NORTH LEEDS MATTER 2. Response to Leeds Sites and Allocations DPD Examination Inspector s Questions. August 2017

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "NORTH LEEDS MATTER 2. Response to Leeds Sites and Allocations DPD Examination Inspector s Questions. August 2017"

Priscilla Polly Hopkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 NORTH LEEDS MATTER 2 Response to Leeds Sites and Allocations DPD Examination Inspector s Questions August 2017 CLIENT: TAYLOR WIMPEY, ADEL REFERENCE NO:

2 CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 TEST OF SOUNDNESS 3.0 RESPONSE TO INSPECTOR S QUESTIONS APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 June 2016, 3 Options Brochure (Extracts) See Johnson Mowat Land Supply August 2017 document 2

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This response has been prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in relation to their land interest at Dunstarn Lane, Adel. For the avoidance of doubt, Taylor Wimpey s interest in HG-38 extends beyond the boundaries of this proposed Allocation and includes a property on Dunstarn Lane such that a full vehicular access can be safely achieved. It also includes substantial areas of land to the south and east of. 1.2 While we support the proposed allocation of this Phase 2 site we have throughout the SAP Allocation process sought to make a case for a slightly larger proposal taking advantage of the fact that the larger suggested development area create no greater environmental or spatial planning harms. It is noted the North sub area contains a lesser amount of housing (42 dwellings) than that sought in Policy SP7 and extending this allocation would help to resolve that matter. The site is available and deliverable and there is a strong case for the release of this site in Phase In 2016, Taylor Wimpey commissioned an Options Paper (See Appendix 1) to consider alternatives to the Council s preferred 68 dwellings option. The attached options paper was supported by a series of environmental amendments on matters such as landscape, drainage, heritage, highways and ecology which concluded a more suitable 150 dwelling development was environmentally achievable which alongside adjoining land in the same ownership could present enhanced local recreational route upgrades. 1.4 It is our opinion this 150 dwelling proposal would be a more appropriate option. 3

4 2.0 TEST OF SOUNDNESS 2.1 Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is sound namely that it is: Positively prepared the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; Justified the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; Effective the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and Consistent with national policy the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. 2.2 With respect to, we believe all options have not been fully explored and the Council s restriction of this site to just 68 dwellings is not only not justified but lacks the element of being positively prepared. To resolve the matter we are seeking consideration be given to the options paper attached and our preference for the 150 dwelling option. 4

5 3.0 RESPONSE TO INSPECTOR S QUESTIONS Matter 2 Compliance with the Core Strategy (CS) Issue whether the SAP gives effect to and is consistent with the CS. Questions: 1. Have the strategic aims and objectives of the CS been complied with? Response: As currently proposed, the SAP has failed to deliver development in the right amount and in the right locations as sought by CS policies SP1, SP6 and SP7. Our evidence in the Johnson Mowat Land Supply report informs the SAP in its current form will fail to deliver the required amount over the next five years unless the proposed Phasing mechanism is dropped. In the North sub-area, the shortfall over the period 2012 to 2022 is considerable at 513 dwellings. 2. Will the plan deliver the type and amount of development (housing and employment) anticipated in the CS? Response: Based upon the supply evidence to date, it would appear the SAP is unlikely to deliver the level of development sought in the CS. At this point, it is important to distinguish to between the terms delivery and deliverable. While the Council has relied in the past on identifying deliverable sites, it is now proven that many of these sites have not come forward when expected and in certain cases may not come forward at all in the plan period up to The Council s reliance on older allocations, sites with lapsed permissions and sites with an alternative use with little or no developer interest has produced a SAP that contains many sites that could be regarded as deliverable but with little realistic prospect of likely delivery. 3. Are the assumed build-out rates contained in the SHLAA realistic and robust? Response: No. We have provided under separate cover our review of the Housing Land Supply. Our approach has been robust and based upon dialogue with housebuilders and has regard to previous performance. 5

