Leeds Site Allocations Plan – Revised Main Matters 1A, 3 & 7A

LEEDS SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN – REVISED MAIN MATTERS 1A, 3 & 7A - OUTER NORTH EAST - SUPPORT FOR SHLAA SITE REFERENCE 1107 – LOW MILLS, BOSTON SPA – GMI INVESTMENTS LTD

REF. M6/19/2 & M7/43/2

INTRODUCTION

1.1 We write on behalf of our client GMI Investments Ltd (GMI) to provide their hearing statement to Revised Main Matters 1A, 3 & 7A of the Leeds Site Allocations Plan (Leeds SAP) Examination in Public. This statement particularly responds to the following Main Matters: -

• Matter 1A – Procedural Requirements

• Matter 3 – Green Belt

• Matter 7A – Outer North East – Selection of Sites Allocated for Development

1.2 GMI’s current land interest in Boston Spa is the site known as Low Mills (SHLAA Ref.1107), which is located on the eastern boundary of the Village. Within this statement, we set out in detail GMI’s Low Mills development proposals and the significant benefits that they can deliver to Boston Spa. GMI have submitted comprehensive documentation to support the allocation of the Low Mills, Boston Spa site for residential development within the Leeds SAP.

1.3 The comments made in this statement should be considered alongside GMI’s representations to the Leeds SAP Pre-Submission Changes document submitted in March 2017 and the previous Hearing Statement to the Leeds SAP dated 25th August 2017. Copies of the previous representations can of course be provided on request.

1.4 GMI are part of the Outer North-East Housing Market Character Area (ONE) developer consortium alongside Barratt Homes & David Wilson Homes, Bellway Homes, Miller Homes and KCS Developments. The Consortium share a number of interests associated with the delivery of new homes within the ONE. Accordingly, the ONE Consortium have instructed Barton Willmore to prepare representations on their behalf in respect of the Leeds SAP. Within this statement we reference extracts of the ONE Consortium’s submitted hearing statements.

1.5 This hearing statement concludes by stating that the Low Mills, Boston Spa site should be identified as a Phase 1 housing land allocation within the adopted Leeds SAP to contribute towards the delivery of the identified housing needs of the ONE, alongside the delivery of the specifically identified specialist housing needs of Boston Spa and the number of other benefits that the development of the site can provide.

1.6 Whilst discussion at the Leeds SAP hearing sessions will likely focus on meeting Leeds City Council’s (LCC’s) overall quantitative housing supply requirements, we wish to stress the importance of also needing to focus on the requirement to meet LCC’s identified qualitative housing needs as well.

1.7 Our client’s site is the only proposed development that is committed to the delivery of housing for older people of 60+ years of age. A demographic where there is an evidenced acute housing needs in the City. If the opportunity to deliver the Low Mills site is missed, then there is no guarantee that these housing needs will be met elsewhere within the current plan period.

ONE CONSORTIUM REVISED LEEDS SAP HEARING STATEMENT CONCLUSIONS

2.1 The following conclusions presented by the ONE Consortium in their hearing statements to the Leeds SAP are considered relevant to this hearing statement.

Procedural Matters – Sustainability Appraisal – Main Matter 1A

2.2 ONE raise significant concerns that the analysis of Parlington within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is flawed and consequently unsound on the basis that it has been incorrectly assessed against a number of the objectives

2.3 ONE identify that in terms of its location and accessibility, LCC has attributed the lowest score to Parlington for accessibility to education (SA3), existing health facilities (SA4) and other existing facilities (SA8) which in itself demonstrates that the site is not in a sustainable location.

2.4 In addition, from a review of the SA assessment for Parlington against some of the SA assessments of rejected sites, it is clear that Parlington scores more poorly than discounted sites against the Council’s own sustainability criteria.

2.5 The table below includes an extract from the comparison table which identifies how our client’s site scores better than Parlington in respect of criterion SA3, SA4 and SA8. Its allocation on the basis that the site is in a sustainable location is not justified.

