NPP0306 - Evidence on Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Further written evidence submitted by Leeds City Council [NPP 306]

(This further submission needs to be read in conjunction with the City Council’s initial 8th May submission to the Inquiry)

Key Points

This is a response to the Select Committee invitation to Leeds City Council to submit, further supporting evidence into the operation of the NPPF, following our appearance at the House of Parliament (Portcullis House) on 21 July 2014.
Leeds is a large metropolitan authority with a significant level of brownfield land in sustainable locations, much of it in need of regeneration
The Core Strategy acknowledges the need to supplement growth in the main urban area with sustainable urban expansions and is progressing a green belt review through a site allocations plan
The Core Strategy significantly boosts the supply of housing by seeking to plan for more housing (74,000 new homes between 2012 and 2028) than has been delivered in Leeds since the second world war
Despite the City Council anticipating the adoption of the Core Strategy in Autumn 2014 , the five year supply process threatens to undermine the plan-led approach being taken in Leeds
An assessment of former safeguarded land (rightly being considered through the site allocations process) is being continually challenged at appeal
The Council has released substantial levels of greenfield land (totaling over 8,000 units) since the recession and has over 23,000 “ready” sites with planning permission or allocated
Volume house builders are critical of the Council’s inclusion of brownfield sites in the five year supply and attempts at joint working via a SHLAA partnership and have sought to undermine the process by last minute comments and opposing views on deliverability. Thin in turn threatens the implementation of the Core Strategy and a plan-led approach to housing growth, which empowers local people to shape their surroundings

5 Year Supply

The key thrust of the NPPF is to promote the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system, with particular emphasis being placed upon the need for this to be “plan led". However, the overall balance of the NPPF (in achieving economic, environmental and social aspirations at the same time) is fundamentally undermined by the undue emphasis which is being placed upon paras. 47 – 49 of the document, relating to housing supply. Whilst the Council accepts that the delivery of housing growth is clearly essential and integral to the principles of sustainable development, the City Council is fundamentally concerned that the application of the NPPF to housing delivery and the provision of a numerical 5 year supply requirement, appears to be taking precedent over the wider aspirations covered in the guidance, which should have equal weight.

In reflecting the plan-led approach to significantly boosting its supply of housing as advocated by the NPPF, the City Council is planning to meet its full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing via the Core Strategy (supported by a Strategic Housing Market Assessment). This evidence has been tested via public examination, with the Inspectors report to be issued in August. Leeds is a diverse authority with a compact city centre, inner city areas in need of and in the process of being regenerated, a large Enterprise Zone stretching from the city centre to the countryside, extensive suburbs, stand-alone large settlements and extensive green belt with rural villages. Whilst, in accordance with national guidance, there is a focus on the main urban area of Leeds all areas will have to step up to the challenge of housing growth and the green belt is being redrawn as a result.

The City Council’s housing land supply is predominantly made up of brownfield sites, which typically experience a range of development issues impacting on their viability and are located in or close to areas of greatest housing need. Lead in times for development can therefore be extended. In recognition of the need to boost the supply of housing the Core Strategy sets an average brownfield land target of 60% (far lower than the ten year average of over 90%). Despite increasing the supply of greenfield land volume house builders (who generally no longer seek to build on brownfield sites in the inner area and city centre) persist in challenging the brownfield element of the 5 year supply, thus putting pressure on greenfield and safeguarded sites which are either not considered suitable for development or should be considered in a more timely manner, through the site allocations and neighbourhood planning process.

Notwithstanding this approach and the City Council’s view that a 5 year supply of housing can be demonstrated, the Council’s housing supply policies will be immediately rendered out of date if, through the planning appeal process, if the 5 year supply position is successfully challenged. This situation arises as a result of paragraphs 47 and 49 of the NPPF which require a supply of deliverable sites (i.e. achievable and in particular viable) to meet housing requirements in addition to the front loading of any under delivery against targets and a buffer. Where such a supply is not demonstrated the housing policies of the plan are to be ignored.

The aims of the NPPF are to significantly boost the supply of housing and to increase choice and competition in the market for land. The Council is confident that its housing supply picture is directly meeting those aims. The Core Strategy Inspector has supported the Council’s approach to prioritising brownfield land and the main urban area, but this provides little comfort when dealing with the purely technical five year supply exercise. The primacy which is being afforded to the 5 year land supply position, therefore impacts upon the integrity of the plan-making process and other policies within the plan, which are seeking to deliver the principles of sustainable development (including infrastructure) in a co-ordinated way, which reflect local circumstances and in a manner consistent with the overall requirements of the NPPF.

