City Council Site Allocations Plan Examination

Matter 7: Selection of sites allocated for development – North :

Main Issue 1 Main Issue 2 Additional Site Specific Questions

Doc No. M7/1e

Leeds Local Plan

Page 1 of 17 Main Issue 1: For each Housing Market Characteristic Area, are the individual sites selected sound?

1 Are the selected sites justified having regard to the site selection methodology and process, paying particular attention to the deliverability of the allocated sites?

1.1 Yes. The Council’s response to Matter 6 details the overall site assessment and selection process used for allocation of sites in the Plan. The Council considers that this approach is the most appropriate in terms of meeting CS aims and objectives for the MD as a whole and that the selection of sites is justified. This response to Matter 7 sets out how the overall methodology and process has applied in this HMCA. It highlights the specific characteristics of and evidence relating to North and notes whether there are any specific issues arising.

1.2 Further to paragraph 3.5 of the Submission SAP CD/1, the North HMCA is a large geographical area which occupies the northern wedge of the city within the main urban area. It extends from in the west to in the east and Burley in the south to in the north. Noticeable and distinct characteristics include the River Aire to the south west and prominent inner ring road which runs through the centre of the HMCA area linking Horsforth to the west and Roundhay to the east. The North is characterised by mature and dense woodland as well as parks and gardens; the largest area of greenspace is Roundhay Park (147.9ha). A proportion of the area lies within the green belt. It is worth noting that there are a number of distinct green corridors that follow Adel, and Gledhow Becks and concentrations of open space around Becketts Park and Hawksworth. The area is served by a number of roads including the A65, A660, A61 and A6120. A number of proposed sites adjoin the A65. To mitigate impacts upon the A65 in particular, a number of sites have site requirements concerning the cumulative effect of development on the A65 corridor.

1.3 The methodology as outlined in Matter 6 is considered robust. In North in terms of new housing allocations 93 sites were put forward for consideration, 48 of which are in or partly in Green Belt. In North there are;

a) 24 housing allocations (8 of which are Green Belt/part Green Belt)

b) 1 mixed use allocation (site MX2-4 District Centre)

c) There are no safeguarded land designations

d) 68 sites are rejected (41 of these are Green Belt).

Page 2 of 17

The reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 2, pages 133 to 151 in the Housing Background Paper CD1/34.

1.4 In terms of office and general employment allocations, 9 sites were put forward for consideration in North. In the HMCA there are:

a) 1 mixed use allocation, including office (site MX2-4 Kirkstall District Centre) b) 8 sites are rejected (one of which is located within the Green Belt).

Reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 1, pages 40 and 41 of the Employment Background Paper CD1/29.

1.5 Within the context of the NPPF CD3/1, the deliverability of sites concerns whether they are suitable, available and achievable. Paragraphs 5.5 to 5.17 of the Housing Background Paper CD1/34 considers this at a strategic level, paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 looking at suitability, paragraphs 5.9 to 5.10 availability and 5.11 to 5.17 achievability. The appropriateness of employment sites is explained in the Employment Background Paper CD1/29 and also in response to Matter 2, Question 9.

1.6 In terms of suitability, the site assessment process has considered an individual site’s suitability for development including physical constraints such as access, infrastructure, flood risk, ecology and heritage considerations alongside compliance with the CS. The Site Assessments document CD1/38 provides the full site assessments for all allocations in North (both housing and employment). Where necessary specific site requirements have been applied to sites where mitigation measures are necessary to ensure a site remains suitable for development.

1.7 In terms of the availability of sites, as paragraph 5.10 of CD1/34 and paragraph 3.13 of CD1/29 details, the sites have generally been submitted to the Council for consideration for the allocated use therefore there is landowner intention to release the sites for that purpose. Where this is not the case the Council has contacted the landowners of allocated sites. No evidence has been received that any of the proposed allocations will not be made available. As the sites are considered to be policy compliant and suitable, any lack of response from a landowner has been deemed to mean that the land remains available and the allocation is justified. The vast majority of the sites are already being actively promoted by the developers and agents as evidenced in representations received.

