Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals.

There were no exempt items.

There were no formal late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrew Carter, Salma Arif and Colin Campbell.

Councillor Paul Wadsworth attended as substitute on behalf of Councillor Andrew Carter.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informs Members of the work undertaken since the High Court Judgment relating to the Site Allocations Plan statutory challenge, and the requirements for the remittal of a specific number of SAP policies to the Secretary of State for re-examination.  The report also sets out indicative timescales. On this basis, the report recommends that Members recommend to Executive Board that approval be given to commence consultation on the proposed Main Modifications to the SAP (Appendix 7).

(Report and Appendices 1 – 8 attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of the work undertaken since the High Court Judgement relating to the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) statutory challenge, and the requirements for the remittal of a specific number of SAP policies to the Secretary of State for re-examination. The report also set out indicative timescales. Members were asked to recommend to Executive Board that approval be given to commence consultation on the proposed Main Modifications set out at Appendix 7 of the submitted report.

The following had been appended to the submitted report:

o  Appendix 1 – List of Sites within SAP affected by High Court Judgement and returned to the Green Belt until re-examined

o  Appendix 2 – Map showing location of allocations subject to SAP remittal

o  Appendix 3 – Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Main Report

o  Appendix 4 – Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement

o  Appendix 5 – Sustainability Appraisal Addendum

o  Appendix 6 – Draft Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) Addendum

o  Appendix 7 – Proposed Main Modifications

o  Appendix 8 – Equality Diversion Cohesion Integration Screening

The Principal Planner (Local Plans) and the Principal Planner (Major Projects) were in attendance, and presented the report. The report explained that the Court has ordered that the Council remit 37 Green Belt sites to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate for further examination against up to date evidence and policy. The following had been highlighted:

·  The remainder of the SAP remains adopted and unaffected from the remittal process;

·  The SHLAA has been updated to 1^st April 2020 and shows there is a 6.8 years’ worth of housing land supply;

·  The unprecedented uplift in the city centre market has boosted the overall picture of supply;

·  The outstanding stock of planning permissions is at the greatest level ever;

·  The Council has been in contact with landowners and their agents to collate evidence in order to make informed decisions about how sites will contribute to the future supply of housing in Leeds. Details of construction programmes provided to the Council will be reflected in the final 2020 SHLAA;

·  Table 1 of the submitted report details the Core Strategy and SAP requirement – outlining a strong position without the need for the remitted sites;

·  Issues related to the overall supply and distribution against HMCA indicative targets.

The Council had considered a number of options for a revised SAP within the existing plan period to 2028, and three reasonable options had been identified for remittal:

·  Option 1: Propose all 37 Green Belt sites as allocations in the SAP

·  Option 2: Propose none of the 37 Green Belt sites as allocations in the SAP

·  Option 3: Propose some of the Green Belt sites as allocations in the SAP on the basis they would help address housing shortfalls within individual Housing Market Characteristic Areas (HMCAs)

The Councils Preferred Option was Option 2, because it had more positive effects and fewer negative effects than the other alternatives. Option 2 was also in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provides Members with an overview of the draft SPD. It sets out the context for the SPD, guidance contained within the SPD and the plans for upcoming public consultation.

The report outlines the commitment that a new Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will be prepared to establish space, light and ventilation (amenity) standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA). Proposals for a new co-living model are beginning to emerge in Leeds and there is an opportunity for standards to be introduced for this form of living through the new SPD.

(Report, Appendix 1 – draft SPD and Appendix 2 – Consultation Plan attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer, informed Members that a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been prepared to establish space, light and ventilation (amenity) standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA). Proposals for a new co-living model are beginning to emerge in Leeds and there is an opportunity for standards to be introduced for this form of living through the new SPD.

Appended to the submitted report included the draft SPD (at Appendix 1) and the Consultation Plan (at Appendix 2).

The Senior Planner (City Development) introduced the report, explaining there had been a growing concern in Leeds regarding the standard of living for residents and the impact on health and wellbeing; becoming more prevalent over the duration of the pandemic. Preparations included cross Council working and informal engagement / raising awareness with key stakeholders, the universities, PBSA providers and their representatives and landlords’ groups. The following had been highlighted:

PBSA

·  Sets space standards for 2 types of student accommodation – ‘cluster flats’ and self-contained studio units;

·  Sets space requirements for different facilities in the development;

·  Considerations around the overall quality and layout of bedrooms;

·  Ensure all habitable rooms have access to daylight;

·  Sets standards for ventilation;

·  Privacy and amenity space considerations.