Protected Areas of Search (PAS - Safeguarded Land)

Within the overall context of the Leeds Core Strategy plan-led approach as outlined above and the Government’s desire to bring forward housing development as a priority, the City Council has instigated a number of initiatives to stimulate the housing market and to boost housing land supply. Within this context and in advance of the submission of the Site Allocations plan, the City Council has introduced an Interim PAS Policy, which seeks to support the selective release of safeguarded sites, with further consent for over 1,000 homes. In helping to boost housing land supply and ensure that a 5 year housing supply target is maintained, the purpose of this policy is to facilitate a managed approach to the release of sites. Through a criteria based approach the policy seeks to release smaller sites in appropriate circumstances i.e. where their size and location in relation to the settlement hierarchy, is consistent with the overall approach of the Core Strategy. At this stage, the City Council does not consider that it would be appropriate to release more strategic sites of 10ha and above, as consistent with the NPPF para. 85, the Development Plan process is the mechanism through which such sites and potential alternatives should be considered.

Despite the desire of the Council to reflect national economic and planning objectives in helping to boost housing supply in a managed way, the policy approach has been challenged in the High Court (Miller Homes). Whilst the Policy has been found to be lawful (as a residual policy for inclusion as a Local Development Document), Miller Homes have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of appeal, with a date set for March 2015. Consequently, a key issue to arise from the application of the NPPF, is the need for clarity in the Local Development Framework Regulations regarding the adoption of interim policies by local authorities, as a basis to be response to emerging government policy priorities and bring forward land to boost the supply of housing. The results of this appeal will have important implications (nationally), for the management of the housing land supply process.

Whilst the City Council considers that it is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, consistent with the NPPF and despite the introduction of the interim PAS policy (to help boost supply and to help stimulate the housing market), the City Council has received a large number of planning applications for the development of PAS sites across the District. This is the result of a co-ordinated process by the house builders and their advisors. This includes applications for the larger sites (i.e.10 ha and above), which are currently being reviewed via the preparation of the Site Allocations Plan. To date, of the 34 PAS sites identified in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2006), applications have been received on 20 sites. A significant number of these applications are not compliant with the interim PAS policy, resulting in two major Public Inquiries to date, with others likely to follow. The City Council is contesting these Inquiries on the basis of the 5 Year housing land position and prematurity arguments. In that the house builders applications are purely opportunistic, taking advantage of the NPPF provisions and undermining the plan-led process. These circumstances are regrettable, given that the City Council is seeking to manage housing land supply issues in a managed and responsible manner, rather than to orchestrate delay and uncertainty, as a consequence of the appeal process.

Within this overall context, a major frustration for the Council relates to the large stock of unimplemented planning permissions. Ongoing monitoring by the City Council highlights that whist the stock of permissions has grown around 400% since 2001, completions have only grown by 165% over the same period. The ratio of permissions to completions has expanded from 3:1 or less in the 1990s to approximately 6:1 in 2008 and stands at 13:1 in 2013 (see 1 attached). Yet despite this, developers are continuing to pursue their interest in PAS sites and the appeal process. In the experience of the City Council; this highlights that simply boosting the supply of housing land, does not automatically result in higher levels of housing output. The City Council would therefore advocate that a more responsible approach is necessary from parts of the development industry, with greater emphasis upon housing delivery in sufficient volume to meet housing needs, rather than speculative approaches for the premature release of sites.

Leeds Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2014

As advocated by the NPPF and NPPG, the City Council has undertaken extensive work in the preparation of a SHLAA. For an authority the scale and complexity of Leeds Metropolitan District (with the Country’s largest housing need being met within its own boundaries) this is a major undertaking and the recent SHLAA has identified and assessed over 1,000 sites (larger than 5 units) with a potential for over 120,000 new homes. The Council had undertaken three previous SHLAA exercises and the latest SHLAA is a thorough update (in the context of an economic recovery) of potential to deliver the identified full housing needs of the Core Strategy. The first meeting of the SHLAA Partnership (for the 2014 update) took place in December 2013. The Council ensured a balanced representation of partners on the group (including members and representatives of the development industry) and a methodology (with clear stages) was agreed at the outset, in order for the work to be completed in a timely and effective manner.

Despite the emphasis placed on consensus, it became apparent through the process that the representatives of volume house builders adopted a pessimistic view about market recovery, viability and the delivery rate of output on individual sites. These became key issues for the SHLAA Partnership and the City Council made a number of requests for evidence to be provided to support opinions being made. It was clear that the house building industry had no interest in identifying sufficient deliverable sites within the short or medium term of the SHLAA to meet the objectively assessed needs. On the contrary, their approach was to shift city centre, inner area and brownfield sites to the longer term. Consequently, whilst the City Council took the view that 23,473 dwellings could be delivered in the short term (2014 to 2019), the house builders assessment was 5,994. Within this context, as a basis to get an independent view on viability, the City Council commissioned independent viability assessments of sites by the District Valuer. This largely supported the City Council’s views.