1.8 Initial discussions have taken place with the Developers and Agents promoting the site at HG2-41 South of A65, from Horsforth & Rawdon roundabout to crematorium, Horsforth in relation to the production of a Development Brief. See

Page 3 of 17

the Council’s response to the specific question on site HG2-41 below. In addition, sites HG2-32 Fire Station (16/06712/OT), HG2-45 St Josephs, Outwood Lane, Horsforth (16/07784/FU) and HG2-48 Manor (17/04339/OT) have current planning applications which are pending determination. Sites HG2-30, Eyrie Public House (ref 15/04600/FU), HG2-40, High Moor Court (land at rear), High Moor Avenue, Moor Allerton (ref 16/02223), HG2-52 Land at Cockcroft House, Cardigan Road, have received planning permission (ref 15/00565/FU); part of site HG2-41, South of A65 from Horsforth & Rawdon roundabout to crematorium has received planning permission (ref 15/07672/FU). An update on planning permissions on sites since 1/4/16 will be sent to the Inspector before the commencement of the hearing sessions.

1.9 In terms of achievability, the Council’s response to Matter 6 Question 7 explains how viability has been tested and how the Council will respond to any future changes. North is a mixed market value area as it stretches north across the city from Horsforth in the west to Roundhay in the east. There is no evidence and no landowner representations have been received on any particular site to suggest that development is not viable.

2 Are sufficient sites identified in the HMCA consistent with the CS?

2.1 Please see the Council’s response to Matter 2 Question 9.

2.2 North is 42 under the indicative target of 6,000 as illustrated in the table below.

Extract from Table 1 Housing Distribution by Housing Market Characteristic Area (HMCA), paragraph 2.27 of the Submission Draft Plan CD1/1

Housing Core Percentage Existing Proposed Total +/- Market Strategy supply allocations housing Target Characteristic Housing (‘Identified supply Area Target sites’)

North 6,000 9% 4,126 1,832 5,958 -42

Whilst under the CS target, the Council have outlined how it will address this shortfall in our response to Matter 2 and in EX2, response to Question 11.

2.3 As regards employment sites there is no specific HMCA target. Provision and distribution of employment sites is addressed in the Council’s response to Matter 2, Question 9.

Page 4 of 17

3 On identified sites where planning permission has expired, is there very convincing written or verbal evidence that the intentions of the owners/ developers have changed? (Please see schedule 1)

3.1 The Council’s response to ‘Further Questions to the Council’ (7th August 2017) EX2c, response to Question 1 provides a narrative in relation to Schedule 1 and gives a detailed response for each expired permission. Since 2012, the base date of the plan, some sites have inevitably expired. This, which is common to all authorities, is a general reflection of the recent state of the market and ‘turn over’ of planning permissions. The Council considers that relying on such sites forming part of supply is justified because: a) of the evidence that sites with expired permissions are developed (see paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4 of the Council’s response to ‘Further Questions to the Council’ (7th August 2017) EX2c, and b) these sites remain suitable, available and achievable. Whilst expiration of planning permissions may have implications for a 5 year land supply assessment and the demonstration that sites are available now, it does not follow that such sites, given Core Strategy aims and objectives and the scope of the SAP, will not come forward over the plan period.

In North, 19 identified sites are listed on Schedule 1 of the Inspectors Matters and Issues. The status of each of these sites is set out in the Council’s response to further Questions 7th August 2017 EX2c and Appendix 1 of the Councils response to Inspectors initial questions June 2017 EX2. In North 12 identified sites have expired planning permissions. These are:

• HG1-59 - Land south east of Holt Park Leisure Centre, Holt Park, Leeds • HG1-67 - Long Row Horsforth • HG1-69 - Low Lane - Woodside Mill, Horsforth • HG1-77 - 468 Harrogate Road LS17 • HG1-80 - 467 Street Lane, Roundhay, Leeds • HG1-84 - Salmon Crescent / Stanhope Drive, Horsforth • HG1-99 - Low Fold Garage, New Road Side, Horsforth, Leeds • HG1-106 - Monk Bridge Road (3) LS6 • HG1-110 – 2 St Martins Road, Leeds, LS7 3LX • HG1-119 - Belmont House, Wood Lane, LS6 • HG1-124 - Eden Mount LS4 • HG1-128 - 83 Cardigan Lane LS4

3.2 The evidence as to the intentions of owners/developers is already provided in the Council’s response to question 1 ‘Further questions to the Council (7th August 2017) EX2c.

