Leeds City Council Site Allocations Plan Examination Matter 7
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Leeds City Council Site Allocations Plan Examination Matter 7: Selection of sites allocated for development – Outer South: Main Issue 1 Main Issue 2 Additional Site Specific Questions Doc No.M7/1i Leeds Local Plan Page 1 of 13 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 Outer South and notes whether there are any specific issues arising. 1.2 Further to paragraph 3.8 of the submission SAP CD1/1, Outer South is an outlying area to the south of the city. It is set around the major settlement of Rothwell (which includes Oulton and Woodlesford). As a Major Settlement, Rothwell is identified as a sustainable location for future growth in the Core Strategy CD2/1 (see SP10). It has good road and rail links with easy access to the motorway network (the M1 to the North and the M62 to the South providing good regional connections for people and local businesses) and a train station at Woodlesford serving the Leeds/Sheffield line. Rothwell town centre boasts a range of shops and facilities including a large Morrisons supermarket. The smaller settlements of Lofthouse/Robin Hood and Mickletown Methley further help to supplement the local community needs. The A639 and A61 are the main roads linking the area towns to the City Centre. The proposed HS2 route runs through Outer South and will be a major feature upon completion. 1.3 The methodology as outlined in Matter 6 is considered robust. In Outer South in terms of new housing allocations 58 sites were put forward for consideration, 46 of which are in or partly in Green Belt. In Outer South there are: a) 14 housing allocations (11 of which are Green Belt/part Green Belt) b) 1 mixed use allocations (not in the Green Belt). NB This does not appear in the Employment Background Paper. See paragraph 4.2. c) 3 safeguarded land designation (2 of which are Green Belt) (see response to question 6 below) d) 40 sites are rejected (33 of these are Green Belt). The reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 2, Page 2 of 13 pages 196 to 204 in the Housing Background Paper CD1/34. 1.4 In terms of office and general employment allocations, 4 sites were put forward for consideration in Outer South and 4 were rejected (1 of these are Green Belt). Reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 1, page 47 and 48 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 Outer South (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 that the land remains available and the allocation is justified. The vast majority of the sites are already being actively promoted by the developers/agents as evidenced in representations received. 1.8 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. There is no evidence and no 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 Outer South is 166 under the indicative target of 2,600 as illustrated in the table below. Page 3 of 13 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’) Outer South 2,600 4% 618 1,816 2,434 -166 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. 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. 3.2 In Outer South, 4 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 Council’s response to Inspector’s initial questions June 2017 EX2. In Outer South 3 identified sites have expired planning permissions. These are HG1-404 Marsh Street, Rothwell, HG1-412 Mickletown Road, Methley and HG1-418 Leeds Road – Lofthouse Hall, Lofthouse. 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 4 of 13 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.