In addition, whilst a number of constructive discussions took place, regrettably information was not always forthcoming from the HBF representatives. It was unfortunate also that following the final partnership meeting of the 2014 SHLAA and several months of joint working, the City Council received a letter from the HBF outlining fundamental concern regarding the process and the technical assessment of sites, to which the City Council responded (see Appendix 2 and 3 attached). It must be concluded that such an approach to a plan-making process has been influenced by a number of high profile planning appeals where the 5 year supply is determinative.

Within the context of the application of the NPPF, the Leeds experience of the SHLAA process is that it is a resource intensive and challenging process, where it is difficult to gain easy consensus. An underlying factor is the NPPF focus upon the ability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, derived from this process. Consequently, meeting these technical short term requirements is taking precedent over the need to deliver managed and sustainable growth over the longer term, consistent with the spatial approach and priorities identified by the Core Strategy.

Infrastructure & Viability

Whilst the NPPF is committed to the principles of sustainable development, within the context of national imperatives to stimulate economic recovery and growth, this has meant in practice that the guidance is largely ‘pro-growth’ and market led. This has a detrimental impact on the provision of infrastructure as even where a need for infrastructure can be demonstrated but cannot be afforded, the NPPF is generally supportive of development taking place.

As highlighted in para. 9 above, the City Council has experienced different conclusions on viability. Clearly, viability is dependent on market conditions and perceptions, however experience in Leeds has highlighted that over optimistic expectations of land values and developer’s profits (20%) are key factors in determining viability. These factors are driven by land economics and the market and not by a plan led strategy (although it is accepted that this needs to be realistic and not purely aspirational). Such factors should not therefore be the key basis upon which housing land supply and release issues are determined.

Within the overall context of infrastructure provision and viability, it should be emphasised also, that at a time when it is reported that the profits of volume house builders are significantly high (for example Redrow homes. The improving housing market and the government's Help to Buy mortgage-subsidy scheme helped the company earn record pre-tax profits of £133m in the year ending 30 June, a 91% increase on last year), this contrasts markedly with the reduction and constraints on public sector funding. Despite this, volume house builders cite a lack of viability and infrastructure costs, as fundamental impediments to delivery.

Duty to Co-operate

In responding to the Duty to Cooperate requirements of the Localism Act 2011 (and as reflected in the NPPF), the City Council has in place – in partnership with the Leeds City Region (LCR) authorities, arrangements in place to consider Duty to Cooperate issues. These enable officers, members and key agencies to consider issues at an early stage and for senior officers and Council Leaders to consider ‘cross boundary’ issues.

These arrangements have been established during the current round of Development Plan making by individual authorities. To date each authority is seeking to meet housing need within individual areas and for local Green Belt reviews where appropriate. These governance arrangements are however yet to be tested by cross boundary proposals for the housing needs in one area to be met in a neighbouring authority areas. However, the Council is aware that these arguments have been less successful in other areas of the country and the duty to co-operate is too often being used as a basis for judicial reviews, serving to further undermine the planning system.

Town Centres & Retail

It has recently been confirmed through the Secretary of State’s decision at Rushden Lakes that disaggregation is no longer applicable to Retail Sequential Tests, and that a site cannot be considered ‘Available’ unless it is available precisely at the time of the application. This decision has fundamentally weakened the Sequential test, in effect it has rendered it meaningless;

Local authorities have lost the ability to resist out-of-centre applications if units and sites are vacant within centres, unless these units or sites can accommodate the precise scale and form of development proposed,
If an applicant fears failing the Sequential Test, an increase or decrease the scale of their proposal can potentially mean that it does not match any available sites. This seriously weakens the protection afforded to Town Centres and surely runs counter to the NPPF’s stated intention of protecting them.
In Leeds, there are examples of out-of-centre schemes with individual retail units , all of which could be individually accommodated within existing town centres which would have previously have failed the sequential test, now passes the Sequential test as the whole cannot be accommodated within or on the edge of any town centre.,
Inevitably this weakens the sustainability of existing centres, as it reduces their likelihood of attracting new investment, contrary to overall NPPF objectives and local policies derived through the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Plan.

Research [1] conducted on behalf the Association of Convenience Stores lays bare the failings of the NPPF and its two tests to prevent out of centre shopping development. Dating from the inception of the NPPF researchers undertook a random sample of roughly 50% of all determined major retail development applications. Of these not a single one was found to have failed the Sequential Test. Only 10% of all these schemes were ‘in centre’ and 89% of the ‘out of centre’ schemes were approved. It is clear that the Sequential Test is having no effect on the protection of town centres, and the Impact Test is only showing negligible results. In the main, as a result of the wording of the NPPF and the ‘Dundee’ Supreme Court decision, town centres are not being protected by the NPPF.