6 In particular, the Council s expectation of delivery from the City Centre sites is unproven. We expand upon this remark in more detail in our report. 4. The capacity of a number of housing sites has been reduced between publication draft and pre-submission stage. What, if any, are the implications of this? Response: While this is a matter for the LPA, it is clear the LPA has now less confidence in its selected sites to deliver. 5. Will the site allocations and policies ensure development contributes towards the sustainable growth of the City area? Response: Yes. 6. Identified sites include sites where planning permission has expired. Is the inclusion of these sites in the overall supply of housing and employment land justified? (Please also see the Inspector s Further Questions to the Council Council-sites.pdf) Response: No. Our 2017 Housing Land Supply review informs of many sites previously approved but now lapsed remain with no current residential prospects. Our review of many of those sites inform they remain in a viable alternative use. This is likely to be the case for the remainder of the Plan period. 7. (a) Is it reasonable to include small scale housing sites (less than 10 dwellings) such as HG1-278 (capacity of two dwellings), and HG1-286 (4 dwellings), where planning permission has expired as identified sites? (b) Would sites such as these also be counted as windfalls for which an allowance has already been made. Response: Ideally there should be no allocated sites below 5, that being smaller sites. These are sites that generally account for windfall. 8. Is the continued inclusion of UDP allocations in the overall balance of the housing and employment land requirements set out in the CS justified? Response: This requires a site by site assessment. There are several Phase 2 and 3 UDP/UDPR sites that remain suitable and were held back by the LPA until 2011 as being unsuitable simply because they were greenfield. Several of these Phase 2/3 UDPR sites will be delivered now released. There are however a number of unattractive UDP/UDPR sites in the previous Phase 1 category that have proven to be unreliable in terms of 6

7 delivery for the last 20 years. These sites require closer scrutiny given they have failed to deliver. They should not be relied upon to deliver in the next 5 years. Distribution of development 9. Is the distribution and capacity of housing sites identified in the SAP in accordance with the CS (Policies SP1 and SP7)? In particular, where the requirements set out in Table 3 of the CS are not met in some Housing Market Characteristics Areas (HMCAs) is this justified? Response: We are aware the Council has sought to rectify the sub area shortfalls in recent modifications to the SAP. It should also be noted that the Council has over-relied on the City Centre sub-area at the expense of the outer areas. Given the Council s track record of poor delivery from the City Centre site and the commentary contained in the Johnson Mowat Land Supply report, it is clear the Council has over-provided for housing in the sub areas most likely to fail. The Council has not justified its position. 10. Is the distribution of employment sites identified in the SAP in accordance with the CS? Response: No comment. 11. Does the SAP give sufficient priority to brownfield sites within the HMCAs in accordance with the CS? Response: Delivery of brownfield land in Leeds has been consistently above the CS percentage target. However, the Council s focus on brownfield delivery has been at the expense of delivery overall and this needs to be rectified through greenfield release. Housing Mix 12. Would the reduced planned housing provision in some HMCAs impact on the delivery of the type and range of homes within the Leeds area set out in Policy H4 of the CS? Response: Since the start date of the CS (2012), housing mix has never been raised as a problematic area and developments in both the City Centre and further out into the less dense neighbourhoods, towns and villages have broadly conformed with the expectation of Policy H4. 7

8 However, the overprovision of apartment dwellings in the City Centre sub-area is largely at the expense of family housing in the outer areas. The consequence is not the impact on Policy H4 but the impact it has on delivering affordable housing under Policy H5. CS Policy H5 identifies 4 zones of affordable housing, these zones are shown on Map 12. As shown on Map 12, Zones 3 and 4 contain a requirement of no more than 5%. This includes the City Centre and Inner sub-areas, The SAP over provision in Zone 3 and 4 at the expense of delivering housing in areas that are capable of delivering higher amounts of affordable housing is not consistent with the aims of the CS. Phasing 13. Is the phasing of sites justified and will it be effective? Response: The proposed Phasing approach as set out in the SAP is not justified and not effective. Based upon the current CS housing requirement (average 4,375 dpa), the Johnson Mowat August 2017 Land Supply Report informs of a 5 yr supply of 2.97 years. This only marginally improves to just over 3 yrs supply if the SAP is adopted in its current form. The SAP approach is therefore at odds with Paragraph 47 of the Framework in that it will not significantly boost supply, nor will it deliver a 5 yr supply of housing land. The SAP Phasing Policy must be considered alongside the recent record of delivery. The Framework guidance (03-033) requires the LPA to consider its previous track record of delivery when making as assessment of deliverability in the forward supply. In the case of Leeds, this track record of deliver and its ability to forecast forward supply within successive SHLAA s has been tested in 5 recent 2015/16/17 S78 planning inquiries and found to be sadly lacking in credibility. Given the Framework guidance requires the LPA to consider its track record and the fact that recent inquiry decisions have shown the 2016 SHLAA to be unreliable and overly optimistic regarding delivery assumptions, then the Phasing in the SAP needs to be removed. Not only will the removal of Phasing help the LPA to meets its target and boost supply but it will also significantly improve the delivery of affordable housing given the Phase 3 and Phase 3 sites are all largely within Zone 1 and 2 areas in Map 12 which deliver higher rates. 14. Is the approach consistent with Policy H1 of the CS? 8

