On page 58 of the Site Allocations for East Leeds, in which the Redhall(sic) site (ref 2062) is identified, there are some inaccuracies and outright errors.
- The statement that “[the land is] well connected to built-up area” is inaccurate. There are houses to the south and the odd house to the north, but that is all.
- The checkbox “Does the land provide access to the countryside?” is unchecked. Given that there is an established trail leading out of the north west of the site and into open countryside, the omission of this check is in error.
- The checkbox “Does the site include areas of woodlands, trees, hedgerows that are protected, or significant unprotected tree/hedge cover?” is unchecked. A simple glance at the header or gallery of this site shows how inaccurate this is.
- We take issue with the following statement: “Development of the site would have no effect on the setting and special character of historic features”. The view of Red Hall house from the Wetherby Road is part of the historic landscape. The curtilage of the house extended to the trees in the middle of the field not the railings in front of the house.
- The statement “The site does not perform an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” is indeed contentious, given that the site borders greenbelt to the North and East.
We believe the original site assessment to be so flawed that it had no basis being used as justification for inclusion in the SHLAA.