Site Site Name SA3 SA4 SA8 Sustainability Score 1107 Green Lane (land 0 0 -1 -11 east of), Boston Spa MX2-39 Parlington -1 -1 0 -17 (Council’s assessment) -21 (ONE assessment)

2.6 The Revised Submission SAP has therefore not been based on a sound process of Sustainability Appraisal.

LCC’s Approach to the Green Belt – Main Matter 3A

2.7 Policy BL1 sets out that Broad Locations contribute to the Core Strategy housing requirement, however also notes that Broad Locations will remain within the Green Belt until they are required for housing. The identification of sites as Broad Locations does not guarantee that they will be released for housing when the Plan is reviewed and the Policy notes that they could simply be deleted.

2.8 It is therefore important to reiterate that Broad Locations are not allocations, they do not deliver homes and do not contribute to the 70,000-housing target proposed.

2.9 The identification of Broad Locations is not justified and given that Broad Locations remain in the Green Belt and do not contribute towards the Council’s housing target is not in accordance with the CS.

2.10 To try to justify Broad Locations, LCC has retained Broad Locations within their distribution of homes in each HMCA, including them in delivery and distribution. This approach is however flawed given they are not allocations and remain in the Green Belt.

2.11 Once Broad Locations are deleted from LCC’s housing distribution to the Outer North East HMCA, there is a shortfall of 1,082 homes against the Core Strategy’s housing requirements for the area.

2.12 From a national planning policy perspective, Paragraph 85 of the NPPF sets out criteria which local planning authorities should meet when defining Green Belt boundaries. The approach to Broad Locations is clearly inconsistent with the requirements of Paragraph 85, which are discussed below.

2.13 For the reasons identified above, the Leeds SAP does not meet Paragraph 85, bullet point 1: Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development.

2.14 With regards to Paragraph 85, bullet point 3: Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period, this part of the Paragraph clearly defines ‘safeguarded land’ as being between the urban area and the Green Belt and not within the Green Belt. Modification 18 of the Revised Leeds SAP seeks to re-designate new safeguarded sites as Broad Locations. Retaining Green Belt land as safeguarded land is therefore in conflict with the NPPF and unsound.

2.15 Paragraph 85, bullet point 5 identifies the need for LPA’s to Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period. To satisfy this criterion, Green Belt boundaries established through the SAP should be permanent not only during this plan period, but also beyond. The identification of Broad Locations results in the SAP not being compliant with national Green Belt policy as they, by their very nature, make the boundaries temporary rather than permanent. LCC have themselves recognised that the release of Broad Locations may need to be reviewed within five years. A long-term permanence, as required by the NPPF, is not to review the Green Belt boundaries every five years.

2.16 LCC’s approach to allocating sites and Broad Locations in the ONE deviates from that in other HMCA’s and in proposing the Parlington Allocation/Broad Location it has not demonstrated compliance with the criteria within Policy SP10 or exceptional circumstances.

2.17 The identification of Broad Locations of Growth does not provide a robust or transparent planning strategy for LCC, the development industry and local communities in respect of the outcome/release of the Broad Locations of Growth within the earliest stages of the plan period and beyond.

2.18 With regards to Parlington, the approach to Green Belt site selection in the Revised Submission Leeds SAP is not consistent with the overall site selection process. Parlington was not sieved out, despite falling outside of the settlement hierarchy, on the basis that it was considered to be in a sustainable location and able to provide a full range of local facilities and services.

2.19 Upon a review of the Leeds SAP, existing identified/allocated sites may prove undeliverable and other more suitable sites may come forward, resulting in the outcome of Broad Locations being either: - • Allocated for housing or mixed use; • Allocated for school provision; • Designated as safeguarded land; or • Deleted as a Broad Location.

2.20 On account of the evidence the ONE Consortium and ourselves have previously submitted as part of the Leeds SAP consultation/examination process, which demonstrates the need for LCC to identify additional housing allocations to those currently identified, the allocation of Broad Locations of Growth for housing or mixed use is the likeliest outcome. Especially in light of the serious deliverability concerns associated with the Parlington site.

