture. It is worth emphasising that the West Yorkshire Ecology and LCC Ecology Officer do not support development of this site (1095B)
The proposed development is on the flood plain of the River Wharfe and a high pressure gas main runs across the site which would present a safety issue and would need to be considered by potential developers; the fact that Persimmon Homes have withdrawn commercial interest suggests that the site is unsuitable for this scale of development.

Site Ref: 1095C & Site Ref 1095D                                                                                           LCC reports that both of these sites are small and would not be suitable for development, however they would be required to form access to the larger developments outlined above.  Any acquisition for such a purpose would cause greatly increased traffic to be generated at the north end of Pool Bank New Road.

Site Ref 2054                                                                                                                                     This site, known as Harrogate Road, Moortown LS17 is located opposite Leeds Grammar School at Alwoodley Gates.  It is deemed to have capacity for 583 houses to be built.  Although it is currently marked red, (i.e. a site which is not considered suitable for housing development) it shares very similar characteristics with Pool Site Ref: 1095B which carries an amber assessment.   On that basis the Pool site is much more likely to be developed than the Harrogate Rd site.  The Harrogate Rd site scores 7 points and yet Pool only scored 6.  The local congestion issues score the same and the Harrogate Road site scores a 3 for access to public transport whereas the Pool site only scores 1 as there is only very limited access to education and no other access criteria are met.

The LCC report also recognises that site 2054 has good natural barriers to contain the development which would stop it becoming part of an urban sprawl.  This site has a significant area of unmanaged woodland on it as opposed to well used land around the boundary of a small dales village.

In conclusion you may wish to comment on the character of Pool in Wharfedale and how development in the last 15 years has resulted in saturation of roads, shortage of space at local schools.  A conservation area has been created in the centre of Pool and sites 1095 C & D are inside that area. 

Flooding and surface water issues                                                                                       A report on this subject can be obtained on request to poolinwharfedale@gmail.com

Sewage Works
Report from a Pool Parish Councillor following a visit to Arthington Sewage Works:

‘I recently had a good look at the Arthington sewage works in the company of Tom Grange, whose farmland lies between the sewage works and the river. As I understand it, the sewage treatment plant was built in the 1960s, to treat the sewage from Pool, Bramhope, Arthington and Castley. At that time, Bramhope and Pool were small villages, whose populations were a fraction of what they are today. The main sewer runs through flat agricultural land, quite close to the river, and the sewage is then augured up to the treatment beds. There are manholes at intervals, some of which are in a state of disrepair, leading to leakage. The treatment works are also in a state of disrepair, with evidence of leakage. At times of high water flow, the system is unable to cope, causing raw sewage to flow over the fields. As these are riverside fields, this raw sewage must, inevitably, end up in the river.

From conversations with residents on Arthington Lane, I understand that the sewer from the modern developments around that part of the village already backs up from its junction with the main sewer, causing flooding and bad smells. If the proposed developments were to go ahead, in Pool and/or Bramhope, this already intolerable situation would become even worse.

If residents could supply me with more information about the technical details of the Pool sewage treatment arrangements, I would be very grateful. In the meantime, I think it is worth mentioning these problems in responses to the consultation.  Joanna Rowling, email:  joannarowling@btinternet.com

Sewage Works – Pool A new sewage disposal works was constructed at Arthington by the Wharfedale Rural District Council.  The scheme was submitted in February 1963 and completed in 1967. The main contractors were H.O. Andrews Ltd. Leeds, 8. The official opening took place on 28th August 1968 with a coach tour of the works. Afterwards refreshments, toasts, etc. were made at Pool Village Memorial Hall. Further details held in Pool Archives and will be posted soon if relevant.

 

Edit

2 Responses to Potential housing developments in Pool in Wharfedale

Nick says:

In a recent newsletter there was information that Persimmon Homes no longer have commercial interest in these proposed developments. Does anyone know what the reason might be for their apparent withdrawal of interest as if it is associated with practical development issues it may be relevant to the consultation?

Nick (Church Close)

Pat Lazenby says:

My understanding is that in the year 2000 it was Beazer Homes who were the interested development company

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.