Examination of Leeds Site Allocation Plan (“Sap”)

EXAMINATION OF LEEDS SITE ALLOCATION PLAN (“SAP”)

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF MR C MAKIN

______

MATTER 1 –PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

WHETHER THE LEEDS SAP MEETS THE LEGAL PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS ______

Amanda Beresford Shulmans LLP 10 Wellington Place Leeds LS1 4AP

Tel: 0113 288 2816 Fax: 0113 246 7326

This statement is made on behalf of Mr Chris Makin to the examination of the Leeds Site Allocation Plan. It responds to Matter 1 Procedural Requirements - whether the Leeds SAP meets the legal process and requirements. It should be read in conjunction with the representatives made by Pegasus Group on behalf of Mr C Makin to the Leeds Site Allocation Plan Submission Draft Pre- submission Changes dated March 2017. These consisted of three documents listed below and include all of the representations made on behalf of Mr Makin during the various consultation stages as follows:

(i) Submission Draft Pre-Submission Changes Area Proposals: 8. Outer South for Mr Makin (document ref. YOR.1969.007) inc. Appendices, dated March 2017, (ii) Submission Draft Pre-Submission Changes Area Proposals: 10. Outer South East for Mr Makin (document ref. YOR.1654.18) inc. Appendices, dated March 2017. (iii) Submission Draft Pre-Submission Changes Area Proposals: 6. Outer North East Representation for Mr Makin (document ref. YOR.1654.19A) inc. Appendices, dated March 2017.

Q1. Has the Council submitted robust evidence to demonstrate that it has met the duty to co- operate? Are there any outstanding strategic matters?

1.1 S33 (A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires, inter alia, that a local planning authority must co-operate with specified persons in maximising the effectiveness of the preparation of development plan documents so far as relating to a strategic matter. Strategic matter is defined by S33A, ss4 (a) to include the sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas.

1.2 The duty to co-operate must be discharged prior to the submission of the plan for examination.

1.3 The Council’s evidence to the Examination on the duty to co-operate comprises the Duty to Co-operate Background Paper May 2017 (ref CD1/28). This includes an addendum dated September 2016 (“the Addendum”).

1.4 The Addendum was prepared in conjunction with the re-consultation of the Outer North East, Housing Market Area, (“ONE HMCA”) as a result of the withdrawal of the Headley Hall new settlement proposal and the introduction of the proposed new settlement at Parlington (MX2-39).

1.5 The Addendum refers to a proposed meeting with Selby District Council and North Yorkshire County Council to consider the new proposal for ONE which did not take place but which was replaced by a “number of co-ordinated phone calls and exchange of email

comments (point 4 of the Addendum)”. The impression therefore is that this co-operation was between Selby District Council and North Yorkshire County Council. Although the Addendum acknowledges that the issues were of relevance to Harrogate Council there is no clear reference to co-operation with Harrogate at this stage.

1.6 In the Council’s replies to the initial questions (penultimate paragraph on page 27) the Council state that discussions with City of York Council on HE2 – 226 are outstanding.

1.7 Therefore there appears to be no submitted robust evidence that at the time of submission of the plan to the examination, co-operation had taken place with either Harrogate Council or the City of York Council on the new ONE HMCA proposals despite its strategic implications.

1.8 Further, it is clear from the Addendum and the replies to the Inspector’s initial question of the Council that co-operation on the ONE HMCA had not been carried out by the time of submission in relation to significant strategic issues including the highway/traffic implications of the allocations in the ONE HMCA and the heritage implications of allocating the site at Parlington (MX2-39).

1.9 In the absence of proper co-operation in relation to these matters prior to submission the Council were not in a position to justify the allocations in the ONE HMCA particularly MX2- 39. It is not legitimate to try and justify the position retrospectively. Co-operation should inform the decision making process and cannot operate retrospectively. The Addendum demonstrates that any co-operation in relation to the revised proposals for ONE HMCA was after the Council had resolved to allocate the MX2-39. There can therefore have been no co-operation in relation to the decision to allocate MX2-39. In the Addendum traffic impact was considered to need mitigation and it is clear that further co-operation with Highways England was required in order to address this. No such co-operation therefore informed the decision to allocate MX2-39. Although the Addendum referred to duty to co-operate bodies having been notified of the revised proposals of ONE HMCA. It also confirms that no responses had been received at the date of publication of the background document. Therefore, on the submitted evidence none of these organisations had informed the decision to allocate MX2-39.

1.10 Therefore the Council’s evidence does not robustly demonstrate that it has met its duty to co-operate in preparing the SAP for examination.

1.11 1.5 to 1.10 above are indicative of the reactive and rushed nature of the decision to allocate MX2-39.

Q2. Has the Plan been prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme?

2.1 No Comment.

Q3. Has the plan been prepared in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement?

3.1 The consultation on the new proposals for ONE HMCA are inconsistent with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 for the following reason.

3.2 On its website publicising the revised public draft consultation, the Council’s Regulation 19 statement and the response form; the LPA stress that: “Only comments relating to the Outer North East HMCA will be considered as part of this consultation”.

3.3 This statement therefore discourages representations relating to the wider issues which the allocation of MX2-39 creates, such as whether or not it is the right location to delete land from the Green Belt or whether there could be an alternative elsewhere in the Plan area and the impact on the wider infrastructure beyond the ONE HMCA area.

Q4. Has the plan operation been based on a sound process of sustainability appraisal?

4.1 A sustainability appraisal incorporating the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive is required to comply with this directive, as transposed into English law by the Environment Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 19(5) and in accordance with the National Planning Policy set out in NPPF, paragraph 165.

