Leeds City Council Site Allocations Plan Examination Matter 7: Selection of sites allocated for development – Aireborough: Main Issue 1 Main Issue 2 Additional Site Specific Questions Doc No. M7/1a Leeds Local Plan Page 1 of 16 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 been applied in this HMCA. It highlights the specific characteristics of and evidence relating to Aireborough and notes whether there are any specific issues arising. 1.2 Further to paragraph 3.1 of the Submission SAP CD1/1, Aireborough is in north west Leeds, containing the major settlements of Guiseley, Yeadon and Rawdon and Leeds Bradford Airport. The settlements are situated along the A65, a main arterial road into Leeds, leading out into the Wharfe valley and the A658 runs through the HMCA from Bradford to Harrogate. To mitigate impacts upon the A65 in particular, a number of sites have site requirements concerning the cumulative effect of development on the A65 corridor, which Bradford MBC were also consulted on and agreed. Guiseley has a train station, with rail links to Leeds and Bradford. The settlements are surrounded by Green Belt to the north, east and west, with large areas of countryside, including Hawksworth Moor to the west and the Wharfe valley to the north. The Bradford administrative boundary adjoins the north western boundary. 1.3 The methodology as outlined in Matter 6 is considered robust. In Aireborough in terms of new housing allocations 48 sites were put forward for consideration, 35 of which are in or partly in Green Belt. In Aireborough there are: a) 13 housing allocations (9 of which are Green Belt/part Green Belt) b) 4 safeguarded land designations (all of which are Green Belt) (see response to question 6 below) c) 31 rejected sites (26 of these are Green Belt). The reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 2, pages 72 to 78 in the Housing Background Paper CD1/34. 1.4 In terms of office and general employment allocations, 5 sites were put forward for consideration in Aireborough. Page 2 of 16 In the HMCA there are: a) 1 general employment allocation EG3 Leeds Bradford Airport (Green Belt) b) 4 rejected sites. Reasons for allocation and rejection of sites are detailed at Appendix 1, page 24 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 Aireborough (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 mean that the land remains available and the allocation is justified. The majority of the sites are already being actively promoted by the agents/developers as evidenced in representations received. In addition site HG2-16 Silverdale Avenue, Guiseley has a current planning application pending determination (planning application number17/01262/FU). 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. Aireborough is a relatively high market value area. There is no evidence and no landowner representations have been received on any particular site to suggest that development is not viable. Page 3 of 16 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 Aireborough is 286 under the indicative target of 2,300 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’) Aireborough 2,300 3% 965 1,049 2,014 -286 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 Aireborough, 2 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 Page 4 of 16 response to further questions 7th August 2017 EX2c and Appendix 1 of the Council’s response to Inspectors initial questions June 2017 EX2. In Aireborough 2 identified sites have expired planning permissions; these are HG1-5 Parkside Works, Otley Road, Guiseley and HG1-11 Station Garage, Henshaw Lane, Yeadon . 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 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 N/A. There are no mixed use allocations in Aireborough. 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.