At the same time the Government has relaxed Permitted Development Rights making it easier than ever for shops within city centres, town centres and local centres to convert to other uses. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the ‘High Street’ needs to move beyond retail and offer more ‘destination’-style attractions. That is not in dispute by Leeds City Council, and our approach to all our centres has been to encourage vibrancy, vitality and high occupancy levels. However, when this increased in-centre flexibility is combined with increased flexibility out-of-centre the best interests of healthy town centres cannot be well served. We therefore have a planning system which makes it easier than ever for shops to be lost from our High Streets and at the same time, easier than ever for shops to be developed out of centre. The current approach simply cannot be described as ‘Town Centres First’.

In terms of other issues, the ‘like affects like’ guidance within the NPPG, results in developers tailoring their schemes so they appear to have a different offer from nearby centres. As a result, large out of centre or edge of centre schemes are projected to have minimal impacts upon nearby centres.

Likewise, because of the densely, built-up nature of Leeds, major out of centre applications can be located roughly equidistant to many designated centres. This can therefore mask the damaging impact of out of centre schemes, by sharing the impact across a number of different centres. This results in no one centre suffering a ‘significant adverse impact’, according to current definitions.

Food retailers state that they are required to have surface car parks for their business models. The formats presented by these operators are nearly identical, case by case. There is no proof that they have shown flexibility in terms of format.

It is our view that the needs test should be reinstated. Housing applications that run contrary to policy are judged against the local authorities’ 5-year land supply, i.e. has enough land been made available to meet the housing need. Why can this approach not be adopted sensitively for retail provision ? The NPPF requires that Local Authorities should assess their retail needs and develop Local Plans, which allocate sites to meet this need. However, when it comes to determining planning applications Local Authorities cannot make use of need figures or make decisions based upon whether the Council already has met or exceeded its required retail provision. This results in a massive overprovision of retail floorspace, at a time when perceived wisdom from the Portas Review, Grimsey Review and the Government’s Distressed Town Centre Property Taskforce, is that we have too much retail floorspace.

Conclusion

26. As outlined in the City Council’s submission, whilst many aspects of the operation of the NPPF are very positive, there are a number of key areas where the framework would benefit from review. Central to these, are issues relating to the speed and importance of housing delivery. In seeking to address this locally, the City Council is taking a number of positive steps and actions to meet housing needs across the District. However, the elevated emphasis which is being placed upon the 5 year supply position and the approach being taken by a number of volume house builders, is undermining both the NPPF and a plan led approach.

Appendix 1

1. Leeds MD - Overall stock of permissions

Appendix 2

Robin Coghlan

Planning Policy Team Leader

Forward Planning & Implementation

Leeds City Council

Leonardo Building

Rossington Street

Leeds

LS2 SHD

12th June 2014

Dear Robin,

We write in respect of the Leeds City Council (the Council) Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessment (SHLAA) and the document's reporting to the Development Plan Panel on the 17th June

2014.

Following the conclusion of the SHLAA working group meetings and prior to the finalisation of the

2014 SHLAA document the Home Builders Federation (HBF) wishes to take this opportunity to provide the Council with our final comments for consideration by the Council.

We would like to thank the Council for involving the HBF in the SHLAA process over the last 6 months. The aspirations of the Council and the HBF are aligned in the desire to deliver 70,000 new homes in the next 15 years and the SHLAA process has provided a forum for detailed discussion on the key issues affecting the delivery of homes across the City.

To ensure the Council proactively plans for the delivery of the City's housing needs a robust evidence base is required to be in place. In order to guarantee this is the case we would like to re-iterate the following key points that we believe the Council need to consider prior to your completion of the document:-

• The principle purpose of the SHLAA process;

• HBF comments on the deliverability of the assessed SHLAA Sites;

• Ensuring the Delivery of the City's housing targets is proactively planned; and

• Responding to Outstanding SHLAA information;

Further clarification is provided on each of the above points in turn below.

The Principle Purpose of the SHLAA Process

From the outset we have been concerned that the focus of the SHLAA process has been on establishing what the City's current 5 year land supply position is rather than the provision of a robust evidence base for the Council's Site Allocations work.

By focusing on those sites that the Council consider to have the potential to deliver homes in the next 5 years a large number of sites have not been assessed as part of the 2014 assessment.

The key outcome of the SHLAA process is to identify the deliverability category that each site falls within. It should seek to categorise those sites that can be considered to be deliverable (0-5 years), developable (6-1 0 or 11-15 years) and not developable (15+ years).

You will be aware of the email that we submitted to the Council dated 6th May 2014 which identifies how we have sought to define the deliverability category for sites in previous SHLAA work that we have been involved in. Whilst a number of the site assessment conclusions have been updated accordingly there are still a large number that haven't.

In addition, the Council has retained an assessment conclusion of 'LDF to Determine' on a number of those sites that have not been assessed as part of the 2014 SHLAA process. We consider that the SHLAA process should be 'policy off, where the conclusion reached on the deliverability of each site is then utilised to determine future planning policy decisions. Otherwise the process becomes purely retrospective where the evidence base could then be manufactured to deliver a policy decision that has already been made.

