BARWICK in ELMET & SCHOLES PARISH COUNCIL

Response to City Council’s position statement of 8th September 2017

Clerk to the Parish Council : Mr. K Langley 33 Flats Lane, Barwick in Elmet, Leeds LS15 4LJ phone 0113 393 5861 : email – [email protected]

Below are the comments of Barwick In Elmet and Scholes Parish Council (“BIESPC”) on the answers provided by (“LCC”) – LCC’s position statement on the SAP Examination and Selective Core Strategy Review, dated 8th September 2017

This document follows the structure of LCC’s position statement, and comments under the headings in the statement.

LCC’s replies are in black ink. BIESPC’s comments are in blue ink

Question a What is the effect of the selective review of the CS on the soundness of the SAP? a.1 The effect of the Core Strategy Review (CSR) on the soundness of the SAP is considered to be minor and broadly contextual, not least because the scope of both Development Plan Documents (DPD) is substantially different;

1. LCC’s reply to this question seems merely rhetorical and lacking in detail and substantiating evidence.

This answer is inconsistent with LCC’s adopted Core Strategy. Core Strategy 1.4 states “The CS is the main document setting out the overall vision and strategic level policies… All other LDF documents will be guided by its policies including the Site Allocations Plan …”. Therefore the scope of the documents cannot be ‘substantially different’ and LCC is ignoring its own policies to suit its own ends;

2. To help overcome this weakness in LCC’s response, we would request that the Inspector also asks the following question: “What is the effect of the selective review of the CS, in comparison with the effect of a comprehensive review, on the soundness of the SAP?”;

3. Notwithstanding any review (selective or otherwise), BIESPC’s main concerns remain:

a. Housing numbers, and; b. Protection of the Green Belt.

These concerns are, of course, intrinsically linked. Fewer houses needed in Leeds would mean fewer sites in the Green Belt need to be allocated. BIESPC therefore refutes that the effect of the CSR on the soundness of the SAP would be minor. a.2 The Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) is a DPD which has been foreshadowed in the Leeds Adopted Core Strategy (CS). The scope of the SAP is clearly set out in paragraph 1.6 of CD1/1 to: “provide site allocations and requirements that help deliver the Core Strategy policies, ensuring that sufficient land is available in appropriate locations to meet the targets set out in the Core Strategy and achieve the Council’s ambitions”.

4. BIESPC recognises the above statement to be true. However this statement again demonstrates

that the CS and the SAP are interconnected and interdependent documents and therefore any review or amendment of one must impact upon the other. BIESPC also recognises that if the adopted Core Strategy housing numbers (target) changes, the scope of the SAP is bound to change. The fewer houses in the target, less land (particularly Green Belt) is required in the SAP to achieve LCC’s ambitions;

5. LCC’s original housing numbers are no longer valid. On 13th July 2017 the press release, ‘Update on the initial conclusions of the Leeds Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)’, was published on LCC’s website. LCC stated that, as part of the SHMA, it had undertaken new technical work and consulted residents through a survey of their housing aspirations. In developing this approach, a SHMA Reference Group had been established and consulted, consisting of representatives from community groups, older people and student groups, affordable housing providers and house builders from across Leeds;

6. Following the latest meeting of this group, LCC executive member for regeneration, transport and planning Councillor Richard Lewis said in the press release, “The housing figure set out in the Core Strategy was based on evidence at the time and it is important to remember it was endorsed by an independent government inspector following a thorough examination. We committed to a review within three years and the latest information and population evidence points to lower and slower growth than was originally forecast.” This statement from Richard Lewis categorically supports a reduction in numbers of houses;

7. Richard Lewis continued "So it is likely this review will recommend the overall figure for housing need should be reduced to reflect what we know now; Once the findings of the SHMA are finalised, the council will need to consider a revised housing requirement as part of the Core Strategy review, the implications for site delivery and phasing for development.”

8. In addition to Councillor Richard Lewis's statements in the press release, the Chair of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Reference Group, Councillor Peter Gruen, said “I welcome the opportunity to take soundings from the SHMA Reference Group on the initial conclusions of the technical work, which indicates that a revised housing need for Leeds may be in the region of 55,000 homes up to 2033 (the revised plan period of the Core Strategy review). There is more work to do in finalising the SHMA and the council will need to fully consider its findings. Any revised housing figure would then be subject to wider public consultation by the end of the year.”

