Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of City Development setting out a revised approach to progressing housing allocations and safeguarded land within the Leeds Site Allocations Plan through its Examination. The report details how this is necessary to ensure that the Council responsibly reflects a recent Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation (‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’) which incorporated a  ‘standardised methodology’ consultation and new evidence; and ensures that Leeds has a Site Allocations Plan in place as quickly as practicable to provide certainty for investors and communities as part of a plan-led approach. The report sets out the initial scope of a revised approach together with an updated timetable to the SAP Examination for consideration.

(Report attached)

Further to minute 26 of the Panel meeting held 3^rd November 2017, the Director of City Development submitted a report providing the detail of a proposed revised approach to progressing housing allocations and safeguarded land within the Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) through its Examination. The report also set out an updated timetable to the SAP Examination for consideration.

The Submission SAP currently categorised two sorts of site allocation to meet the housing need identified in the adopted Core Strategy - Identified Sites and Allocated Sites; the revised approach proposed the introduction of a third category of site - Broad Locations for Growth.

Prior to the meeting, several appendices to the report had been despatched to Members of the Panel and made available on the Council’s public website:

Appendix 1 - Submission Housing Allocations on UDP Green Belt and their proposed change

Appendix 2 - Outcome by Housing Market Characteristic Area (HMCA)

Appendix 3 - Draft Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report.

Appendix 4 - New policy setting out the designation of Broad Locations.

Appendix 5 – Non-Green Belt Housing Allocations in Submission Draft Plan proposed to be changed from Phase 2 or 3 to Phase 1

Appendix 6 - Table showing sites designated as Safeguarded Land in the Submission Draft SAP which are proposed to be changed to Broad Locations

In presenting the report, the Group Manager, Policy & Plans, highlighted that a revised approach had become necessary to ensure that the Council reflects the likely impact of the new ‘standardised methodology’ contained in the recent Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation (‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’); and responds to new evidence which suggested that the housing need in Leeds is likely to reduce when compared to that in the adopted Core Strategy.

The Group Manager referred to the following matters

-  The previous steer provided by Panel that there should be a fair share approach to using ‘Broad Locations’ throughout the Housing Market Characteristic Areas

-  The development of 5,594 homes on Green Belt land was regarded as necessary to meet Core Strategy targets by 2022/23 and assists determining the level of Green Belt release necessary to ensure that the SAP is considered by the Inspectors to be sound - in line with national guidance and the Core Strategy.

-  An element of Green Belt release was also considered necessary to remedy the Council’s current 4.38 year land supply and help demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply on Adoption of the SAP. To that end, the remainder of the proposed Green Belt allocations will be identified as Broad Locations i.e. land for 6,791 homes.

-  In order to ensure Leeds has suitable developable land available and to limit use of the Green Belt, it would be necessary to revise the phasing of some sites.

In response to a query raised at the previous meeting regarding the definition of ‘Broad Location’, it was reported that neither the National Planning Policy Framework nor National Planning Policy Guidance provided a glossary definition of the term. Members received assurance that advice from external Counsel concurred with officer’s view that no case law or guidance suggested that adopting the proposed approach to ‘Broad Locations’ was the wrong approach. Additionally, it was reported that both the NPPF and NPPG used the term ‘Broad Location’ and ‘allocation’ interchangeably; and there was nothing to suggest that a ‘Broad Location’ could not mirror a previously identified site, or that this approach was not sound.

The Panel discussed the following issues:

·  A request for information on the trajectory for the delivery of 1&2 bed Affordable Housing

·  In response to a query over site HG2-24 being included as a ‘Broad Location’, officers explained that this was now in line with the consistent  approach to return Phase 3 sites to the Green Belt as Broad Locations

·  Discussion focussed on whether other Local Planning Authorities had adopted the same approach to ‘Broad Locations’ and whether the approach would be acceptable to the Planning Inspectorate. It was felt that a wide definition would bring certainty to communities.

·  Reference was made to the Gloucester Joint Plan which had been designated as sound by the Inspector, despite it not allocating land sufficient to meet its housing target. In this case, the Inspector had taken the view that it was better to have a Plan in place than not, on the basis that the Plan would be reviewed once adopted.

·  The practicalities of being designated a ‘Broad Location’; the Panel received confirmation that a ‘Broad Location’ could be designated in the Green Belt.

·  Contribution to the housing trajectory by individual HMCAs. In response to a query whether units already delivered under the existing housing requirement target across the HMCA’s had been taken into account within the methodology for site selection, Members were directed to Appendix 2 of the report which evidenced a proportionate split  and did reflect the number of units delivered to date. It was further noted that not all sites would be delivered at the same pace. A suggestion that, as the amendments to the SAP progress to consideration by the Executive Board, Appendix 2 should include additional information for each HMCA on the number of applications permitted and other available sites not in the Green Belt was noted for action. Additionally, the Chair requested that Appendix 2 be clarified to reflect the Panel’s understanding of the principle of the proportionate split across the City; and that HMCAs which had already delivered a number of homes would not be expected to continue to deliver when some HMCAs had not yet begun to deliver on their own housing requirement target. The Chief Planning Officer noted the request to amend Appendix 2 prior to submission of the report and proposals to the December Executive Board meeting and indicated that the revised Appendix 2 would be circulated to Panel Members.

·  The outcome of the re-assessment of Green Belt releases against the housing trajectory, which did reflect the number of units already delivered and have regard to the PAS sites released following successful appeals to the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED -

  i.  To note the update provided on further technical work on housing and Green Belt and the revised timetable for the hearing sessions of the Site Allocations Plan Examination

  ii.  To request that the Chief Planning Officer amend Appendix 2, taking account of the Panel’s discussions, prior to submission of the report and proposals to the Executive Board; and circulate a copy of the revised Appendix 2 to Panel Members

  iii.  Having considered and discussed the report, to support the revised approach to Green Belt sites in the Submitted Site Allocations Plan and the consequent continued allocation of a selection of those sites, alongside the designation of Broad Locations for the remainder

  iv.  To recommend to Executive Board that the Submission Draft Site Allocations Plan be amended to reflect this revised approach and be subject to public consultation prior to submission to the Secretary of State

(Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillors B Anderson, Campbell, Leadley and J Procter required it to be recorded that they abstained from voting on this issue)

(Councillor R J Lewis left the meeting at this point)