Page 5 of 17

3.3 As noted in paragraph 2.3 above, the identification of employment land allocations and floorspace is a District-wide rather than apportioned by HMCA. As part of the Employment Land Assessment Update 2017, EB3/7, the Council wrote to landowners in December 2016 (which includes Identified sites with expired planning permission), to make informed decisions as to how sites contribute to the future supply of employment land through an assessment of availability. The Council updated the ELR EB3/7 according to the landowners intentions for the site including confirmation that development for employment purposes could be delivered within the plan period to 2028. In response to that process, one main modification (to site EG1-48 Opposite Ravell Works, Gelderd Road in Wortley, in Outer South West HMCA) is proposed to delete part of the site from the boundary following confirmation that this part of EG1-48 will not be available for the delivery of employment land.

4 Is the proposed mix of uses on mixed use allocated sites justified?

4.1 Yes. As explained in paragraph 2.42 of the Submission SAP CD/1/1 capacities for housing sites use a standard methodology used in the SHLAA, which applies a standard density multiplier, which varies according to location, to the net area of a site. Where a mix of residential and other uses is proposed, the approach has been to take half of the calculated housing capacity and half of the general employment (or other use) capacity/area, unless there is a specific reason for varying from this approach. For example, in the city centre, ground floor office and town centre uses may be appropriate with residential on upper floors, so the housing capacity will be more than half the standard methodology, or a development brief may exist that suggests a mix of uses. The approach to mixed use is considered by the Council to be a justified and sound approach for Leeds, in not only providing the necessary quantum of development overall but also allowing for flexibility in responding positively to market conditions.

4.2 As CD1/1 states ‘capacities can only be an indication of what could be achieved on a site’ however there is 1 mixed use allocation in North; MX2-4 Kirkstall District Centre the proposed mix of which follows the methodology in paragraph 4.1 above which is 55 residential units and 7000sqm of office employment space. Mixed use sites are detailed in the Plan in the same format as other allocations, with both the housing capacity and site capacity for general employment or office use given along with any specific site requirements.

Page 6 of 17

5 Where the development of a site relies on the delivery of critical infrastructure (e.g. new roads, new water and waste water infrastructure, significant pre-commencement work), does the evidence support that the infrastructure will be in place to support the timely development of these sites?

5.1 Yes. Please see the Council’s response to Matter 5 Infrastructure. In addition, CD1/35 identifies infrastructure requirements across the District and potential sources of funding/provision, and includes sections on transport modelling and school provision – from looking at the cumulative effect of the proposed allocations, what the infrastructure needs are in terms of the highway network and school provision. Strategic and site specific infrastructure needs are identified, both through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and in site specific site requirements where necessary.

5.2 In terms of new water and waste water infrastructure there are no site specific requirements within the Plan. Yorkshire Water has been involved in the Plan throughout its preparation. Provision for new water and waste treatment infrastructure can be delivered subject to further feasibility work to look at capacity of existing systems. Yorkshire Water are currently analysing the requirements for water and waste water infrastructure and will look to work with and developers to ensure its timely provision. Yorkshire Water raised no objections during the formal consultation stages of the Plan and have confirmed their agreement to this statement.

5.3 Where other critical infrastructure including a new road or other pre- commencement works is required, these are detailed in the site requirements for specific sites. In North, all proposed allocations (housing and employment) can be accommodated without the need for new road provision.