9. With this knowledge LCC has ignored new information and continues along the SAP process, even though the entire landscape has changed. It is not feasible, given there is a high likelihood that the housing numbers for Leeds will be reduced, that the SAP as it stands could provide site allocations and requirements that help deliver the Core Strategy policies. The SAP cannot ensure that sufficient land is available when LCC doesn’t know how much land that should be nor can it know what the appropriate locations would be to meet the targets set out in the Core Strategy. In fact it seems all together likely that the effect of the CSR would be that Green Belt will be released prematurely and unnecessarily and therefore make the SAP unsound.

a.3 The City Council’s approach to the preparation of a sound SAP involves following the spatial strategy and housing requirement of the adopted, statutory plan (i.e. the Adopted CS). The SAP has been in preparation since 2013, with extensive rounds of consultation being undertaken at each regulatory stage. The Council’s Executive Board has endorsed progression of the SAP to submission stage in February 2017, with a view to maintaining procedural momentum and its progress, and ultimately to have put in place, a development plan for the City Council that substantially delivers upon Government ambitions for plans to be in place by 2017.

10. BIESPC maintains that LCC’s response is based on rhetorical text – not answering the question but merely providing a description of the process adopted in developing the SAP. BIESPC believes that the Inspector is already aware of the process;

11. LCC’s Policy, for example, has been to only carry out a Selective Review of its Green Belt based on sites proposed for the SAP. This is even though LCC has been specifically instructed to revise this Policy and carry out a Non-selective (or Comprehensive) Review by the Planning Inspector of the 2014 Core Strategy*.

*”The Council acknowledge that the growth planned in the Core Strategy cannot be accommodated without a review of Green Belt boundaries but, as submitted, the Core Strategy only commits the Council to a selective review. This may lead to pressure to release land in the review area when, having regard to the advice in paragraph 85 of the NPPF, there is more suitable land elsewhere. A comprehensive review is also more likely to ensure consistency with the spatial strategy and increase the likelihood that boundaries will not need to be reviewed again at the end of the plan period. Consequently, MM1, MM13 and MM14 remove references to a selective review. The Council intend that Green Belt boundaries will be reviewed through the Site Allocations Plan which is due to be submitted for examination in 2015.”

12. LCC is proposing to fulfil a significant proportion of its out-of-date and over-stated housing requirement with Green Belt and Green-field sites without properly assessing all its Green Belt. The Selective Green Belt Review of SP10 lacks objectivity and does not give local communities any confidence that the site-selective Green Belt Assessment has any meaningful influence over whether or not a site is nominated for house building.

13. LCC should undertake a comprehensive and objective review of the Green Belt such as was conducted by Kirklees Council. This assessed all Green Belt boundaries with regard to local contexts and characteristics and assessed the effects of development in terms of the NPPF five purposes of Green Belt land. (Kirklees Local Plan Submission Documents SD19 Green Belt Review, SD21 Green Belt Boundary Changes – April 2017). It is also interesting to note with regard to housing numbers that using the new government methodology Kirklees housing target varies by only 1%. a.6 The scope of the CSR was agreed by Executive Board in February 2017 to include inter alia:

• updating the housing requirement in Policy SP6, considering and making any necessary consequent revisions to other parts of the Plan considering any implications for the spatial strategy; • extending the plan period from 2012 - 2028 to 2017 – 2033; 1 ID:12-008-20140306; • updates to greenspace provision policies; • incorporation of national housing standards.

