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. 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 Road Car Park and EO2-9 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. 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.

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

Page 5 of 15

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.

4.2. As CD1/1 states ‘capacities can only be an indication of what could be achieved on a site’. The City Centre contains 14 proposed mixed use allocations which all include a mix of housing and office and 1 includes also a mix of general employment. Mixed residential and office developments are a feature of the City Centre. Office use is encouraged in the City Centre and discouraged in out-of-centre locations where it may be subject to sequential testing. Residential development is also encouraged in the City Centre and a key priority in the CS, CD2/1 Policy SP3 is to expand ‘City Centre Living’. Evidence of past developments illustrate the success of schemes with office on one part of a plot and residential on another, or with vertical separation in the same block. The proposed mix on allocated sites seeks to replicate this experience. There are sites where residential use at lower floor levels would not provide good living conditions because of proximity to busy roads, and where office use would be preferable. The one mixed use site with general employment (Temple Works Mixed Use site – MX2-35) includes a plot intended for a factory on the southern periphery of the City Centre; residential and office use would be located on other parts of the site. 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 necessary development overall but also allowing for flexibility in responding positively to market conditions, in facilitating a viable, attractive and versatile City Centre.

4.3. 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 15

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, CD 1/35 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 are required, these are detailed in the site requirements for specific sites.

5.4. As identified in the CS, the City Centre is an important focus for growth in the District and the City Region as a whole. is a major strategic and accessible transport hub and a sustainable location. Within this overall context and the transport initiatives outlined in CD1/35, all proposed allocations (housing and employment and mixed use) can be accommodated without the need for new road provision. Transport modelling has considered the cumulative impact of proposed allocations upon the road network, and 10 sites have site requirements for contributions to mitigate cumulative impacts: Sites HG2-194 Silver Street North, HG2-195 Silver Street South, MX2-30 Water Lane Railway Triangle and MX2-36 Water Lane Car Park have requirements for contributions towards pedestrian improvements to mitigate cumulative pedestrian impact; sites MX2-19 Westgate (swimming pool), MX2-20 Westgate Brotherton House, EO2-6 Kirkstall Road car park and EO2-9 Hunslet Lane Hunslet have site requirements to mitigate cumulative impacts on the road network; and sites MX2-32 Water Lane Westbank and MX2-35 have requirements to mitigate cumulative impacts on the road network and for

Page 7 of 15

pedestrians.

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.

6. Are the identified Protected Areas of Search sites justified?

6.1. There are no UDP PAS sites in the City Centre and no safeguarded land designations in the SAP.

Page 8 of 15

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 15

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 City Centre all the proposed allocations have at least one site requirement. The total number of requirements is 86 across 27 allocations. 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 4 individual site requirements in City Centre have wording referring to ‘consideration should be given to…. or “regard should be had to… ‘. The table below lists these and provides justification.

Page 10 of 15

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

HG2-189 Centenary Culverts To use the word ‘consider’ in House, North St this context is considered “The site contains a culvert or appropriate as opening of canalised watercourse. culverts needs to take full Development proposals should account of public safety consider re-opening or considerations, and in some restoration in accordance with cases development cannot be saved UDP Policy N39B”. achieved through opening a culvert. The wording allows for the implementation of the UDP policy.

HG2-199 Day Gas Pipelines To use the wording ‘have Centre regard to’ in this context is “The site is affected by a gas considered appropriate as pipeline. Detailed design layout Northern Gas Networks will should have regard to the need to be involved at detailed building proximity distance planning application stage and required. Consult with Northern development layout designed Gas Networks to see if any to avoid hard development in additional plant protection protection zones. provisions are needed.”

MX2-34 Criterion Place Culverts To use the word ‘consider’ in North this context is considered “The site contains a culvert or appropriate as opening of canalised watercourse. culverts needs to take full Development proposals should account of public safety consider re-opening or considerations, and in some restoration in accordance with cases development cannot be saved UDP Policy N39B”. achieved through opening a culvert. The wording allows for the implementation of the UDP policy.

MX2-35 Temple Works Gas Pipelines To use the wording ‘have Mixed Use Site regard to’ in this context is “The site is affected by a gas considered appropriate as pipeline. Detailed design layout Northern Gas Networks will should have regard to the need to be involved at detailed building proximity distance planning application stage and required. Consult with Northern development layout designed Gas Networks to see if any to avoid hard development in additional plant protection protection zones. provisions are needed.”

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

Page 11 of 15

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 City Centre, 3 housing/mixed allocations and 2 employment 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

MX2-15 LGI, Great Additional wording added to listed buildings and conservation area site George St requirements.

MX2-19 Leeds Flood risk requirement added. International Swimming Pool, Westgate

MX2-32 Westbank, Clarification of requirement for contributions to Local Highway Network Water Lane improvements

EO2-6 Kirkstall Road Additional wording to Local Highway Network site requirement Car Park, concerning cumulative impact on the M621 Junction 2 and contributions to improvements.

EO2-9 Hunslet Lane, Clarification of wording to Local Highway Network requirement. Hunslet

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.

Page 12 of 15

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 City Centre 17 sites have been identified under Policy HG4.

These are:

• HG2-187 Brandon Road • HG2-188 Great George Street • HG2-189 North Street • HG2-191 49 Aire Street • HG2-199 Holbeck Day Centre, Holbeck Moor Road • MX2-34 Criterion Place North • HG2-209 The Faversham, Springfield Mount • MX2-15 Great George Street LGI • MX2-16 Bridge Street, Baker House • MX2-17 North Street - Leeds College of Building • MX2-18 Regent Street / Skinner Lane • MX2-19 Westgate – Leeds International Swimming Pool site • MX2-20 Westgate – Brotherton House • MX2-23 Quarry Hill/York Street • MX2-25 7 Duncan Street • MX2-27 Wharf Street • MX2-35 Temple Works Mixed Use Site

4.2. 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

Page 13 of 15

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 City Centre meets their needs.

Page 14 of 15

Additional Site Specific Questions

1 In relation to MX2-30 is there evidence that the site would not be affected by HS2?

1.1 In the context of proposed mixed use allocation MX2-30 (Water Lane Railway Triangle), the HS2 route that was confirmed in November 2016 is shown on the map below.

1.2 It can be clearly seen that the HS2 safeguarding area will have no effect on Site MX2-30

1.3 The recent update to the HS2 proposals of July/Aug does not change this.

Page 15 of 15