2.21 The identification of Broad Locations as safeguarded land should therefore result in these sites being released from the Green Belt. All Broad Locations identified were either allocated for housing or previously designated for safeguarded land. Paragraph 6.2 of the Background Paper notes that “all Submission Draft proposed housing allocations were (and remain) considered sound and available, suitable and achievable for housing”.

2.22 On this basis the ONE Consortium believe that exceptional circumstances do exist, and Broad Locations should be released from the Green Belt now. Whilst the previous representations and views remain relevant, if Broad Locations are to be retained, there is no comprehensible way Parlington can remain, therefore the proposed size of the Parlington allocation could be replaced with allocations and safeguarded land across the ONE HMCA, as per the ONE Consortium’s previous representations. This would result in needing to only release 35.4ha of Green Belt land across the ONE, which is a reduction in Green Belt release than currently proposed.

Selection of Sites Allocated for Development - Parlington – Main Matter 7A

Ability to deliver a full range of local facilities and services

2.23 Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy does not define what a “full range of local facilities and services” constitutes however within the Green Belt Review, sites outside of the settlement hierarchy (i.e. outside of the Main Urban Area; Major Settlements and Smaller Settlements) were sieved out because they did not satisfy the policy’s requirement for a “full range of facilities”. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the requirement for a “full range of local facilities and services” means creating a self-sufficient settlement at least the size of Smaller Settlements within the settlement hierarchy.

2.24 The draft Policy relating to Parlington stipulates that Phase 1 should provide a school, a new centre offering a range of supporting retail and commercial uses, new community greenspaces, enhanced public transport and footpath and cycle links. We however have significant concerns that the reduced size of Parlington will be unable to deliver the “full range of local facilities and services” required by the Policy.

More appropriate than the alternatives in the Settlement Hierarchy

2.25 LCC has made it clear that they are working on the basis that Smaller Settlements in the ONE do not have the level of facilities to cater for substantial growth. This influenced their decision to promote a new settlement. However, Smaller Settlements within the ONE are very comparable with other Smaller Settlements within the rest of the District which have been earmarked for substantial growth and the Council’s conclusion that settlements within the ONE are not sustainable enough for further growth is made on an unsound basis.

2.26 Evidence is presented in Table 7.2 of the ONE Consortium’s Main Matter 7A hearing statement that Boston Spa has the largest existing population and the highest number of existing services out of all of the Smaller Settlements in the ONE. It also provides evidence that Boston Spa is more sustainable than a number of other Smaller Settlements across the District yet has only received a third or less of housing allocations in comparison.

2.27 The ONE Consortium have consistently presented an alternative for the ONE which would provide a redistribution if homes across Smaller Settlements, on sustainable and deliverable sites. The Consortium’s approach applies the principles of Policy SP7 in producing an alternative plan in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. This approach has calculated the mean average for smaller settlements and then redistributed them based on sustainability and availability of sites in order to achieve a deliverable plan.

2.28 This approach is considered an appropriate alternative to the Parlington site.

2.29 Unlike existing villages and Smaller Settlements within the ONE, Parlington is not served by public transport and has no existing access. It is questionable whether the quantum of development which can be achieved on the proposed allocation will be able to deliver and support the level of infrastructure required to incorporate cycle and pedestrian links and provide public transport to the site.

2.30 A development of the scale envisaged for Parlington will not be able to deliver the services, facilities and necessary infrastructure in the absence of the Broad Location element of the site coming forward. A development of less than 800 homes would in effect be creating a new settlement with less services and facilities than Smaller Settlements or villages in the ONE, which the Council have alleged are not sustainable to support new development.

2.31 With regards to heritage matters, the continued allocation of Parlington is not justified and no assessment has been carried out to assess the impact of the allocation on Parlington’s designation as a Grade II Listed Park and Garden. It is a matter of fact that the site is a Grade II Listed Park and Garden and the proposed allocation has to be judged on the evidence put forward. The site’s designation is clearly a significant material change of circumstance which should warrant a re-assessment of the site’s suitability by the Council and Historic England so that it is consistent with national policy.