We understand the resource constraints that the Council has given that there are over 2,000 sites that need to be assessed as part of the process. However, without the undertaking of an updated assessment of all of the SHLAA sites the HBF are concerned that the 2014 SHLAA cannot be considered a robust evidence base of the forthcoming Site Allocations work.

HBF Comments on the Deliverability of the assessed SHLAA Sites

The HBF have provided detailed comments on the deliverability of sites within each of the SHLAA working group meetings, within specially arranged meetings with the Council and through written responses to the site assessment schedules for Stage I, II and Ill SHLAA sites.

In each of our responses to the Council the HBF have raised a number of concerns in relation to the deliverability of a large number of the SHLAA sites.

From our review of the Council's latest information it is clear that the HBF's comments have not been fully taken on board in the Council's updated assessment figures.

Whether the HBF comments related to the housing market for the area in which a site was located; the viability of certain schemes; the planning prospects of a site; the projected date for the commencement of development; or the annual completion rate for a site, we are concerned that our comments have been overlooked.

With specific regard to housing market and viability concerns the SHLAA working group were informed that the Council were to attain a report from the District Valuer (DV) providing an independent assessment of the viability of a number of identified sites. Though the HBF were provided with the instruction brief to the DV on the 11th May 2014, at the point of writing this letter we have yet to be provided with the final report. Consequently we have not at this stage seen any evidence that would amend our original concerns over the viability of a number of sites.

The result of the above is that in many cases the HBF considers the Council's site assessment conclusions to be overly optimistic and we fear in time will prove to be undeliverable. On this basis unless changes are made in the final document the HBF does not consider the 2014 SHLAA to provide a robust evidence base for the production of the Council's forthcoming Site Allocations work. Nor can the SHLAA be considered a sound baseline position for the Council's 5 year land supply assessment work.

Ensuring the Delivery of the City's Housing Targets is Proactively Planned

A large element of the discussion at the SHLAA working group meetings was orientated around the predicted annual completion rates of sites and the potential lead in times for the completion of the first dwelling on each site.

Following the identification of whether a site is deliverable, developable or not developable the details associated with the annual completion rates and potential lead in times are then used to provide the housing delivery trajectory for each site.

These are the baseline key components of a SHLAA assessment. Ensuring this information is predicted as accurately as possible is of paramount importance to delivering a robust SHLAA evidence base document.

In order to assist the Council on this important subject the HBF members informed the Council on a number of occasions what they considered to constitute a deliverable, developable or not developable site alongside what we considered to be a sensible approach to identifying the annual completion rates and delivery lead in times for housing sites.

To ensure this information was presented to the Council as clearly as possible the HBF provided the Council with their methodology approach in two emails dated 1st May 2014 and the 6th May 2014. I have enclosed the emails with this letter for completeness.

Following our review of the latest information presented by the Council we are concerned that the comments provided in the working group meetings and our emails have not been taken into account. Furthermore we have not seen any evidence from the Council to counter the information we have provided.

As a consequence we are concerned that this important element of the SHLAA will be fundamentally out of sync with the evidence provided by the HBF. We request that the Council review this information again prior to the finalisation of the 2014 SHLAA to ensure a robust evidence base document is published.

HBF members will again be available to meet with the Council to discuss these issues further, prior to the finalisation of the 2014 SHLAA document if the Council would consider this helpful.

Responding to Further SHLAA Information

There remain a number of SHLAA sites that have not been assessed in sufficient detail by the SHLAA working group members. The final SHLAA working group meeting was held on the 7th May 2014, however, a significant level of information was only provided to the HBF members for comment on the 1st May 2014. This information was as follows:

• Updated Stage I sites;

• Updated Stage II sites;

• Stage IV sites;

• Stage VI sites;

• New sites;

• Other reason site update tables;

• Viability briefing note; and

• List of viability sites for testing.

In addition to the above the HBF were also provided with information on the following sites by the Council on the 7th May 2014:

• UDP Policy N34 PAS sites.

• Greenfield Phase 2 & 3 Allocations

In addition, the majority of sites located within the Green Belt have not been assessed as part of the 2014 SHLAA process.

We appreciate that the Council want to progress with the SHLAA and are seeking to finalise the document by June 2014. However we do not believe there is sufficient time for the HBF and other working group members to provide the Council with a response to this information within the identified timescales.

The HBF are therefore concerned that the 2014 SHLAA could be finalised without the receipt of our comments on a large number of sites. This could again raise questions over how robust the document could be considered to be.

It was agreed in the final SHLAA working group meeting that if the Council are unable to provide us with additional time to comment on the remaining the HBF would not be in a position to fully support the completed SHLAA document.

Conclusion

Whilst we thank the Council for involving the HBF in the 2014 SHLAA process, we are concerned that if the document is finalised without the above points been taken into account the result of this would be the publication of an evidence base document that cannot be considered to provide a robust baseline position for the Council's forthcoming preparation of the Site Allocations DPD.