5.4 Transport modelling has considered the cumulative impact of proposed allocations upon the road network, in particular the A65 and A6110 in this area and where necessary site requirements for contributions to mitigate any impacts are attached to specific sites: HG2-38 Dunstarn Lane (land south) Adel LS16, HG2-41 South of A65 from Horsforth and Rawdon RA to crematorium, HG2-42 Broadway and Calverley Lane, Horsforth, HG2-43 Horsforth Campus, HG2-46 Horsforth (former waste water treatment work), MX2-4 Kirkstall District Centre.

5.5 The site requirements are considered justified and no evidence has been received to suggest that they cannot be delivered. The Council is therefore satisfied that the site requirements will ensure timely delivery of infrastructure.

Page 7 of 17

6 Are the identified Protected Areas of Search sites justified?

6.1 Protected Areas of Search are designations in the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The SAP designates Safeguarded Land under Policy HG3. These are sites to be safeguarded from development for the plan period (to 2028) to provide a reserve of potential sites for longer term development post 2028 and to protect the Green Belt from such development. In North there is 1 UDP PAS site known as Moseley Wood Gardens, Cookridge. Part of this UDP PAS site has planning permission and is an identified site in the plan (HG1-58 Moseley Wood Gardens) and the northern part of the site is a proposed housing allocation (HG2-29 Moseley Wood Gardens). The Council has explained why it believes its approach to PAS sites is justified in its response to Matter 3 Green Belt, Question 2 and in the Council’s Response to Initial Questions dated 9th June 2017 EX2.

6.2 There are no Safeguarded Land designations in North in the SAP.

Page 8 of 17

Main Issue 2: For each site, are the policies and specific site requirements sound?

1 Are the general policies and site requirements relating to all sites positively prepared, justified and effective (are they clearly expressed so they can be applied in day to day decision-making?) and consistent with national policy?

1.1 Yes. The general policies for each site include policy HG2 and policies HG3, HG4 and HG5 where applicable on sites allocated for housing, policy EO2 on office allocations, and Policy EG2 on general employment allocations. The Council considers that the SAP has been positively prepared on the basis that it is delivering a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, and is consistent with achieving sustainable development principles (NPPF, CD3/1). As outlined in CD1/28, City Region authorities have been involved through the Duty to Cooperate process and consultation stages of the Plan. In certain cases, where allocation of sites have the potential to impact upon infrastructure in neighbouring authorities, site requirements have been applied to specific sites to mitigate the impact . The SAP is set within the context of the adopted CS and the Council considers that its policies and site requirements are justified. They have been based on up to date evidence, and all reasonable alternatives have been assessed, through the site assessment process and the sustainability assessment of sites. (See the Council’s response to Matter 6).

1.2 The general policies have been positively prepared, in accordance with this approach and are considered justified and effective. The policies are considered to be unambiguous to enable decision makers to apply them in dealing with specific planning applications. Please see also the Council’s response to Question 4 below. The response to this question regarding site requirements is given under Question 2 below. Not all sites have specific site requirements over and above the general policy requirements. Assessment of applications on these sites will therefore rely on policies elsewhere in the Local Plan to guide decision making, all of which have been found to be sound.

2. Are the specific site requirements relating to individual sites justified and effective (are they clearly expressed so they can be applied in day to day decision-making?) and consistent with national policy? For example, many suggest that ‘consideration’ should be given to various matters as part of proposals / planning applications but does not explicitly require anything further to be done beyond that.

2.1 Yes. The site requirements are considered to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy CD3/1, and clearly expressed. Where sites listed

