Leeds City Council · Metropolitan borough
Transport Statements and Assessments in Leeds
What transport evidence a Leeds planning application needs, the parking standards that apply, and the policies an assessment should address.
Which document do you need?
National policy asks for a Transport Statement or a Transport Assessment wherever a development will generate significant amounts of movement.
Transport Statement
A shorter document for smaller schemes where transport issues are limited: access, parking, trips and sustainable travel.
Transport Assessment
A full assessment for larger schemes: trip generation, network impact, junction capacity and mitigation.
Parking standards
Leeds City Council sets its parking standards in the document below. Use it for the car and cycle provision your scheme needs.
Source: Leeds Transport Supplementary Planning DocumentAdopted 3 February 2023Confirmed as the current standard on 10 November 2026
Policies your assessment should address
The transport policies of the development plan documents in the summary panel. A neighbourhood plan, or a plan for one part of Leeds, may also apply to your site.
Core Strategy (as amended by the Selective Review)
- T1Transport management
- EN8Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan
- AVL12Strategic Transport Infrastructure Improvements in AVL
- SB1Pedestrian and Cycle Connectivity in the South Bank
- EB1Transport Improvements in East Bank, Richmond Hill and Cross Green
- HU4Transport Improvements in Hunslet
- CAV2Local Transport Improvements in the Central Aire Valley
- SG2Walking and Cycling Connections at Skelton Gate
How transport has weighed in recent decisions
From 84 recent planning and appeal decisions in Leeds. The counts are taken from the decisions themselves.
Access & visibility
48 decisions
27 refused or dismissed, 21 approved or allowed
Highway capacity / safety
46 decisions
26 refused or dismissed, 20 approved or allowed
Parking provision
42 decisions
23 refused or dismissed, 19 approved or allowed
Active travel
36 decisions
18 refused or dismissed, 18 approved or allowed
Sustainable location / accessibility
23 decisions
12 refused or dismissed, 11 approved or allowed
Construction & servicing
21 decisions
8 refused or dismissed, 13 approved or allowed
Across the transport-relevant decisions read, weight most often fell on access & visibility (27 of 48 refused/dismissed), highway capacity / safety (26 of 46 refused/dismissed), parking provision (23 of 42 refused/dismissed). Officer reports were retrieved for 36 of 3866 council decisions in scope: the council-side picture is partial. This is a descriptive read of the public decision record; verify each decision before professional use.
“the facility would not generate much traffic and could not reasonably be considered to be significant development in this regard.”
Appeal allowed: 3376171, 22 May 2026
“it may be possible to achieve a degree of security and privacy by exploring, for example, more sensitive boundary treatment options such as the provision of a well-maintained evergreen hedge or other planting (at an appropriate height/position if vehicular sightlines are a factor) and/or the use of CCTV.”
Appeal dismissed: 3376448, 22 May 2026
“Where the proposal has been found to be acceptable in other respects, including effects on the living conditions of existing residents and future occupants, highway and pedestrian safety, flood risk and drainage, these are neutral matters and do not weigh in favour of the proposal.”
Appeal dismissed: 3377277, 15 May 2026
- 3376171Appeal allowed, 22 May 2026
- 3376448Appeal dismissed, 22 May 2026
- 3377277Appeal dismissed, 15 May 2026
- 3376202Appeal allowed, 13 May 2026
- 3372479Appeal allowed, 30 April 2026
- 3370276Appeal dismissed, 28 April 2026
A descriptive summary of past decisions, not a prediction. Built on 4 November 2026.
This page summarises adopted policy and links to the source documents. It is not legal advice: always confirm a figure against the adopted document before relying on it.