14. The submission draft of the SAP is based on the adopted CS housing requirement figure of 70,000 homes for the SAP period and proposes allocating 12,481 dwellings across 73 current Green Belt sites (thus moving these sites out of the Green Belt) to help meet that requirement. This is stated by the Council to equate to 19% of the total land needing to be identified and allocated in Core Strategy SP6 (see para 5.15 of CD1-31);

15. In answering the above, LCC has entirely failed to address a key issue that is fundamental to the soundness of the SAP, and that is the question of whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify the extensive Green Belt releases proposed in the SAP;

16. BIESPC recognises that the CS is clear that, in accordance with government policy, such Green Belt releases should only occur in ‘exceptional circumstances’: -

“The delivery of the strategy will entail the use of brownfield and greenfield land and in exceptional circumstances (which cannot be met elsewhere) the selective use of Green Belt land, where this offers the most sustainable option.” (emphasis added) (para 4.1.4, Core Strategy (CD 2.1a));

17. In this regard BIESPC believes that the effect of the CSR on the soundness of the SAP cannot be considered to be minor nor broadly contextual. By reducing the housing numbers there is no need to build houses on the LCC’s Green Belt land. This is not a trivial issue, as evidenced by the fact that Green Belt is a standalone Matter in the imminent Examination. a.7 The soundness requirements are laid out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF which states: “The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is “sound” – namely that it is: • Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; • Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; • Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and • Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable

development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.”

18. Acceptance of the reduced housing number strengthens LCC’s need for progressing the CSR and a modified SAP which will need to allocate a vastly reduced number of Green Belt sites. Given that LCC seems to be ignoring its own findings regarding the housing numbers its plan cannot be considered as SOUND because it is not Positively Prepared, it is not Justified, it is not Effective and it is not Consistent with National Policy. a.8 In preparing separate DPDs, which are subordinate to other DPDs and are positively prepared, the City Council observes section 19 (2) of the 2004 Act, which states: “In preparing a development plan document or any other local development document the local planning authority must have regard to - (a) National policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; (h) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority.”

19. BIESPC would propose to the Inspector that a selective review of the housing numbers increases the likelihood that LCC will get the housing numbers wrong again;

20. We believe that LCC should restate the 2028 target downwards and be aligned with the latest findings. By doing so LCC will reflect current projections and therefore protect Green Belt sites from house building and retain these sites as Green Belt;

21. Continuing with the SAP process as it is does not meet current housing needs, does not assist regeneration priorities, does not help manage land availability for new homes nor does it protect communities against speculative and unsustainable development;

22. The Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) recently published “Planning for the right homes in the right places: a consultation document” which details a new standardised way of assessing housing demand at Local Authority level. Using this methodology an indicative assessment of housing need for Leeds would be 2649 dwellings per year. LCC are currently using a target of 3660 dwellings per year. A CSR followed by a SAP that is based on its findings would ensure that LCC as the local planning authority to give more regard to ‘National policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State’. a.10 The SAP is submitted as an effective document which is deliverable over the plan period set under the CS. In time, the CSR may of course also take a view as to whether the SAP can endure for a revised plan period (i.e. 2017 to 2033). However, this is not a matter relevant to the scope of the SAP.

23. BIESPC acknowledges that the incorrect figure of 70,000 new homes figure includes an allowance for new development through demolitions and ‘windfall’ sites, which means the Site Allocations Plan and Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan allocates land for a net total of 66,000 new homes overall. But the overarching principle is in agreement with the statements of Councillors Richard

Lewis and Peter Gruen, that the original housing requirement numbers are wrong and wildly overestimated;

24. The above mentioned errors in the housing numbers are confirmed by the Edge Analytics Demographic review dated September 2016. This review describes, on page 8 paragraph 3.2, the importance of reviewing the housing requirement and plan period;

25. The 2008 based populations projection provided the ONS benchmark for the 2011 SHMA. This projection suggested a 29% population growth rate over a 25-year period, with the Leeds population estimated to exceed 1 million by 2033. In the latest 2014 based projection, a lower level of population growth is estimated, at 14.5% growth over its 25-year horizon, achieving a population of 857,000 by 2033;

26. The Edge Analytics report looks forward to the change based on continuation of growth through natural change, with a positive net inflow due to international migration (immigration) and net outflow due to internal migration (assumed to be emigration from Leeds to other parts of the UK);

27. Notwithstanding the uncertainties in the base population information from the ONS, and the way that DCLG uses this information, the change in the estimated population change describes and confirms an approximate 50% over-estimation of the future gross housing needs of the city;

28. BIESPC concludes that 50% is a significant error. It must be recognised immediately by LCC that with this huge over-estimation by its planners, LCC cannot leave the housing requirement as it is currently in the Adopted CS. We agree with LCC that leaving this number as it is in the CS is not a SOUND approach as it is not in line with national guidance. National Guidance requires Local Plans to be based on up to date and adequate evidence.