Page 9 of 17

within the general policy (see response to Question 1 above) have specific requirements, these are listed as site requirements under the allocation concerned. The site requirements are considered necessary in order to make the site sound and enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF CD3/1. For example, site requirements concerned with conservation areas and listed buildings will help deliver section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.2 See the response above to Main Issue 1, Question 5 regarding critical infrastructure site requirements. In addition to requirements for infrastructure provision, sites have requirements where heritage, ecology or other factors need to be taken into account in ensuring development is sustainable. Certain site requirements have been triggered where a site lies within a certain distance of a designation, such as a Conservation Area or Listed Building, or where a culvert or pipeline crosses or incurs into a site boundary. Where any such trigger is present, we have consulted appropriate bodies further on such sites – for example, on sites adjacent to Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings, the Council’s heritage officers have been consulted and involved in the production of site requirements and the Heritage Background Paper, and Historic England have been involved in both the production of the Background Paper and consulted on the site requirements. The site requirements stem from NPPF guidance, including on flood risk (paragraphs 100 to 104 NPPF), section 11 on conserving and enhancing the natural environment and section 12 on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.3 With regards to the Inspector’s reference in this question to site requirements which refer to ‘consideration’ being given rather than an explicit requirement, across the Plan as a whole there are 554 specific site requirements (attached to 208 sites). Only 48 site requirements have wording referring to ‘consideration should be given……’ and most of these (39) relate to a site requirement for re- opening or restoration of culverts.

2.4 In North, 24 housing and mixed use allocations have specific site requirements, which amounts to 66 individual site requirements. As with the general policies, the site requirements are considered to be unambiguous, to enable decision makers to apply them in dealing with specific applications. Only 10 individual site requirements in North have wording referring to ‘consideration should be given to…. ‘ The table below lists these allocations and the justification for this.

Page 10 of 17

Site ref and address Site requirements that include Explanation of this wording related to ‘consideration should be given to….

HG2-36 Alwoodley Ecology The Council proposes a Main Modification Lane, Alwoodley to amend the wording of this site An Ecological Assessment of the LS17 requirement to delete ‘ensure consideration site is required and where of’ and insert ‘have regard to’ appropriate, mitigation measures will need to be provided to This modification will compel mitigation ensure consideration of Eccup measures rather than seek their Reservoir SSSI to the north of the consideration. site to minimise recreational

impacts, including substantial on- site greenspace (formal and informal), signage to the existing public rights of way and provide a biodiversity buffer (not private garden space) adjacent to the northern boundary with woodland and fencing. An off-site contribution to be provided and agreed for the positive management of Eccup Reservoir Hills SSSI. Consultation with Natural England required.

HG2-37 Brownberrie Other (air craft noise The Council propose a Main Modification to Lane mitigation) amend the wording of this site requirement to delete the words ‘consideration’ and Consideration should be given at insert ‘Aircraft noise mitigation is required, the planning application stage to (particularly in bedrooms), for example by aircraft noise mitigation means of enhanced glazing for habitable (particularly in bedrooms), for rooms, alternative means of ventilation, and example by means of enhanced an enhanced roof specification as glazing for habitable rooms, appropriate, such that the internal noise alternative means of ventilation, standards of BS 8233 can be achieved. and an enhanced roof specification as appropriate, such that the internal noise standards of BS 8233 can be achieved. Conservation: The site affects the setting of a group of Victorian villas that are viewed as non-designated heritage assets. Consideration should be given to their setting in any future development.

Culverts and Canalised To use the word ‘consider’ in this context is Watercourses considered appropriate as the NPPF makes it clear that the effect of a future development proposal on the significance The site contains a culvert or of non-designated heritage assets is a canalised watercourse. relevant material planning Development proposals consideration. This wording will should consider re-opening or therefore enable proper assessment of the Page 11 of 17

restoration in accordance with development in relation to these assets. saved UDP Policy N39B

To use the word ‘consider’ in this context is considered appropriate as opening of culverts needs to take full account of public safety considerations, and in some cases development cannot be achieved through opening a culvert. The wording allows for the implementation of the UDP policy

HG2-40 High Moor Culverts and Canalised As above Court (land at rear), Watercourses High Moor Avenue,

Moor Allerton As above

HG2-41 Culverts and Canalised As above Watercourses South of A65 from Horsforth and As above Rawdon RA to crematorium

HG2-48 Weetwood Culverts and Canalised As above Manor, Weetwood Watercourses As above