2.32 The continued allocation of Parlington is not therefore justified and is unsound.

2.33 To conclude, unless significant changes are made to the Leeds SAP it is likely that we will again be in a situation where it will be “planning by appeal” before the end of the plan period on account of LCC not being able to demonstrate a rolling 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

DELIVERABILITY OF THE LOW MILLS, BOSTON SPA SITE

3.1 The Low Mills site can deliver approximately 80 new homes alongside several other unique social and economic benefits to Boston Spa and the ONE. The development proposals seek to deliver a low density residential development, the majority (at least 75%) is proposed to be dedicated to people in the 60+ age category and a proportion of which will be delivered by a nationally recognised operator of housing of this type.

3.2 With specific regards to housing for the elderly, this is a housing need that is given special attention within the Boston Spa Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) and which the Low Mills, Boston Spa site seeks to provide. The Boston Spa NDP identifies (in the URS housing study which is appended to it) that there is a need for an above average proportion of suitable accommodation to be made available for older residents. Accordingly, Policy Dev1 of the document seeks to meet these needs through new housing development.

3.3 GMI have previously undertaken work to provide LCC with further information in order for them to fully consider the prospect of their site’s allocation within future versions of the Leeds SAP.

3.4 Enclosed with GMI’s previous representations was a comprehensive report prepared by Bilfinger GVA providing an older people’s housing needs assessment for the Boston Spa housing market area. The report provided unequivocal evidence of the following: -

1. A housing needs assessment, utilising a Planning Practice Guidance compliant methodology, has clearly established housing needs in relation to older persons in the Boston Spa housing market area. The assessment’s conclusions identify that: - a. There is significant national and local legislative support for the delivery of homes for older people. b. There is a need for 464 dwellings for older persons and Boston Spa should clearly be a location where policy efforts are focused. c. The older persons housing product being proposed on the Low Mills site is the right product for Boston Spa, meeting a clear local need. d. The allocation of sites for older persons housing in Boston Spa under Policy HG4 of the Publication Draft Leeds SAP acknowledges/recognises the need for older persons housing in Boston Spa. However, the sites identified are undeliverable and at present the policy doesn’t go far enough to ensuring that older persons housing needs can be met. e. The commitment to delivery of older people’s housing can only come from the prospective developer. f. If the identified need for older persons housing is not planned for robustly in the Leeds SAP, then a further 15-20 years will pass before the opportunity to address this specific need comes around again.

2. A Design Report was included in the report which was prepared to act as a design guide/code for the development and to provide assurances to LCC and the Parish Council that the scheme will be set apart from both the existing housing offer and new build schemes in the ONE. Proposed unit specifications/typologies have been provided as part of the report to demonstrate how the development will provide housing specifically designed for older persons, including meeting Lifetime Homes standards.

3. Evidence was included in the report to demonstrate that there are legal mechanisms available to LCC to secure the provision of homes for older people prior to the site’s allocation. The Deed of Covenant provides a legal platform of confirmation to LCC of GMI’s intentions. A platform that can then be further backed up by specific wording in any future policy associated with the site’s allocation, alongside conditions and obligations that can be attached to any future planning approval.

3.5 The Bilfinger GVA Report provided further evidence of the unique nature of GMI’s proposals. Proposals that will deliver the specifically evidenced housing needs of a crucial demographic of the Boston Spa housing market area. Specific housing needs which will not be met in Boston Spa for a further 15-20 years unless GMI’s site is allocated within the Leeds SAP. We know of no other developer (at present) that has proposed to deliver such a housing offer, or which has gone to the same lengths as our client to demonstrate its commitment to the delivery of homes for older people.

3.6 The evidence provided above is particularly pertinent in respect of Main Matter 7. Unless developers have identified a willingness to go to the same lengths as GMI are in respect of the delivery of housing for older people (identified above) then we do not believe that Policy HG4 of the Leeds SAP will be effective in the delivery of this type of housing.

3.7 As identified above, our client’s site is the only proposed development that is committed to the delivery of housing for older people of 60+ years of age. A demographic where there is an evidenced acute housing needs in the City. If the opportunity to deliver the Low Mills site is

missed, then there is no guarantee that these housing needs will be met elsewhere within the current plan period.

