Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provides a progress update for Leeds Local Plan 2040 (LLP2040). This will update planning policies relating to the overall strategy for development across Leeds up to 2040, including the amount, type and location of housing, economic, minerals and waste development needed; the approach to the City Centre and local centres; transport and connectivity; and set standards and criteria against which planning applications can be assessed. This paper provides a summary of the key themes and issues emerging from the consultation that was undertaken on the scope of this Plan in early 2023, and the evidence base that has since been and is still being developed to underpin the Plan. It outlines the intention to take an area-based approach as the starting point for planning for housing development that meets local needs in different parts of the District. It also outlines the approach to considering and assessing specific sites, and the next steps leading up to consultation on the ‘issues’ and ‘options’ for the Plan intended to take place in November 2024.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided a progress update for Leeds Local Plan 2040 (LLP2040). This will update planning policies relating to the overall strategy for development across Leeds up to 2040, including the amount, type and location of housing, employment, minerals and waste development needed; the approach to the City Centre and local centres; transport and connectivity; and set standards and criteria against which planning applications can be assessed. The report provided a summary of the key themes and issues emerging from the consultation that was undertaken on the scope of this Plan in early 2023, and the evidence base that had since been and was still being developed to underpin the Plan.

The Principal Planner from City Development, presented the report, providing Members with the following information:

• The plan making process was outlined as the framework for how development takes place and what is required in regard to material considerations. It was a multistage process, with a consultation conducted on the scope of the plan from February to March 2023. The next round of consultation was scheduled to consider the issues and options for the plans.
• LPU1 was focused on the climate emergency, whereas LLP2040 was a wider update of other policy areas.
• The initial consultation responses had focused on seven key topics; spatial strategy, housing, economic development, the role of city and local centres, minerals and waste, transport and connectivity and other policy areas.
• There had been over 4,500 visits to the consultation website and around 1,000 responses had been received, which was considered to be a good level of engagement.
• Alongside the initial consultation, a ‘call for sites’ exercise had been run, where interested parties were able to suggest sites for inclusion into the plan. 508 ‘call for sites’ responses had been submitted for consideration.
• A range of activities had been run across the city, particularly at high footfall areas, to raise awareness and engagement, which were considered to be effective, with LLP2040 being in its earlier stages.
• Headline consultation responses outlined that 87% of contributors thought it important to meet local needs for development, 63% were concerned about new developments within their locality and 75% outlined that there were more supportive of development on brownfield sites. Support for more affordable housing and opposition to considering changes to the green belt were common responses.
• General support for LLP2040 was noted, with a wide range of views expressed and the next round of consultation would allow comments on the previous iteration’s results.
• Five workshops had been held between January and March 2024 to assist in clarification for the development of evidence for consultation options and to outline the focus of the plans to engage with wider services and developing strategies for local needs, employment and transport.
• A strong evidence base was required for the development and justification of the plan, including a robust understanding of future population needs. Relevant studies were noted as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), Employment Land Needs Assessment, Urban Capacity Study, the Green Belt Review, Mineral Needs Assessment, Waste Needs Assessment, Infrastructure Study and a Sustainability Appraisal.
• An area based approach was outlined in order for policies to be considerate of different areas and communities within Leeds, to encourage planning applications to align with local needs. Eleven areas had been defined, against Community Committee areas, in addition to separate considerations for city centre developments. The evidence base, including SHMA data, was to inform distinctions between areas and tailor the approach.
• Plans needed to allocate specific sites for development in order to meet needs, however, the process was not yet at this stage to make full decisions. Previous work on the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) and Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan, as well as approved planning permissions weren’t to be re-assed, except for capacity considerations. Site options were to be devised from a range of sources, such as, the ‘call for sites’, safeguarded land and the Urban Capacity Study. Initial data had shown that capacity exceeded needs.
• To inform site allocations, a consistent approach to assessment was based on a range of indicators relevant to suitability. This included a scoring system on a scale of -3 to +3, enabling understanding for viability, as well as the opportunity to reassess.
• As part of the next round of consultation, a map detailing the viability of sites was to be published in order to fact check, seek public views and preferences and understand how to improve landowner and developer proposals.
• Next steps were outlined as continuing to refine the evidence base, completing site assessments, engaging with schools and to develop engagement strategies for the Issues and Options consultation.
• Prior to commencing the next consultation, area based consultation with Ward Members, further discussions with the Panel in September 2024 and a submission to the Executive Board in November 2024 were planned.