HG2-49 Off Culverts and Canalised As above Weetwood Avenue, Watercourses

Headingley, Leeds As above

Ecology

An Ecological Assessment of the

site is required and where appropriate, mitigation measures To use the word ‘consideration’ in this will need to be context is appropriate as it clarifies the provided. Consideration of need for the Ecological Assessment of the Meanwood Valley is required. A site, to include, in particular, assessment of small portion of the Meanwood development in relation to Meanwood Valley SEGI lies in the north east Valley which is particularly sensitive as a corner of the site. Provide a small portion of the Meanwood Valley SEGI biodiversity buffer (not private lies in the north east of the site. garden space) along the eastern and northern boundaries.

HG2-51 Carr Manor, Culverts and Canalised As above Meanwood LS6 Watercourses As above

Page 12 of 17

3. Does the evidence demonstrate that the deliverability and viability of the allocated sites is not prejudiced by the site requirements, particularly those that have been subject to additional / revised requirements as a result of consultation during the plan process?

3.1 Yes. See the Council’s response to Question 1, paragraph 1.7 above and to Matter 6, Question 7. There is no evidence that any of the site requirements would unduly affect deliverability of the sites or that viability would be prejudiced and no representations have been received on any particular site to suggest that development is not viable. As stated, the online PPG CD3/2 states “Assessing the viability of plans does not require individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable” (Paragraph 006 Reference ID: 10- 006-201440306 revision date 06 03 2014). If any detailed viability issues do arise over the plan period these would be assessed at planning application stage and be subject to full viability appraisals.

3.2 In North, 13 housing and mixed use allocations have been subject to additional/revised site requirements which were advertised as pre-submission changes to the Plan in February 2017.

Site ref and Pre submission changes to site requirement/additional site address requirement added as pre-submission change

HG2-31 Ralph Wording removed in relation to NGT Thoresby (Site F) Holt Park, Leeds

HG2-36 Alwoodley Additional wording in relation to Local Highway Network and Ecology Lane, Alwoodley site requirements LS17

HG2-41 South of New wording in relation to a comprehensive Development Brief A65 from Horsforth and Rawdon RA to Replacement wording of Highway Access site requirement, Additional crematorium wording in relation to Local Highway Network, Listed Building and Conservation area site requirements; amended Ecology site requirement

HG2-43 Horsforth Replacement wording of Highway Access site requirement, new Local Campus Highway Network site requirement and amended Ecology site requirement.

HG2-44 Clarence Additional wording to Conservation Area site requirement Road (land at) Horsforth LS18 4LB

Page 13 of 17

HG2-46 Horsforth Additional wording to Conservation Area site requirement (former water treatment work)

HG2-48 Weetwood Additional wording to the Listed Building site requirement Manor

HG2-49 off Additional wording to the Listed Building and Conservation area site Weetwood Avenue, requirements; amended wording to Ecology site requirement Headingley, Leeds

HG2-51 Carr Manor, Additional wording to Listed Building site requirement Meanwood

HG2-217 Land at New site requirements attached in relation to Ecology and Listed former Eastmoor Buildings Regional Secure Unit, Adel, Leeds

HG2-234 Land at New site requirement attached in relation to Highway Access, Flood Kirkstall Forge, Risk, Ecology, Conservation Area and how allocation is linked to Kirkstall Road, Leeds identified site MX1-3

HG2-236 West Park New site requirements in relation to Older Persons Centre Housing/Independent Living and Conservation Area and Flood Risk

NB this site is in Flood Zone 1 and not Flood Zone 3 as stated CD1/1f . Error to be corrected as a Main Modification to the Plan.

MX2-4 Kirkstall New site requirement attached in relation to Local Highway Network. District Centre

3.3 All the changes to site requirements listed above have given more clarity as to the specific requirements, but are not considered to unduly affect viability or deliverability of the sites concerned and no representations have been received suggesting this.

4. Some sites are identified as being suitable for older persons / independent living. (a) Whilst a preference is highlighted on some sites, it does not appear to be expressed as a requirement. Will Policy HG4 therefore be effective in the delivery of this type of housing? (b) Is the identification of these sites justified?