4.2 The Council’s sustainability appraisal is defective in the following respects:

4.2.1 It fails to include in the assessment sites proposed to be included in the SAP under Policy HG1 which comprise unimplemented sites formally allocated in the Leeds UDP or sites with existing or recently expired planning permissions. All sites proposed for allocation in the SAP should have been subjected to the same degree of assessment.

4.2.2 The sustainability appraisal tests sites against 26 specified sustainability criterion. In a number of cases the application of this test was flawed. Some examples of this are as follows:

(a) A choice was made between Stourton Grange Farm South (allocated site HG2-124) and Sturton Grange Farm North (site reference 1232A) (“SGFN”). SGFN was not allocated but this was not justified by the assessment. For 22 of the 26 sustainability criterion the two sites rated the same. In respect of the remaining four criterions, the unallocated SGFN is rated better in 1 (access to education (SA03)) with incorrect allocations in the other three. In SA08 (increase in social inclusion and acted community participation) SGFN is given a neutral rating when in fact it is clear that, like HG2-124 should have been given a blue rating identifying it as a large site with scope to accommodate new facilities. In relation to SA18B (reduce pollution levels) is given a lower rating than HG2-124 for the stated reason that it is located near to the motorway. However, SGFN is in excess of 50 metres from the motorway and its enhanced accessibility to the motorway junction and proximity to public transport routes are factors which should be balanced against this point in favour of SGFN. At SA21 (preserve and enhance the historic environment), SGFN is identified with a lesser rating than HG2-124 on the basis of being within 100 metres of heritage assets and where affects are uncertain. However, the only designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the SGFN are milestone on public roads, the special character and setting of both of which can be readily preserved as part of the design scheme. If the sustainability appraisal had been properly applied, SGFN would have been favoured. (For further details see Pegasus’ representation for the Leeds Site Allocation Plan Submission Draft Pre- submission changes Area Proposal 10 Outer South East, Appendix B pages 16 to 18 inclusive).

(b) The sustainability appraisal fails to provide any clear conclusion that the proposed allocation of MX2-39, when judged against reasonable alternatives, of which SGFN is one, will help to achieve the relevant environmental, economic and social objectives as planned. The sustainability appraisal did not properly consider the alternative of providing an urban extension to Garforth. When considering MX2-39 against SGFN, of the 26 sustainability criterion, 17 had the same implications for both sites. Of the remaining 9, SGFN scores more favourably in 6. This alone shows that the allocation of MX2-39 over

SGFN is not justified. In addition, there are errors in the scoring against SA09 – increase in community cohesion. SGFN is scored as being negative, having a size significantly out of scale with settlement scale, whilst MX2-39 is scored uncertain. However the scale and location of MX2-39, where no more than a few properties presently exist, must surely be scored as a major negative, whereas SGFN as an urban extension would be commensurate with the necessary scale of a major urban extension required by the Core Strategy Spatial Strategy. (See pages 12 to 14 inclusive of Pegasus’ representation to the Leeds Site Allocation Plan Submission Draft Pre-submission Changes Area Proposals 10 Outer North East Appendix E pages 12 to 14 inclusive).

(c) Hope Farm Robin Hood ( site reference 308 1A ) compared to Haighside Rothwell (allocation Hg2-173) shows that the two sites have the same implications for 17 of the 26 sustainability criterion. Of the remaining 9, Hope Farm scores better in 7. The sustainability appraisal does not therefore support the allocation of Haighside over Hope Farm. (For further details see Pegasus Group Leeds Site Allocation Plan Submission Draft Pre-submission Changes, Area Proposal 9 Outer South Representation, Appendix C pages 9 to 11 inclusive). 4.2.3 There has been no sustainability appraisal of an alternative option to the allocation of MX2-39 (Parlington) consisting of an urban extension to Garforth.

Q5. Are the likely effects of the plan adequately and accurately accessed in the Habitat Regulations Assessment? No Comment.

Q6. Are there any outstanding issues from National England? No Comment.

Q7. Have all the procedural requirements for publicity been met? 7.1 The publicity carried out by the Council in relation to the SAP is flawed in the following respects:

7.1.1 At the initial issues and options stage, the public were consulted on a single site comprising both HG2-124 and SGFN (SHLAA site reference 1232) notwithstanding the fact that the two sites were being promoted separately by different landowners. Both sites were owned by members of the Makin Family. Responses received did not therefore distinguish between HG2-124 and SGFN.

Some also referred to the “Makin Site” with a lack of clarity as to what was actually being referred to.

7.1.2 Subsequently, the Council promoted only part of the site included in the issues and options stage – the part comprising HG2-124, stating as a main reason for doing so “public preference”. However, the public had never been consulted on which of the two sites it preferred. The Council appear to have inferred a “local preference” between the two sites however these is no logical justification to do so.

7.1.3 It is noted that key information on which the public landowners/developers may wish to comment is still not available namely the results of the highway modelling relevant to the allocation of MX2-39 (Parlington) and HG2-124 (Sturton Grange South) OSE HMCA, the updated SHLAA and SHMA. It is unclear when the public landowners/developers will have the opportunity to comment on this further information.

7.1.4 The site at Hope Farm Robin Hood (site HG5-7) is allocated for a school site only. It had previously been promoted and consulted on as a residential site including a school. The appropriateness of the use of the site as a school only was not a question asked as part of the consultation process nor was it suggested by the land owner.

7.1.5 The comments at 3.1 and 3.3 above also constitutes a flaw in public consultation.

Q8. Is the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan consistent with the SAP? No. Comment

4130-8910-4908, v. 1