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 – City Centre: Main Issue 1 Main Issue 2 Additional Site Specific Questions Doc No. M7/1b Leeds Local Plan Page 1 of 15 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 City Centre and notes whether there are any specific issues arising. 1.2. Further to paragraph 3.2 of the Submission SAP CD1/1 the City Centre is a vibrant regional centre for the Leeds City Region and wider area. There are over 1000 shops in the prime shopping quarter, with recent developments of Trinity and Victoria Gate shopping centres, bars, restaurants, museums, cinemas, theatres, two universities and a resident population, spread across the HMCA, with concentrations along the waterfront. Leeds Railway Station provides good rail links across the country, and the High Speed 2 rail station will be located in the city centre, and a bus network serves the city and links beyond this to the Inner HMCA which surrounds this HMCA and beyond. The Aire Valley Area Action Plan area includes part of the city centre HMCA. 1.3. The methodology as outlined in Matter 6 is considered robust. In City Centre in terms of new housing allocations 46 sites were put forward for consideration. In City Centre there are: i. 9 housing allocations ii. 16 mixed use allocations iii. 21 sites are rejected 1.4. The reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 2, pages 88 to 97 in the Housing Background Paper CD1/34. 1.5. In terms of office and general employment allocations, 30 sites were put forward for consideration in City Centre. In the HMCA there are: i. 1 general employment allocation (EG2-22 Leathley Road and Cross Myrtle Street) Page 2 of 15 ii. 2 office allocations (EO2-6 Kirkstall Road Car Park and EO2-9 Hunslet Lane, Hunslet) iii. 14 mixed use allocations including office and housing (of which 1 includes general employment as well as office) iv. 13 sites are rejected. 1.6. Reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 1, pages 25 to 29 of the Employment Background Paper CD1/29. 1.7. 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. 1.8. 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 City Centre (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. 1.9. 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 City Centre is an attractive location for investment and developers and agents are therefore already actively promoting and supporting many of the sites. There is a planning permission on (HG2-187 Brandon Road LS3, HG2-189 for student housing ref 16/04778/FU) and planning applications pending determination on (MX2-23 Quarry Hill/York St for a mixed use scheme ref 14/06534/OT) and Centenary House, North St, for residential conversion ref 17/01230/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. Page 3 of 15 1.10. 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. In addition, in the City Centre the CS Inspector’s report paragraph 28 CD2/17 recognised that the City Centre and Inner HMCAs had moved from a position of general ‘non-viability’ during the recession to one of general viability which would only improve as the market strengthened. The online PPG1 notes that “Evidence should be proportionate to ensure plans are underpinned by a broad understanding of viability. Greater detail may be necessary in areas of known marginal viability or where the evidence suggests that viability might be an issue.” To that end the Council commissioned three reports from the DVS (EB8/5 to EB8/7) which focused on the viability of a selected number of sites in the City Centre and the Inner Area on which viability was considered to be a potential issue e.g. by virtue of the character of the site or where issues were raised by members of the SHLAA partnership. All sites assessed in the City Centre were considered to be viable. Furthermore 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. City Centre is 1,709 above the indicative target of 10,200 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’) City Centre 10,200 15.5% 5,264 6,645 11,909 +1709 2.3. The Council have outlined why being over the target in City Centre is considered a sound and justified approach, fully in compliance with the CS, the evidence base and national guidance in our response to Matter 2 and in EX2, response to Question 11. 2.4. 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. The City Centre, given its prime economic role at the 1 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 10-005-20140306 Page 4 of 15 heart of the MD and the city region provides for a total of 500,441sqm of new office development in identified and allocated sites (383,158sqm identified and 117,283sqm allocated) which equates to (47% of the 1,067,583sqm total allocations). 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 City Centre, 14 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 the Inspector’s initial questions June 2017 EX2. In City Centre 13 sites have expired planning permissions: These are: HG1-423,19 Springfield Mount, HG1-425, 29-31 Hyde Park Terrace, HG1-428, 40 Clarendon Road, HG1-440, 17 Regent St, HG1-442, 32 Hanover Sq, HG1-458, 4 St Peters Place, MX1-5, Portland Crescent, MX1-9, 30 Sovereign St, MX1-13 Globe Road Water Lane, MX1-15 Granary Wharf Car Park, MX1-16 Midland Mills, Silver St, MX1-17 Bath Road and MX1-20 Jack Lane/Sweet St.