4.1 a) Policy HG4 is not intended to allocate sites for older persons/independent living. It identifies sites which are particularly suitable for older persons housing/independent living as those within walking distance of a local centre. Page 14 of 17

This is simply an indication of which sites could be suitable for this use. It is considered that Core Strategy policies H4 on Housing Mix and H8 on housing for independent living will ensure delivery of this type of housing, with Policy HG4 in the SAP being effective in assisting in this process by identifying potential sites. In North 10 sites have been identified under Policy HG4:

• HG2-30 Eyrie Public House

• HG2-31 Ralph Thoresby (Site F) Holt Park, Leeds

• HG2 -32 Cookridge Fire Station

• HG2-33 Land south east of Holt Park Leisure Centre, Holt Park, Leeds

• HG2-34 Farrar Lane, Adel

• HG2-44 Clarence Road (land at) - Horsforth

• HG2-45 St Josephs, Outwood Lane, Horsforth

• HG2-87 Amberton Terrace

• HG2-236 West Park Centre

• MX2-4 Kirkstall District Centre

4.2 b) Identification of such sites is considered justified in that it is supported by evidence that such housing should be located within easy distance of centres/local community facilities. Policy H8 states that “LDF Allocation Documents should seek to identify land which would be particularly appropriate for sheltered or other housing aimed at elderly or disabled people”: The SAP is therefore in conformity with this CS policy. In the Council’s view, the alternative approach to not identify such sites would be unhelpful to those providers of such housing seeking appropriate sites. However, in order to allow for flexibility, a specific allocation for older persons has been avoided. Due to the range of types of delivery of such housing, including private developments for over 55 year olds, Council provision, sheltered, nursing and residential care homes etc, the requirements for a particular type of provision may vary, and to require such provision at the exclusion of other housing, is considered to be too restrictive. Moreover, older people can acquire housing on the general market providing that it meets their needs and other CS policies on mix and independent living as well as emerging policies on Housing Standards will seek to ensure the housing product in North meets their needs.

Page 15 of 17

Additional Site Specific Questions

5 In relation to HG2-41 (South of A65 from Horsforth & Rawdon RA to crematorium) a number of revisions / additions were made to the Site Requirements. Does the site remain deliverable?

5.1 Yes. The revisions and additions referred to above can be viewed on pages 32 and 33 of the SAP Submission Draft Plan (tracked change version) CD1/2F. The site boundary has been amended to incorporate additional land to the east and south to provide additional flexibility which will enable development to be in the least sensitive areas of the site and to address local concerns raised via representations.

5.2 The changes to site requirements are not significantly different to those advertised at Publication Draft stage and were not designed to undermine deliverability but rather to add clarity and guide development away from the most sensitive areas of the site. This is a greenfield, Green Belt release site in a strong market area immediately adjacent to brownfield sites such as Clariant and Low Lane developments which are currently building out and will establish a strong residential character. For these reasons, the Council are satisfied that the site remains viable and deliverable. Initial discussions have been held with the developer in relation to the production of a Development Brief. Furthermore the majority of this site is within single ownership with a willing landowner and no representations from the landowner have been received with regards to impact on viability.

6 In relation to HG2-51 (Carr Manor, Meanwood) is the conversion of the Listed Building to provide 15 units feasible?

6.1 Yes. The conversion of the Listed Building to provide 15 units is feasible.

6.2 The Council has floor plans of the Manor house which show the internal arrangement of the building (See Appendix 1). The main house already has a residential layout with numerous sitting/dining rooms, 2 kitchens, 13 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms, 4 studies and a butlers flat etc. Initial feasibility work carried out by the Council suggests that it is feasible to convert the Manor House into 12 units, the remaining 3 units are proposed by conversion of the associated cottages and outbuildings. As such, the capacity of 15 units on HG2-51 is feasible.

Page 16 of 17

Appendix 1

HG2-51 - Carr Manor - Floor Plans

Page 17 of 17