29. Opposing the above answer by LCC, BIESPC argues that the SAP is NOT DELIVERABLE over the plan period set under the CS. We also argue that because the (flawed) housing numbers, and subsequent housing locations, play a major part in the deliverability then it absolutely is a Matter relevant to the scope of the SAP.

Question b. What are the implications, if any, of proceeding with the SAP examination now that a selective review of the CS is underway? b.1 The implications of proceeding with the SAP examination now that a review of the CS is underway, are considered to be modest at their highest, and broadly contextual. The SAP examination remains unaffected;

30. For LCC to state that the implications of proceeding with the SAP now that a selective review is underway are ‘modest at their highest’ and the ‘SAP examination remains unaffected” is completely ludicrous.

Based on the current inflated housing numbers, large (not ‘modest’) amounts of Green Belt releases would be needed and LCC will need to prove the exceptional circumstances justifying to this.

31. The fact that the CSR is underway, along with the reasons behind it (particularly the realisation that housing numbers and population growth had been grossly overestimated), mean that proving exceptional circumstance will be even harder for LCC. Therefore the SAP examination does not remain unaffected. b.2 This is not least because the CSR is at an early stage and, in accordance with the Framework, is likely to attract limited weight. It is naturally not possible for the City Council to conclude definitively on the level of a future housing requirement for the period 2017 to 2033. This reinforces the fact of the very limited implications of the CSR on the SAP, whereby the CS provides here only a contextual direction of travel. Indeed, whilst the SHMA sets a revised OAN which is comparatively lower than the CS housing requirement this cannot at this stage be taken to form any new CSR planning requirement;

32. It is a mystery to BIESPC as to why the CSR is still at an early stage. Following a White Paper brought about by Councillor Andrew Carter in November 2016, Richard Lewis emailed many local residents telling them that a review had already started. Yet answer a.5 above states “The Council’s Executive Board signalled the initial scoping stage of this in February 2017”;

33. BIESPC would also like to question that if LCC believes that it is impossible for them to “conclude definitively on the level of a future housing requirement for the period 2017 to 2033” why is the housing requirement one of only four areas covered in the selective review?. b.5 Finally, a key part of the CSR will be new methodology from Government on assessing housing needs. This was been delayed and is awaited. The implications of such revised guidance are therefore currently unknown.

34. This statement is out of date. The consultation for “Planning for the right homes in the right places” detailing the new methodology on assessing housing needs began on 14th September and is due to end on 9th November 2017. The consultation document states “the Government intends to publish a draft revised National Planning Policy Framework early in 2018. We intend to allow a short period of time for further consultation on the text of the Framework to make sure the wording is clear, consistent and well-understood. Our ambition is to publish a revised, updated Framework in Spring 2018.”

35. LCC states that the SAP remains unaffected. This serves to enable LCC to give permission to house builders to build houses on Green Belt land even though LCC knows that it is very probable that future calculations of the Housing Requirement will conclude that it was not necessary to allocate these sites.

36. Further, in progressing with the Examination whilst knowing that the housing numbers are not credible, LCC is misleading many groups participating in the Examination. LCC is therefore knowingly placing an inordinately large burden on the various groups representing Green Belt tranches in Leeds;

Question c. What are the implications, if any, of not proceeding with the SAP examination now that a selective review of the CS is underway? c.1 The implications of not proceeding with the SAP examination now that a selective review of the CS is underway are very significant and likely to considerably harm the implementation of the Framework, the need to significantly boost the supply of housing and the objectives of the CS. The City Council is firmly of the view that the SAP examination should continue, as timetabled. If there is to follow any suggestion to the contrary, the City Council will of course wish to be given adequate notice of the point and to make full representations.