For the avoidance of doubt, the HBF do not endorse the Council's use of the SHLAA to lay claim to a 5 year land supply as being reported by the Council in the report to the Development Plan Panel on 17th June 2014. From the work undertaken to date, we consider the actual deliverable supply to be significantly below a 5 year requirement as demonstrated in our previous written responses and in the evidence presented by our members in ongoing S78 appeals in the District.

The HBF have always stated that the Council's 70,000 home requirement for the plan period is deliverable and we believe that the key to achieving the target is managing the supply of housing land to ensure the release of a sufficient number of sites to deliver the selling outlets needed on an annual basis. The SHLAA is an important piece of the Council's evidence base in this respect.

We remain happy to work with the Council and should you wish to discuss the content of this letter further then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Paul Butler

On behalf of the HBF

Head of Planning Yorkshire Region- Barratt Homes & David Wilson Homes

Paul. butler@barratthomes.co.uk

Appendix 3

Mr Paul Butler

Head of Planning Yorkshire Region

Barratt Homes & David Wilson Homes

Dear Paul

2nd July 2014

Leeds Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Update 2014

Thank you for your letter of 12th June regarding the Leeds SHLAA Update 2014 and the report to Development Plan Panel on 17th June. The Council is however very disappointed to receive such a letter at this very late stage in the SHLAA process. This is especially a concern, given that your letter raises fundamental issues about the process and its outcomes, notwithstanding the Council’s commitment to managing the SHLAA proactively, responsively and constructively.

As you will be aware, consistent with national requirements and an effective track record of partnership engagement, the City Council has sought facilitate a transparent, robust and timely process, to complete the SHLAA Update. Within this context and via a methodology and timetable agreed with partnership members, the HBF were given every opportunity to fully participate in the process, respond to realistic deadlines and to provide the necessary evidence in relation to sites and their delivery. In fact, in order to ensure this was the case, meetings were rescheduled and additional technical meetings arranged, to ensure that the HBF could complete their input for the Update to be concluded. This is amplified in the attached chronology, which sets out when the Council requested information on site schedules and the timing and level of response received from the HBF. From this, it can be seen that the Council has been focused upon providing requests for information at the earliest opportunity, only for this to be met with delay or insufficient/inadequate information.

In terms of specific points, your letter details a number of matters regarding the underlying principles and preparation of the SHLAA. The City Council does not accept the comments made, as set out below.

The Principle Purpose of the SHLAA Process

At the outset, the City Council has emphasised the need for the SHLAA to be robust and supported by evidence, particularly in the context of scrutiny at public inquiries and examination. With this mind, the Council set out clearly the intended methodology for the Update as early as mid-June 2013 and invited input into the process. At this time, no specific comments were received from the HBF. The methodology was subsequently discussed and agreed as a sound approach at the SHLAA Partnership meeting on 17th December 2013 (see attached). Consequently, given this agreement and the desire of members and officers need to make progress and to draw the process to a conclusion in an expeditious fashion, it is unrealistic and unacceptable to wish to re-run the whole process of assessing sites, which has taken places at SHLAA and technical meetings over five months, to a revised method of assessment sent to us on 6th May 2014. This is not only unnecessary, given previous agreements to the overall approach but would also lead to inevitable delays and uncertainty, contrary to the proper planning of the District.

Your complaint seems to be that undue focus was put on sites which fell within the first 5 years of deliverability, and less focus on the later sites. It is both inevitable and a sensible use of resources, to place considerable effort on ensuring that the first 5 years sites are supported by robust evidence on deliverability. It will necessarily be the case that with sites that are assessed to be delivered later in the plan process there is less certainty. It is also inevitable that when the Council is going through the process of the Site Allocations DPD, and the draft DPD has not yet been published, there will be many sites where it would be inappropriate to say more than “LDF to determine”.

HBF Comments on the Deliverability of the assessed SHLAA sites

In terms of delivery, where the case put by the HBF representatives for changing delivery figures was supported by evidence (e.g. ‘live’ schemes under construction, or site specific evidence), the City Council considered that evidence and made any appropriate change. However, as reflected in the technical meetings with the HBF, in many instances the HBF case for changing delivery figures was limited to assertion or opinion, rather than specific evidence or even a broader commentary on the housing market and the views of the industry and a whole (rather than a limited number of volume house builders). Most of the comments that were given were extremely brief, and not backed up by any empirical material, or even site specific comment. Therefore the comments that were received were not overlooked, but considered and given weight depending on the evidence that supported them.