Members discussed the following key matters:

·  On the topic of housing size and tenure, it was queried as to how prescriptive relevant policy could be, as in Plans Panels difficulties had been noted for resolving suitable housing mix; it was hoped new policies would hold more weight. In response it was noted that policies on housing mix had broad parameters and to provide evidence, a new SHMA had been commissioned so policies could be tailored to address specific needs of an area.

·  Members were supportive of the evidence-based approach to be more responsive to the needs of inner city versus outer areas and specific examples would provide decision makers and developers a clearer picture as to what was appropriate housing type and tenure for different communities.

·  Given the 63% of consultation responses noting concern for development within their area, the geographical nuance of this was queried as there may be less opposition to new developments in areas where services and amenities were available. In response it was noted that the survey had requested respondents to include where they live and the reasons for concern, but it was agreed that a more granular breakdown of responses was needed.

·   The nature of development held weight as to whether local communities were to be supportive of new developments, particularly if supporting infrastructure was included in plans, as to not add more pressure on local services and amenities.

·  Improvements to the quality of development was a driving factor for LLP2040 as national support for new development in existing communities was low and new policies aimed to increase trust of developers and the planning system.

·  With new Government announcements regarding differentiations for the hierarchy of green belt land, including the new term ‘grey belt’, it would be helpful for decision makers to have better definitions for new designations. Officers noted this wasn’t clear yet, but grey belt was considered to be disused land or old development sites within green belt land and the differentiations were to identify low quality green belt areas. It was noted more was to be known after revisions to the NPPF came to fruition.

·  A green belt review within Leeds was ongoing, assessing land against the purposes of green belt designation and the Local Planning Authority was in a good position to respond to any changes to national policy. Existing national policy required exceptional circumstances for green belt land to be released and re-designated and urban capacity and brownfield land study was used to identify development capacity within the district, prior to any considerations of green belt land.

·  A distinction of green belt quality was noted, and best use of land analysis worked well on a site by site basis. It was preferred for options to be explored, in both site allocation and development plans, by the Panel and Policy Officers rather than by developer proposals. Robust checks and processes were required for any changes to green belt, but many submissions of the ‘call for sites’ were on green belt land and a balanced approach was needed.

·  Members queried the process for mapping brownfield sites, within the context of the land review, and the available technology for proactively identifying viable sites. In response, the process for the Urban Capacity Study had utilised Ordinance Survey maps to decipher layers which fed into a digital map, as well as manually looking for sites against vacancy data. The results had not identified many sites that were not previously known within the SAP.

·   A more balanced approach to housing mix within and nearby the city centre was suggested in order for to provide a wider range of options for different living models, with a focus on family home provision. High density housing did not have to be exclusive for single people or small groups, and if plans were more thoughtful in terms of size of units, amenity space and services, larger family groups may be more inclined to live in the city centre.

·  Creating sustainable, well served and accessible neighbourhoods was at the forefront of LLP2040, with projects such as Aire Park and Meadow Lane and the intent to build social infrastructure offering more inviting and diverse housing options.

·  Members commented that, as much as new local policies were supported, there remain issues to resolve within the development industry and high profit margins that were hindering the planning system from achieving well rounded housing options. It was outlined that policy alone was unable to change the fundamentals of development, like cost of materials and workforce capacity.