37. It is the view of BIESPC that LCC should not discount delaying the examination of a flawed and out of date SAP which will cause irreversible loss of the Green Belt simply because of the possible short term consequences. c.3 It is most likely that the City Council would, in this scenario, concentrate upon the preparation of the CSR or potentially a new Local Plan. The City Council consider that the benefits of progressing with the SAP far outweigh any disbenefits (which do not, in the City Council’s view arise, nonetheless) as the SAP will provide up to date allocations to be used in the determination of planning applications.

38. BIESPC believes that the SAP can still be considered in the Examination if the Green Belt sites are removed. All the above points, and LCC’s responses, prove that with the LCC-accepted incorrect numbers there can be no exceptional circumstances that support building houses on Green Belt land in this SAP. By keeping the Green Belt sites in the SAP LCC is subjecting the Green Belt to unnecessary Examination;

39. LCC does not believe there are any “disbenefits [sic]” from progressing the SAP, although, oddly, LCC also knows that if there were, they would not outweigh the benefits. BIESPC believes that there are clear “disbenefits” from progressing the SAP in its current form, namely the unnecessary allocation of Green Belt sites. Any changes to Green Belt boundaries are supposed to be permanent. It is highly likely, if the statements made by LCC are to be believed, that the housing requirement will be reduced and these allocations and the damage done to the Green Belt will be irrevocable and unnecessary. MX2-39, for example, fulfils all the purposes of the Green Belt. BIESPC cannot understand how LCC can countenance removing MX2-39 from the Green Belt, to fulfil a housing requirement it no longer believes in, and yet not consider this to be a “disbenefit”.

40. BIESPC is, at this time, unable to see the point in LCC supporting a SAP that is acknowledged by Council members as being UNSOUND. It can easily be modified, in our view, by the removal of

the Green Belt sites including MX2-39. LCC has always argued that it wants a plan led SAP. Its SAP can still be plan led with the modification of the removal of the Green Belt sites. Given the above the exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from the Green Belt do not exist;

Question d. If the selective review were to conclude that the annual housing requirement is lower going forward than set out in the adopted CS, is there potential that land may be released from the green belt through the SAP to meet the requirements of the adopted CS, that may not have been necessary had the selective review concluded first? d.1 At this early stage of the CSR it is naturally difficult to be certain of a precise revised plan requirement, and its attendant consequences. Therefore, it is difficult to speak to here, somewhat speculatively, in terms of such detailed implications on the SAP. To the extent considered possible, this interface is explained more fully, in answer to questions b2 to b4, above.

42 BIESPC is concerned by LCC’s weak response to this question. LCC is aware of the newly agreed standard methodology. LCC members themselves have accepted that the CS housing numbers are too high. Furthermore, many of the sites proposed in the SAP are not sustainable and BIESPC believes that LCC is merely following its own process without believing in it;

43 Given the above there is a grave danger that Green Belt land will be unnecessarily built on if the SAP proceeds in its current form;

Question e If so, how is this to be addressed? e.1 Notwithstanding d.1 above, there are means of addressing any discrepancy between the CS target and a CSR revised requirement so as to ensure that the SAP remains positively prepared and effective.

44. BIESPC believes that the statements by LCC’s elected members as described in points 7, 8 & 9 herein contradict LCC’s statement that the SAP has been positively prepared. In any process, incorrect inputs lead to incorrect outputs. Whilst small discrepancies or errors are likely and possibly acceptable, large errors such as the errors now coming to light in the LCC CS and SAP should not be accepted. e.2 The City Council is confident that the SAP, as submitted, incorporates sufficient flexibility to prevent the release of land unnecessarily from the Green Belt. The SAP contains policies to phase land release which defers development of 5,750 homes on Green Belt until the latter phases of the Plan are triggered by a lack of a five year housing land supply.

