Public Meeting called by ward councillors 24th June 2013
Attendees: Councillors Gerald Wilkinson, Alan Lamb, John Procter. Carol Clark (outer NE team). Numerous members of the public the majority of who were from Thorp Arch, some from Walton and Boston (presumably their minutes will give exact numbers).
Agenda:
- Overall planning and site assessments
- Specifically TATE proposals
- What can public do?
Alan Lamb declared interest (Fox and Hounds) and asked for any other public declarations but there were none.
1. Overall planning and site assessments
John Procter spoke at length about local development framework and site assessments.
Housing requirements imposed by last Government were attempted to be overturned by Tory Government but lost on appeal to volume house builders (who obviously want to build houses). Leeds needs approx 70000 new homes/units (means the same thing). This is in core strategy which was open for consultation but objections now closed.
Tory government have slimmed planning process (NPPF) and development plans must be in line with this. Site allocation process – general call for sites – large amounts of land put forward. All sites visited and assessed in person and then graded green, amber and red. Some sieved out – not suitable for development. All this information is online. Issues and Options paper Vol 6 gives view of planning officer for this area. Now out for public consultation.
NE needs 5000 houses – once taken out those that already have consent – still need nearly 4000. The ward councillors could have just opposed everything and let planning officers in LCC decide. But ward councillors wanted to work with parish councils and neighbourhood plans groups to determine where people would be prepared to have housing. They funded a localism officer for 2 years.
Larger sites – can these be delivered within timescales needed (10 – 15 years?) Volume house builders’ estimate can build and sell 30 units per year.
JP was asked by a TA resident (Baldock?) why our allocation is 5000. JP talked about fair allocations – all documented and that Garforth has relatively more housing to find. Someone from Grange Avenue said but Garforth has the road infrastructure. This did not seem to be answered.
JP said that the fact that there Leeds has a “lack of a 5 year housing supply” (Planning inspectors words) meant that 4 houses could be build on part of the Leeds united training ground car park.
JP said the choice was “either strategic locations with schools, shopping, healthcare and highways infrastructure OR can pepper pot allocation between villages”
Derek Riley asked what was the consequence of TATE being turned down but was asked to keep that question for second agenda item.
Fiona Spence from TA asked what the difference was between house and unit JP said they were the same. Discussions about what sized houses. JP said baseline data throws up housing requirement but not the population. Obviously there would be a mix of housing in Leeds – for elderly, students etc.It was not down to the site assessments to determine the housing mix, this was for the neighbourhood plans groups to define the housing mix.
Ian Midgley said it was unfair that core strategy consultation was now closed when he knew nothing about it. JP said the council ran it and the “LCC not good in terms of consulting”. Ward councillors are concerned about the lack of publicity for site assessments and will be writing to all residents next week (bit late I think but did not say!)
Someone from Boston asked what the purpose of the public consultation was. JP said to take on the view of the public. He said councilhave to have evidence based housing. Ward councillors would have gone for lower figures. Without a plan the NPPF comes into play and it would be open season. It is crucial that we have a plan.
Grays(?)from TA asked about suitability of site in terms of contamination. JP said applicant just has to say whether site is deliverable – just a tick box!
Someone from TA asked about the traffic light system and what criteria were used for the assessment. JP said it would be difficult to cover in a short time and “not helpful at this time”. He said it was the planner’s assessment of the sites and not his. If residents think it is incorrect we should say so.
Leslie Tate from TA asked what are criteria? I’m not sure exactly what was said here but I have written that JP said the “assessment at green is less than helpful.” I’m not sure what he meant.
Alan Lamb said “we are your representatives”.
Keith Chapman(?)from TA asked about Bramham site (Leeds Uni site) and does this give hope that this could be developed instead. AL said that if we felt one site was more suitable than another we should say so!
JP said that Uni of Leeds had not initially put Headley Hall (Bramham) site forward but following his intervention they did. They have put this site forward before and have already spent £1m – they cannot spend this again. If residents feel this site should be green any support they gave “would be helpful” and could make this site a model village. However Humphrey Smith was an adjoining landowner and there was a “duty to co-operate”. I think JP said though that 1 big site would not deliver the volume of houses needed if only 30 built/sold per year – would need 100 sites building at one time.