·  As there was an aging population within the district, working with housing adaptations and allowing them greater input into the planning system, was suggested, in order to future proof housing, retain sustainability and reduce reliance on support and care systems. It was outlined that a policy on adaptations was included within LLP2040, with targets reported to relevant Scrutiny Boards.

·  Notional consultations with wider partners and input from relevant Council departments were noted to assist with filling gaps and better understanding the needs of the public and the best practise for inclusive housing models, with access to key services and amenities. In response it was noted that specialist housing types of requirements were identified through the SHMA and in consultation with relevant partners, such as Unipol for student accommodation provision.

·  Work had been conducted with the Regeneration team and Asset Management to develop a well considered housing strategy, as well as with Age Friendly Leeds, to encourage developers to deliver a wider range of specialised products. There was the intention for the next Panel meeting to consider, in depth, the evidence base for housing type and mix, prior to the next round of consultation.

·  As discussed at one of the workshops, a session or workshop to discuss transport strategy and associated sensible locations for development was suggested, particularly in light of the recent WYCA Mayoral announcement on mass transit, in order for the Council to have a prepared response and to understand the potential effects on development strategies. Officers agreed to try to re-schedule a workshop to consider this and economic and spatial plan considerations.

·  It was confirmed that WYCA mass transit plans were not yet weighted within site assessments as the local mass transit plans were in development and not yet signed off, with a balance needed as plans were needed to be based on evidence and not expectations.

·  How the Council’s plans and WYCA’s plans interacted and corresponded was queried as they were separate decision making bodies but working within the same areas. From a place-based perspective, the Leeds Planning Authority were aware of WYCA’s plans which are considered consistent with ambitions within Leeds and partnership working was conducted.

·  With WYCA planning on facilitating the provision of 5,000 affordable homes, Leeds’ contribution was noted to fit within these plans as Leeds fed into WYCA housing strategy, with the SHMA noting a needed increase in affordable housing. Each West Yorkshire Local Authority plans were statuary framework within WYCA’s affordable housing plans.

·  Impacts of new developments increasing pressure on energy and waste facilities, without feeling the need to increase capacity or seek alternative provision were queried. It was outlined that existing facilities had significant remaining capacity but were to be regularly reviewed and district heating zone policy was expected to continue under the new Government.

·  It was confirmed that work regarding minerals use, and capacity was ongoing to determine regional supply and demand. Additional need for minerals were not anticipated and further clarifying information was to be brought back to the Panel when available.

·  Members noted that the city centre was complex and dynamic, in terms of residential requirements, as well as hospitality and student accommodation. A partnership approach with departments, such as Public Health, will assist with identifying less heard from people and better understanding needs and also create the right housing mix, type and tenure.

·  The area based approach was supported, but how the hierarchy of settlement model fit into it was queried, along with consideration of natural limitations impacting housing growth. Data from the SHMA had fed into options for development distribution, with more details expected from the results of the next round of consultation.

·  Members noted that the proposal to not re-assess the approach for considering specific sites required an element of flexibility in light of forthcoming data. If a site was no longer viable capacity could be re-assed to be zero and feed into future allocations.

·  In order to avoid a challenge from the Planning Inspectorate, the process for specific sites required legal input, but the approach was considered best practise within finite resources and required comprehensive study. The NPPF allowed de-allocations if sufficient evidence was provided to support a site being undevelopable.

·  Members requested that for any area based Ward Member consultation at Community Committees, that were within the city centre, two reports were provided to address specific requirements.

·  Shared, supported, living options for younger adults with specific needs were noted to hold great benefit, however, provision was minimal, and it was hoped these types of developments could be explored. Officers noted that there had been some discussion of this for the SHMA and data for this type of provision was to be captured, however, it was noted that the Council may hold limited weight of influence.

·  Proposals for developing policies to influence development that won’t exclude by age was agreed to be explored by Officers. It was noted that a recent development in Middleton, Gascoigne House may be a good example to build upon.

RESOLVED – That the report, along with Members comments be noted.