44. BIESPC contends that the overall house target numbers are wrong and that the Green Belt does not need to be used to cover LCC’s SAP. Green Belt land release phasing inherently assumes that

some Green Belt sites will be built on in phases, with an initial build phase followed by other phases. This approach by LCC is disingenuous as it does not protect the Green Belt;

45. BIESPC contends that the Green Belt land should not be used to provide LCC with the flexibility it states in its response above;

46. An example of how this statement by LCC is disingenuous is observed on LCC’s treatment of the proposed MX2-39 site. The entire site is high grade Green Belt land; if LCC had an honest sequential approach MX2-39 would not be built on. However, LCC has planned to remove the entire site from the Green Belt, whilst stating that it will hold part of it in the Green Belt until such time as it is to be taken out of the Green Belt;

47. With particular reference to the Outer North East (ONE) HMCA, phasing will not prevent premature and unnecessary release of the Green Belt. This particular HMCA (as defined by LCC itself) is on the outskirts of the Leeds district and is a rural area. To such end, this HMCA was always going to have far fewer brownfield sites than other HMCAs. Along with LCC’s continued preference for a standalone strategic site this leaves the Green Belt site of MX2-39 at particular risk with no protection of flexibility from the SAP as it stands;

48. All the evidence points to a likely reduction in the housing requirement figures that is far higher than the total number of dwellings proposed on the Green Belt land. This evidence is now very much strengthened by the proposed standard methodology, which LCC will have to apply within a matter of months. This methodology yields a reduction in housing requirements of 27,616. In LCC’s CS and SAP it has proposed the destruction of the Green Belt to the extent of 12,481 houses plus the infrastructure, which in the case of MX2-39 is a significant consumption of additional Green Belt land;

49. BIESPC is unaware of the source of LCC’s figure of 5,750 as mentioned above. BIESPC respectfully requests that the Inspectors ask LCC to produce detailed information showing the underlying site details and data demonstrating how many homes on Green Belt land are included in each SAP phase;

50. The deferral of the development of around 5,750 homes on Green Belt land to later in the SAP plan period will plainly not solve the problem of unnecessary permanent Green Belt releases and associated destruction. In adopting this strategy, LCC would still destroy the Green Belt to the extent of 12,481 dwellings during the whole SAP plan period and the proposed strategy would allow for at least 6,731 dwellings to be unnecessarily built on Green Belt land early in the plan period;

51. The reduced target number of houses required is in fact of a magnitude to mean that no homes need to be built on Green Belt; We have assessed this from the following analysis;

52. In directly applying the recently proposed standard methodology, the CS requirement figure of 70,000 for the SAP period would be reduced to the likely revised figure of 2,649 per annum, or

total requirement for the SAP period of 42,384; a reduction of 27,616 units during the SAP period and equating to more than double the number of units proposed on Green Belt land;

53. Even if the revised methodology was only applied to the proposed CS review period, the requirement for the total SAP period is still lower than the CS requirement figure of 70,000 for the SAP period. A revised SAP period requirement figure based on the CS annual requirement of 3,660 for the first five years, and a revised figure of 2,649 for the remaining years would amount to 47,439. The difference is still 22,561 below the CS requirement. The reduction of 22,561 is of course also far greater than the 12,481 homes proposed to be built on Green Belt land, again meaning that it is highly unlikely that any house building on Green Belt land will be required during the SAP period;

54. It follows that all the current evidence demonstrates that it is most likely that none of the Green Belt releases will be required at all during the SAP period, clearly meaning that phasing during the SAP period would be entirely impotent to solve the problem;

55. In BIESPC’s opinion delaying phasing does not offer the any protection to the Green Belt land. The alteration of Green Belt boundaries will be due to, and at the time of, the adoption of the SAP. The fact that various Green Belt sites might be in later phases of the SAP does not change the fact that the Green Belt policy protection (requiring very special circumstances) will have been removed;

56. BIESPC notes at para e.4 that LCC relies on the proposed CSR plan period of 2017 to 2033 and draws support from the NPPF which advises that “authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period” (NPPF para 83);

57. However, even looking at a total period from 2011 to 2033 (i.e. the SAP period plus a further 5 years beyond that period), the indications are that the housing requirement in Leeds for that extended period would be either 55,629 (i.e. 2,649 per annum) or 60,684 (i.e. CS figure of 3,660 per annum for the first five years and the revised standard figure of 2,649 for the remaining 16 years). Both these requirement figures for the extended period are still significantly below the CS figure of 70,000 for the current SAP period. Therefore, even looking beyond the SAP period, it can be shown that the large majority the proposed Green Belt destruction (12,481) will still be unnecessary;