HMOs

·  HMOs are not subject to NDSS requirements in the Core Strategy Policy H9 as the fall within the C4 or sui generis use class – there is increased awareness that landlords are letting very small rooms;

·  Whilst the SPD relates to new applications for HMOs only, the private sector housing team are preparing space guidance that will help coordinate a joined up approach;

·  The space required varies depending on which element of the HMO is shared and the number of bed spaces;

·  Sets standards for access to light and ventilation;

·  Ensure bedrooms have a good level of outlook.

Co-Living Proposals

·  Key considerations around minimum room sizes, the levels of communal facilities / space and the distribution of the shared facilities;

·  The standards for light and ventilation follow those set out for PBSA developments;

·  Co-living developments will provide garden space and outside space;

·  Schemes to provide a good level of outlook and not affecting privacy of neighbouring properties.

The Panel discussed the following matters:

·  Clarity on Permitted Development (PD) Rights – it was confirmed that although a prior approval for PD could not be affected, the Government had introduced, with effect from 6 April 2021 that all PD schemes to nationally accord with the Nationally Described Space Standards which are equivalent to  Policy H9;

·  Parking concerns – it was confirmed that a separate adopted Leeds Parking SPD addressed HMO requirements, and can be referenced in the SPD. Additionally, the Transport SPD was still in the consultation process;

·  Addressing energy efficiency requirements – this would be captured as part of the Local Plan Update, and can be referenced in the SPD;

·  Good examples of PBSA accommodation had been acknowledged, whilst bedroom sizes remained a concern for Members.

RESOLVED –

a)  To note the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer outlines the approach to accessible housing standards in Leeds, the Government’s consultation proposals and the Council’s proposed response to the consultation. The report seeks Members’ views on the proposed response.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer outlined the approach to accessible housing in Leeds, the Government’s consultation proposals and the Council’s response to the consultation.

The consultation paper seeks views on how to raise the accessibility of new homes, in order to meet Government’s objective to ensure that there is enough suitable housing where it is needed. 5 broad policy options have been developed, and range from waiting to see the full impact of recent planning policy changes, to mandating higher standards at a national level.

Appended to the submitted report included the Draft Council Response.

The 5 policy options are outlined as follows:

·  Option 1 – Consider how recently revised planning policy on the use of optional technical standards impacts on delivery of accessible housing.

·  Option 2 – To mandate the current M4(2) requirement on Building Regulations as a minimum standard for all new homes, with M4(1) applying by exception only where M4(2) is impractical and unachievable. M4(3) would apply where there is a local planning policy in place in which a need has been identified and evidenced.

·  Option 3 – Remove M4(1) altogether, so that all new homes will have to at least have the accessible and adaptable features of an M4(2) home, M4(3) would apply where there is a local planning policy in place in which a need has been identified and evidenced. This would mean no new homes could be built as M4(1).

·  Option 4 – To mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum standard for all new homes with M4(1) applying be exception only, a set percentage for M4(3) homes would also need to be applied in all areas. So rather than local authorities setting a local planning policy for the provision of M4(3), a defined and constant percentage would apply to all new housing.

·  Option 5 – Change the content of the mandatory technical standard. This could be done by upgrading the statutory guidance to create a revised M4(1) minimum standard. This revised standard could be pitched between existing requirements of M4(1) and M4(2), adding more accessible features into the minimum standard.

The Senior Planner (City Development) introduced the report, informing Members that the Government’s consultation deadline was 1^st December and therefore a response has already been submitted. It was confirmed that following comments from the Panel, a final response will be sent to MHCLG.

Discussion focused on the 5 Policy Options (as outlined above), and the key considerations. It was noted that the Council’s proposed response to the consultation document concludes that Policy Option 4 is the most preferable as it will significantly boost the delivery of accessible housing at a national scale.

The Panel discussed the following matters:

·  Concerns in relation to achieving viability and potential loss of greenspace and affordable housing contributions. It was noted that general viability concerns had been addressed through the Planning White Paper;

·  Clarity on how the set percentage will be achieved – it was confirmed that this would be nationally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To note the date and time of the next meeting as Tuesday 19^th January 2021, at 1:30 pm.

RESOLVED – To note the date and time of the next meeting as Tuesday 19^th January 2021, at 1.30 pm.

(The meeting ended at 12:00 pm)