3.8 GMI’s previous representations include a ‘Visioning Document’ which identified the key characteristics of GMI’s development proposals, their deliverability in respect of planning policy guidance and details of the many benefits that the proposals can deliver.

3.9 An indicative masterplan for the development of the site has previously been submitted to LCC, which identified the following key elements: -

• A size, layout and configuration capable of supporting a sustainable housing scheme. • Reconnection of the village’s green networks by re-opening the currently enclosed landscape buffer to the wider countryside and enhancing public footpath routes through this area. Creating long term permanence to the Green Belt. • The majority of housing (at least 75%) to accommodate the 60+ age group, a proportion of which will be delivered by a nationally recognised operator of this housing type. • Supports an extension to the existing community allotments. • Low density and high-quality housing and landscape-led design. • A suitable access from the A659. • A sustainable drainage strategy utilising the existing beck that runs to the south of the site. • The provision of a new informal community playing field and amenity green space for the use of the whole Village. This area of land is proposed to be gifted to the Parish Council to deliver a facility that they and local residents desire. • Provision of a significant amount of affordable housing.

3.10 The site’s sustainable location within walking distance to the Village centre and adjacent to the countryside makes it a perfect location for its target demographic and of course to provide enhancements to the vitality of Boston Spa’s existing services and facilities.

3.11 A further important facet of the Low Mills site is its potential to deliver long term permanence to the Green Belt on the Village’s eastern boundary. As GMI owns the freehold of the site and the surrounding land, GMI would also seek to preserve the remainder of their land interests beyond the Low Mills site boundary that currently forms part of the agricultural lease by way of a restrictive covenant preventing future commercial development of that land. GMI previously submitted a Deed of Covenant to LCC providing details of the proposed transfer of land located adjacent to the area proposed for allocation to Boston Spa Parish Council to ensure enduring permanence to the Green Belt to the Village.

3.12 As the Low Mills site was previously rejected by LCC as a potential housing allocation on grounds of its impact on the Green Belt, Gillespies LLP prepared a detailed assessment of the value of the Low Mills site to the Green Belt and the likely impact of development on the Green Belt. The full assessment was previously enclosed within the representations submitted by GMI to the Leeds SAP and its conclusions were set out in our previously submitted hearing statement.

3.13 Finally, with regards to meeting LCC’s identified housing land requirements, the Leeds SAP identifies the delivery of only 227 homes to Boston Spa, of which only 191 homes can be considered deliverable. None of which will provide specific housing for people over 60 years of age. Miller Homes’ recent planning approval at Grove Road for 104 homes will not deliver homes to meet this need either. Neither will David Wilson Home’s proposed development at the West Park PAS site. Full details of our assessment of the other potential sites considered by LCC as part of their SHLAA process is enclosed in our previously submitted representations.

3.14 The ONE Consortium’s alternative approach to housing delivery identified a 627 dwelling target as being sustainable for Boston Spa. Together, the sites referenced in Paragraph 3.13 above will only deliver 395 homes of the 627-dwelling target. A deficit of 232 homes.

3.15 Should, as alluded to in Sections 1 & 2 of this statement above, LCC be required to release additional housing sites to meet the District’s established housing needs, unequivocal evidence has been provided in this and previous statements that GMI’s land interest at Low Mills, Boston Spa should be allocated for residential development within the Leeds SAP.

3.16 At present, the lack of new proposed housing allocations in Boston Spa effectively imposes a moratorium upon new homes being built, shifting growth and threatening services and facilities. Having a critical implication on delivering housing needs in the ONE’s smaller settlements in respect of market, affordable and housing needs for senior citizens.

3.17 The release of GMI’s Low Mills, Boston Spa site can make an important contribution to addressing the identified historical and proposed imbalance of housing delivery in Boston Spa and the ONE Housing Market Character Area, whilst also delivering a significant number of social, economic and environmental benefits.

3.18 The Low Mills, Boston Spa site should therefore be identified as a Phase 1 housing land allocation within the adopted Leeds SAP.