58. It is clear that the SAP as submitted offers insufficient flexibility to prevent the release of land unnecessarily from the Green Belt. It is simply not possible for ‘flexibility’ in the plan to solve the problem especially as LCC is highlighting that its planning team isn’t flexible enough to work on the Examination with the new, reduced housing target;

59. Finally, the mechanism of a selective review of the SAP (suggested by LCC at para e.6) would also be entirely ineffective to solve the problem and would conflict with the approach to Green Belt policy in the NPPF. Green Belt boundaries are intended to endure for the long term. To rely on

anticipating now that a SAP review may be necessary (to re-designate allocations as Green Belt) would be a nonsense and would be entirely the wrong approach, particularly given the long- term view that is required to be taken under paragraph 83 of the NPPF. In any case, a future SAP review would of course be impotent to rectify unnecessary Green Belt development granted planning permission before any proposed review of the SAP. The proper, and only realistic approach would of course be to avoid making mistakes now that will need rectifying later.

e.7 Finally, there remain outstanding objections to the SAP which will need to be addressed via the SAP Examination and, to the extent these are upheld, may bear upon land release.

60. BIESPC does not advocate housing building on Leeds’s Green Belt when it is clearly unnecessary in the first place. The idea of removing land from the Green Belt and building on it in phases does not comply with the requirements of the NPPF. LCC’s links between its own CS and SAP appear to be flawed. BIESPC sees a disconnect between these DPDs. LCC states in a.2 The Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) is a DPD which has been foreshadowed in the Leeds Adopted Core Strategy (CS). The scope of the SAP is clearly set out in paragraph 1.6 of CD1/1 to: “provide site allocations and requirements that help deliver the Core Strategy policies, ensuring that sufficient land is available in appropriate locations to meet the targets set out in the Core Strategy and achieve the Council’s ambitions”. With the accepted lower housing target figure the Green Belt sites can be removed from the SAP and the evidence exists to prove that “sufficient land is available in appropriate locations to meet the targets set out in the Core Strategy and achieve the Council’s ambitions”.

61. Furthermore the flexibility built into the CS and SAP is significantly based on swapping Green Belt from one location to another. LCC is treating Green Belt land as a commodity, and this is in contradiction to the requirement to assess land sequentially. It also completely disregards the principles of Green Belt which, according to the NPPF, has five stated purposes:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

62. MX2-39, as well as , are scheduled for Phase 1 of the SAP. LCC contends that building on these sites should begin as soon as possible in the Plan period, as stated in the Development Plans Panel meeting in November 2016. The Agenda Pack discusses the Development Briefs for these sites, which are designed to ensure that build-out is as swift as possible. This contradicts LCC’s above statement which seems to imply that the sites will be held back until the conclusion of the CSR.

63. Paragraph 82 on the NPPF states that: “If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary”. LCC has not set out the exceptional circumstances or the major changes that make it necessary to create new Green Belt from what is currently Rural Land at . It is put forward mainly as mitigation for damaging the Green Belt in other parts of the Outer North East, namely MX2-39. LCC appears to believe that it is the quantity of the Green Belt that it is important. LCC should instead be paying regard to how well land fulfils the Green Belt purposes. MX2-39 performs strongly against all five Green Belt purposes. The Rural Land at Wetherby has not been previously considered for the Green Belt, from which we can conclude that it does not strongly fulfil the Green Belt purposes and the only change in circumstance is that LCC wishes to remove other pieces of land from the Green Belt.

Question f. In the Council’s view, how should the release of Green Belt land through the SAP be considered in light of the selective review?

f.1 In the Council’s view, noting the flexibility and mechanisms as set out at e., above, the release of Green Belt should be considered as set out in the Submitted Plan.

64. LCC’s answer to this question (at f.1) cannot be relied on because it ignores two fundamental points: -

a. the need for exceptional circumstances to justify the proposed alteration of Green Belt boundaries; b. the impotence of the ‘flexibility and mechanisms’ to prevent unnecessary Green Belt releases (for the reasons set out under ‘e’ above.

65. The release of Green Belt land simply cannot properly be progressed through the current SAP when the ‘exceptional circumstances’ relied on by LCC have been so fundamentally and extensively undermined.

