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 ). 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. 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’. There is 1 mixed use allocation in Outer South; MX2-14 Aberford Road (77/79), Oulton. The site is a brownfield site in the urban area of Rothwell. At Publication Draft the site was shown as a mixed use site in response to representations received. However, despite inclusion of the allocation the Council failed to specify the extent of the uses and instead specified housing on the entirety of the site with a capacity of 50 units. The Council proposes a main modification to rectify this error by amending the housing capacity to 25 units and including an employment capacity of 0.67 hectares. This follows the standard methodology set out in paragraph 4.1.

Page 5 of 13

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. 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 are required, these are detailed in the site requirements for specific sites. In Outer South, 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 A61, A639, M621, A642, M62 and A654, in this area. Sites HG2-173 Haighside Rothwell, HG2-174 Wood Lane – Rothwell Garden Centre LS26, HG2-178 Aberford Road – site of Glenoit and Minerva Mills, Oulton, HG2-180 Land between Fleet Lane & Methley Lane, Oulton, HG2-181 Land at Leadwell Lane, Robin Hood and HG2- 185 Church Farm Lofthouse have highway network site requirements for contributions to mitigate any impacts to the road network.

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 6 of 13

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 Outer South there are 4 UDP PAS sites. Of these none are proposed as housing allocations, 1 is proposed as safeguarded land and 3 are identified housing sites due to planning permission being granted. The Council has explained why it believes this approach to be 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. Of the one site designated as safeguarded land in Outer South (total housing capacity 220 representing 3% of the safeguarded land target of 6,600 identified in the Core Strategy) Appendix 2 of CD1/34, page 199 provides reasons for this designation. It is acknowledged that allocation of safeguarded land sites could help to make up the housing Core Strategy target in this area, but, as explained in our response to Matter 2 the Council do not consider this to be the best approach. To have allocated the safeguarded land site as a housing allocation, would have simply necessitated the release of further Green Belt land to provide replacement safeguarded land provision.

Page 7 of 13

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 8 of 13

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 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 Outer South, 14 housing and mixed use allocations have specific site requirements, which amounts to 40 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 7 individual site requirements in Outer South have wording referring to ‘consideration should be given to….’ These are:

Page 9 of 13

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

HG2-177 Alma Villas Culverts and Canalised To use the word ‘consider’ in this (site at), Woodlesford Water Courses context is considered appropriate as LS26 8PW opening of culverts needs to take full The site contains a culvert or account of public safety considerations, canalised watercourse. and in some cases development cannot Development proposals be achieved through opening a culvert. should consider re-openingor The wording allows for the restoration in accordance with implementation of the UDP policy. saved UDP Policy N39B

HG2-178 Aberford Road – site of Culverts and Canalised Glenoit and Minerva Water Courses As above Mills, Oulton

As above

HG2-179 Fleet Gas Pipelines To use the wording ‘have regard to’ in Lane/Eshald Lane this context is considered appropriate as (land at), Oulton The site is affected by a gas Northern Gas networks will need to be LS26 8HT pipeline. Detailed design involved at detailed planning application layout should have regard to stage and development layout designed the building proximity distance to avoid hard development in protection required. Consult with zones. Northern Gas Networks to see if any additional plan protection provisions are needed.

HG2-180 Land Culverts and Canalised between Fleet Lane Water Courses As above & Methley Lane, Oulton As above

HG2-182 Main Street Culverts and Canalised and Pitfield Road, Water Courses As above Carlton As above

HG2-185 Church Culverts and Canalised Farm Lofthouse Water Courses As above

As above As above. Gas pipelines

As above

Page 10 of 13

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 Outer South, 7 housing allocations have been subject to additional/revised site requirements which were advertised as pre-submission changes to the Plan in February 2017. These sites are:

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

HG2-173 Haighside A site requirement was added stating "the whale jawbones should be Rothwell retained as part of any future development”.

The wording to the Local Highway Network site requirement was amended.

HG2-176 An Ecology site requirement was added. Windlesford Green Hostel, Woodlesford

HG2-177 Alma Villas A Flood Risk site requirement was added. (site at), Woodlesford LS26 8PW

HG2-178 Aberford A Flood Risk site requirement was added. Road – site of Glenoit and Minerva Mills, Oulton

HG2-180 Land The wording to the Local Highway Network site requirement was between Fleet Lane amended. & Methley Lane,

Page 11 of 13

Oulton A Flood Risk site requirement was added.

HG2-183 Swithens The Local Highway Network site requirement was removed. Lane, Rothwell, Leeds LS26 0BS

HG2-186 Main A Flood Risk site requirement was added. Street, Hunts Farm, Methley An Ecology site requirement was added.

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 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. 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 Outer South 1 site has been identified under Policy HG4 – HG2-183 Swithens Lane, Rothwell.

4.2 Identification of this site 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

Page 12 of 13

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 Outer South meets their needs.

Additional Site Specific Questions

5. In relation to HG2-173 in the light of land instability is the site deliverable? Are the site requirements clearly expressed?

5.1. Yes. Land instability on site HG2-173 Haighside, Rothwell was recognised as a potential issue at Publication Draft consultation stage. There are no site specific requirements relating to land instability as existing Unitary Development Plan policy GP5 and Minerals 3 of the Leeds Natural Resources and Waste Plan (CD2/2) will address this issue at planning application stage. A pre-submission change to paragraph 2.54 of the SAP CD1/2 highlights the existence of these polices. In light of these policies the Council is satisfied site HG2-173 is deliverable.

6. In relation to HG2-185 is the site deliverable in the light of the possible ransom strip?

6.1. Yes. Although not specified, it is assumed that the Inspectors reference to a ransom strip relates to a strip of land between the site and Church Farm Close. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners raised this as a potential issue at Publication Draft consultation stage (PDE02852) stating that since the site requirements stipulate a secondary access should be provided via Church Farm Close, if this second access is not achievable for any reason, this could impact on the feasibility of gaining a second access and therefore impact upon the deliverability of the site.

6.2. The Council wrote to ID Planning (the Agents promoting HG2-185) on 4th August 2017 asking if they had any information regarding the possible ransom strip. On 8th August 2017 ID Planning confirmed their clients have control of the land between the site and the adopted highway off Church Farm Close. In light of this, it is the Councils understanding that there is no ransom strip.

Page 13 of 13