Consistent with national guidance, an important focus of the Core Strategy is to meet the full range of housing needs. Consequently, it is necessary for the strategy and subsequent Site Allocations Plan, to provide for the delivery of housing, with a balanced portfolio of sites, including all the different geographies of Leeds, different types of housing, different levels of affordability. This is necessary to deliver the Core Strategy housing requirement over the plan period. As such, the SHLAA needs to be realistic about delivery of housing in all areas of Leeds and all affordabilities. This approach was subsequently refined by the District Valuer’s report, which illustrates a more positive view of delivery than the HBF. The significance of this work is that it is independent and reflects experience across the District and the City Region.

Ensuring the Delivery of the City’s Housing targets is Proactively Planned

As you will be aware, considerable debate took place at the SHLAA Partnership meetings regarding site completion rates. In seeking to meet the fully range of needs across the District, the Core Strategy sets a challenging housing requirement. Through the Development Plan process and a range of related initiatives (e.g. the City Council’s brownfield land and Council house building programmes and strategy to tackle empty properties), the City Council is demonstrating that housing delivery is being proactively planned. The City Council is under no obligation to simply accept delivery rates given by the HBF, but has taken what appear to it to be reasonable and realistic rates.

Responding to Further SHLAA Information

The attached chronology sets out the process undertaken and the level of response from the HBF. From your letter, the implication appears to be, that the HBF considers that the City Council has completed the SHLAA Update prematurely without time for input by the HBF representatives. This is patently not the case. In fact, the Council has strived to offer reasonable opportunity for input. Material on the Stage I and II sites (which account for over 300 sites) was circulated to SHLAA Partnership members as early as December 2013, with further requested information provided during the early months of 2014. New site material (accounting for over 180 sites) was circulated at the beginning of April 2014. Material regarding the Stage IV, Aire Valley and Miscellaneous sites (approximately 80 sites) was circulated on 1st May 2014 with a request for feedback by 23rd May 2014. As such, it is considered that the HBF representatives had ample time to respond, within the context of a process which needed to draw conclusions within an agreed timescale. Unfortunately, the HBF feedback was often not available or late and as a consequence the early February meeting had to be cancelled and subsequently rearranged to provide more time.

It is accepted that the HBF needed to coordinate with its members in responding to requests for information but is the responsibility of the Council and the SHLAA Partnership members, to ensure that the process is disciplined to meet agreed deadlines and timescales. You will be well aware of the need to produce the SHLAA in an expeditious manner, both to aid the planning process but also to ensure that the information used does not become out dated.

I am sorry that it has been necessary to respond to your letter in this way but that you will appreciate that City Council officers and members (and other SHLAA Partnership members) have devoted considerable time and effort in seeking to progress and complete the 2014 Update in a robust and timely manner. The Council has sought to facilitate a constructive process and will continue to proceed on this basis in future reviews. You will recall that it was agreed at the SHLAA Partnership meeting in May, that the group would reconvene in the Autumn to take stock. I trust therefore that the HBF will be able to participate and positively support the Council in moving the process forward.

SHLAA 2013 Update – Partnership Meeting 17th December 2013, Leonardo Building

Attendees

Anup Sharma (Minutes) LCC Cllr Colin Campbell LCC

Clive Woods Leeds Civic Trust

David Cove CPRE Alison Gillespie Re’new Martin Elliot LCC Matthew Brook LCC Steve Speak LCC

Paul Butler Barratts David Wilson

Robin Coghlan LCC Cllr Peter Gruen (Chair) LCC Cllr John Procter LCC

Mark Finch Rushbond

Apologies

Prew Lumley Leeds Property Forum

Dilys Jones Homes and Communities Agency

Cllr Neil Taggart LCC

Welcome and Introductions

CPG welcomed everyone to the meeting and briefly stated the purpose of the group. Using the best evidence available to all its members the groups purpose was to create as robust and honest a SHLAA as possible. He felt it was important, as an issue of trust, that any agreed position not be rejected at a later date by any of the members of the group as this undermined the whole process.

This approach was agreed by all attendees.

Membership

RC said two Planning Consultants had been suggested by the HBF to represent house builders on the group. It was agreed by the group that direct representatives of the industry were to be preferred because the purpose of the group is to gather evidence from a range of industry representatives. New and replacement house builder representatives would be considered at the next meeting to enable the house building sector to be reasonably represented. Paul Butler agreed to coordinate input for the next meeting. Also, RC stated that officers were currently pursuing a builder that represented the Elderly / Specialist housing provider.

Any new members are encouraged to look at the terms of reference and methodology and raise any points on these before the next partnership meeting.

It was highlighted that members were representing their sector rather than individual interests. It was agreed that when considering sites where partnership members have an interest these should be declared prior to or at future meetings.

Terms of Reference Review

Considerable discussion took place around the terms of reference. This mainly focused on areas of clarity and no amendments were proposed to the tabled document.

CPG stated that the Terms of reference was a live document and could be reviewed when need be.

Updated Methodology

Much discussion took place around this issue.