BIESPC SUMMARY

This SAP is, as Councillor Richard Lewis has stated, one of the most crucial decisions that LCC will make. In September 2016 Councillor Lewis said in the Post “We’d like as many people as possible and especially those living in the Outer North East area to take a look at these revised options and let us know what they think. This is important as it will shape where new housing goes in this part of the city up to 2028, so we need to hear from as many people as we can in this consultation.”

After asking for feedback, it was delivered in various forms of media comprising over 10,000 objections to MX2-39 alone which LCC duly ignored and passed on to the Inspectors. The vast numbers of responses proffered by residents in the ONE HMCA makes it clear that LCC must invest sufficient resources in getting the housing numbers right.

With sufficient LCC resources applied to the task, the CSR could be completed in a relatively short time, and this will save the council future wasted time and money but more importantly will stop the destruction of valuable Green Belt and open spaces which are in danger of being unnecessarily built on.

LCC’s plans have split the Leeds district into 11 geographical housing areas with the new homes to be developed in three phases. Of the 11 areas, the two highest in terms of receiving new housing would be the city centre and ‘inner area’ of , Beeston Hill, Belle Isle, and , Hyde Park and Woodhouse, and to help boost regeneration and economic growth in those parts of the city.

LCC is advised to focus its house building efforts into the areas that require the regeneration most. Certainly spaces in Leeds such as MX2-39 do not have any beneficial effect on the affected parts of the city such as Gipton, Harehills and Seacroft.

LCC should also continue to carry out a range of initiatives to meet housing needs in the city, maintaining its focus on delivering new council housing, bringing empty properties back into use and regenerating brownfield land first whilst comprehensively reviewing its Core Strategy.

LCC does not appear to have come up with a methodology for calculating OAN with regard to type of housing needed in each area. LCC’s SAP provides the freedom for housebuilders to concentrate on building "executive style" properties instead of smaller, affordable dwellings.

BIESPC has pointed out in our text herein that with a 50% error in its housing forecast LCC runs the risk of losing control of its SAP. It is BIESPC’s intent that a SAP becomes available to LCC at the completion of the examination process.

The SAP can be deemed sound by the removal of the Green Belt sites, such as MX2-39, . According to LCC’s own assessment, the Parlington site strongly fulfils all the purposes of the Greenbelt and yet was still proposed for the SAP. SP10 should therefore be reviewed with a view to amending it to require LCC to carry out a non-selective Review of the Greenbelt before any Greenbelt

sites are used to fulfil the Housing Requirement;

BIESPC posits:

- There are now major additional uncertainties caused by Brexit, which will have a significant impact on future housing projections;

- We understand that the demographic data on which LCC has based its new projections are from 2014 and so do not take any account of the effect of Brexit;

- This means it is even more unlikely that LCC will be able to forecast this far ahead with any reliability.

Furthermore, there are indeed sustainability dis-benefits if the CS is delivering either too much or too little housing. LCC’s error of 50% indicates that by getting the numbers wrong the plan will be unsustainable and therefore unsound.

BIESPC’S FINAL CONCLUSION IS AS FOLLOWS:

Alec Shelbrooke MP recently asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; “What mechanisms are available to his Department to require Leeds City Council to review its Local Plan to take into account the Council’s own downward revision of its housing target before it reaches public inquiry”

The reply from Alok Sharma was recorded in Hansard as “Under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), local planning authorities should ensure that any Plan they produce is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence. This is tested by the independent Planning Inspector, during the statutory examination of a Plan.”

Leeds’s Green Belt is under threat of extinction. Once sites are released from the Green Belt there will be irreversible damage. The Government concedes that Green Belt can only be released in ‘exceptional circumstances’. If LCC was to complete its Core Strategy Review and use the new Government methodology of assessing housing need before progressing with the SAP, the need to release Green Belt sites in Leeds would be eliminated.

BIESPC strongly believes that the CSR and the need to allocate Green Belt sites or not are intrinsically linked.

We also believe that this along with the level and detail of questioning from the Inspector’s to LCC regarding Leeds Green Belt, should warrant another Matter being added to the Leeds SAP Programme.