9 Response: Policy H1 was drafted on the understanding the SAP would closely follow the adoption of the CS. This has not been the case. As a result, delivery has now failed to meet the early years lower target in each of the first five years. This was not intended to be the case as the Council s 2013 AMR based forecast considered at the CS examination informed this lower target could be achieved such that Policy H1 phasing would be appropriate. As such, Policy H1 is based upon failed delivery assumptions. 15. How will the release of sites be managed and monitored? Response: The Council s preference to manage and release sites having regard to its own assumption of a 5 yr supply has a long record of failure. Since 2009, the LPA has lost over 20 planning appeals on having a 5 yr supply and has wasted (via costs awards) a considerable amount of money defending its flawed delivery assumptions. It is clear this Council has not learnt from these lessons and once more puts forward a supply position in the 2017 Draft SHLAA that unrealistically inflates delivery from known unreliable sources. It is our opinion the Phasing needs to be removed. If that is not the Inspector s preferred approach, we request a fixed release date in the SAP for Allocations being no later than 2019 in order to make good the shortfall. Flexibility 16. Is the SAP sufficiently flexible and resilient enough should the identified and / or allocated sites fail to deliver at the level and pace envisaged? Response: No. The SAP as currently drafted lacks the flexibility. 17. Is the SAP sufficiently flexible to allow the development of sites expected to come forward in later phases to come forward earlier if capable of doing so and required? Response: No. The Council has a track record of opposing the earlier release of its Allocations. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Council fought nine S78 inquiries against the release of its UDPR Phase 2 and Phase 3 Greenfield Allocations. The Council s current approach indicates the same process of release by public inquiry will arise again, most likely starting in 2018 given the SAP Phase 1 sites will not in themselves 9

10 provide for a 5 year supply of deliverable housing that has a realistic prospect of actual delivery within that period. 10

11 APPENDIX 1

12 Land Promotion Updated Brochure June 2016 Land South of Dunstarn Lane, Adel

7.1 MASTERPLAN OPTIONS 7.1 MASTERPLAN OPTIONS The September 2015 submission considered three conceptual masterplans. These are shown opposite.

) This is based upon the initial site included within the SHLAA review and subsequently taken forward to the January 2015 draft allocations DPD.

It is our recommendation that land to the south of the site be designated PAS land for further review beyond the period, with it cumulatively providing a well defined landscape buffer to the eastern

13 7.1 MASTERPLAN OPTIONS 7.1 MASTERPLAN OPTIONS The September 2015 submission considered three conceptual masterplans. These are shown opposite. Option 1 - Preferred option Considers an indicative residential layout for circa 185 dwellings. (Although this has now been reduced to 150 dwellings as a result of the further constraints on site.) This is based upon the initial site included within the SHLAA review and subsequently taken forward to the January 2015 draft allocations DPD. The site represents an appropriate edge of settlement extension that can contribute toward the current shortfall in housing supply across the District. It is our recommendation that land to the south of the site be designated PAS land for further review beyond the period, with it cumulatively providing a well defined landscape buffer to the eastern Green Belt boundary. The Johnson Mowat case for Option 1, including concerns over the district housing supply and phasing of sites is set out within the supporting representations. Option 2 - Full residential This plan demonstrates how a full residential scheme on SHLAA sites 1178A and 1178B can be accommodated in the future and potentially beyond the plan period. Taylor Wimpey maintain an option on this land, which can deliver additional homes. However an updated constraints plan now identifies part of the site as being utilised for open space due to the location of the water mains. Option 3 - Option as per September 2015 allocation This plan demonstrates the site with a reduced capacity as per the September 2015 draft allocations DPD. Whilst Johnson Mowat support the principle of a housing allocation, we strongly object to the reduced land take which has subsequently been allocated by the Council. Our objections are fully detailed within supporting representations as part of the consultation. 14 Land Promotion Updated Brochure June 2016

7.2 MASTERPLAN - JUNE 2016 Final Option June 2016 The final masterplan takes full account of the detailed risks and constraints mapping exercise undertaken by BWB Consulting.

14 7.2 MASTERPLAN - JUNE 2016 Final Option June 2016 The final masterplan takes full account of the detailed risks and constraints mapping exercise undertaken by BWB Consulting. This has resulted in a reduced redline area and the inclusion of a strategic green infrastructure corridor that incorporates the main technical constraints that will have a bearing on any proposed development; namely the water and gas mains running west-east through the site. The layout also provides for enhanced connectivity for pedestrians moving through the site from and to existing residential areas to the immediate west and to recreational greenspace to the south at Weetwood. PAS PAS Proposed PAS Land 15 Land Promotion Updated Brochure June 2016

North Northamptonshire Authorities Monitoring Report (AMR) 2015/16. Assessment of Housing Land Supply ( )

North Northamptonshire Authorities Monitoring Report (AMR) 2015/16 Assessment of Housing Land Supply (2017-22) April 2017 1.0 Introduction Purpose of Report 1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)