As it was a technical matter some clarification needed to take place. PB, ME, MB, SS and RC led on this and were able to explain some of the issues raised by other members of the group. The main issues arising were:

 the appropriateness of seeking to maintain a ‘live’ database of sites so that their status may change throughout the SHLAA process – there are pros and cons to this and it was agreed to reconsider at a later stage the potential to have more frequent updates than annually.

 the need the a viability testing exercise to provide more clarity on deliverability of suitable sites that lack active development interest.

 clarifying that the Stage 1 list of sites comprises only those sites with planning permission where a change in delivery has occurred – it was agreed to supplement this schedule with a full list of sites with planning permission clarifying that officers are working to a methodology that breaks the assessment of sites into stages; it must be recognised that sites can also be sub-divided into categories, such as sites with planning permission, and that the final SHLAA could break the total set of sites into a variety of sub categories for presentation purposes.

 the need to include further data around land ownership, submitter details (where known) and agent details so as to assist partnership members

As a result of these discussions it was agreed by the group that the methodology was sound.

2013 Update of Sites

Some discussion took place as to how the assessment of sites would take place. It was agreed by the group

1 All new material would be clearly labelled with dates and titles in order to ensure clarity.

2 The Stage I list would be circulated to all members for comment a week before the next meeting.

Partnership members are invited to raise queries about any site conclusions they consider should be

changed. It was agreed that it is important for partnership members to provide evidence in support of their reasons for querying site conclusions. Ideally, this information should be emailed to RC approximately a week before the next meeting. RC would compile a list of queried sites as an agenda for discussion at the meeting. Site conclusions that are not queried would be assumed to be agreed.

3 That all parties would come prepared to discuss the delivery of those Stage II sites that they have knowledge of.

4. RC will supply a map of site locations and size.

Dates of Meetings

2pm 4th February 2013 - Leonardo Building – Leonardo Conference Room

2pm 25th February 2013 - Leonardo Building – Leonardo Conference Room

SHLAA Update 2014 – Chronology of HBF responses to site schedules

Stage I sites

LCC email Stage I table to Partnership 3/12/13 for Meeting 17/12/13

Revised table emailed 10/1/14 to Partnership with further detail on permission status as requested by HBF Members at Meeting 17/12/13

Reminder request for feedback emailed 27/1/14, in preparation for meeting scheduled for

4/2/14

On 31/1/14 HBF Representatives say they need more time to consider the tables, so the meeting of 4/2/14 has to be cancelled.

Stage I sites considered at meeting of 25/2/14.

On 28/2/14HBF representatives email comments on Stage I sites.

In preparation for the Partnership meeting 28/3/14, LCC email table of Stage I sites with HBF

comments to all Partnership members.

It is agreed at the meeting of 28/3/14 that LCC should explore the development intentions of landowners for those sites outside the interest of HBF members and that it will be worth waiting for the delivery information of 2013/14 which will be available in May in order to finally conclude the Stage I site deliveries.

Stage II sites

Table emailed to Partnership 3/12/13 for Meeting 17/12/13

Revised table emailed 10/1/14 to Partnership with further detail on permission status as requested by HBF Members at Meeting 17/12/13.

Reminder request for feedback emailed 27/1/14, in preparation for meeting scheduled for

4/2/14.

On 31/1/14 HBF Representatives say they need more time to consider the tables, so the meeting of 4/2/14 has to be cancelled.

In response to a request from the HBF representatives a background table of relevant planning histories for each site is emailed on 7/2/14 to the Partnership.

Stage II sites not considered at meeting of 25/2/14 as HBF representatives not ready. HBF representatives email their comments on Stage II sites on 24/3/14 to LCC.

In preparation for the Partnership meeting 28/3/14, LCC email table of Stage I sites with HBF

comments to all Partnership members.

LCC officers and HBF representatives meet on 8th and 10th April to conclude delivery of

Stage II sites, but only c. 50 of the 210 sites are considered.

New Sites

On 2/4/14 LCC emails the Partnership a table of new SHLAA sites with columns for members to insert their own delivery forecasts, plus a map of sites.

Later that day, following the request of the Partnership meeting of 15/4/14, LCC sends out the new site table with the addition of traffic light colouring for sites in the Site Allocations Plan.

Stage IV sites, Aire Valley Sites, Miscellaneous Changes

On 1st May 2014, LCC Officers and HBF representatives meet to look at the full range of assessed sites, including for the first time Stage IV sites (those in the 2012 SHLAA with medium and long term deliveries), Aire Valley Sites and Miscellaneous Changes. Electronic tables of these sites were emailed to HBF members after the meeting on 1st May.

At the Partnership meeting of 7th May 2014, HBF representatives only had general comments as opposed to site specific comments about the Stage IV, Aire Valley and Miscellaneous changes. It was agreed at the meeting that Partnership members should provide site specific comments by Friday 23rd May 2014.

The total number of sites in these categories is not large 87 (IV: 30, AV: 39, Misc: 18).

September 2014