In 10-15 years would 70K houses be built JP said no, he thought around 40K. Local authorities will be fined for not delivering housing numbers, which JP said was ridiculous as it is not the authorities doing the actual building it is the volume house builders. JP said this is all about balance sheets of the builders as the huge increase in the land value from agriculture to housing meant the house builders were trying to force the council to release land. Something was then said about Millers or some other house builder already approaching Boston Spa Parish council to develop land.
2 TATE proposals
JP said Rockspring had White, Young, Green representing them on planning applications and had fairly recently won on appeal permission to build on a former industrial site (I think with poor access).
JP went through the history of the current proposals:
About a year ago presented 1000ish houses, no highway, 30% affordable, minimal shopping. One of the selling points was that it would provide accommodation on site for workers.
Public exhibition last summer? Not interested in local dialogue – letters between ward members and Rockspring – think he said these were available to view. Rockspring had done highway modelling to prove that a reduced application for 930 houses would be feasible.
Went to plans panel – pre-application process – this is paid for by developers and is behind closed doors. They sought views from local planners. Parish council came to meeting with planners and spoke against it. Elected members saw potential and the consultative forum was established.
Rockspring presented their thoughts and processes at consultative forum and had (mostly) negative responses from forum.
Eventually Rockspring proposed relief road with 8 options for this. This went to plans panel (again in private) and their view was the area could take the housing and a bypass would be appropriate. Consultative forum responded to this. JP says “the ward councillors and parish council have not agreed to anything. Our (the elected members?) role is to get the best out of a very bad situation”
As of the last meeting Rockspring are pushing forward with relief road and talking to land owners and home owners.
Consultative forum said Rockspring should give exhibition at Pax. Following that Rockspring has made further amendments. JP understood they would submit the planning application by the end of June. It would then be a 16 week process – with target of October for determination. 90% of planning applications are determined by planning officers alone. I think JP said that because of their intervention the proposal would go to the plans panel and so would be determined by elected members. Public consultation will be part of the planning process and everyone had the right to make representations.
JP said why should they put in plans now and not wait for site assessment? This can be nothing to do with site assessment. Rockspring can rely on the fact that the site is brownfield and so they would get a good result. Brownfield sites are high up the hierarchy. They would submit plan anyway. It is important that TATE is in the site assessments as if housing is built there it will be counted towards the 5000 allocation.
Jane Clayton asked JP to make it clear it was now something like 2000 houses. JP said the initial 900 without highways improvement was “ridiculous” but Rockspring have traffic survey information using traffic modelling based upon LCC modelling.
The initial 900 houses would barely have touched the site so it was thought that more applications would follow. So as the housing numbers are increased, we now have the ‘relief’ road. At one point JP referred to this road as a by-pass. This may have beena Freudian slip !!!!
David Bentley from TA asked whether JP knew about the work carried out by other traffic consultants and the fact they are sceptical of Rocksprings traffic results. JP did not know about it.
DerekRiley asked about health and safety issues on TATE. JP said Rockspring would have to detail how this would be managed and conditioned as part of the approval. Rockspring say they have a clear understanding of contamination, from MOD records.
Sheila Humphries asked if the traffic modelling from the proposed 1700 houses had been given to the consultative forum, JP said no. Rockspring have currently spent £500K on proposals and are expected to spend the same again.
Derek raised the highways issues from Wetherby sites 3135 and 3136 near the racecourse and asked why the same issues were not in the TATE assessment? JP said Rockspring argue that they will be providing housing for people who will work locally! They have information on workers who are bussed into TATE and live outside Leeds. TATE currently employs 4000 people and therefore this will cut down on journeys as workers will have local housing!
Steve Alldridge commented that he had the impression that TATE was being given as a good solution to the larger site versus pepper potting issue. He asked whether ward councillors were for or against development. JP and GW cannot give their view publically as they may be on plans panel. AlL couldn’t say whether he was 100% for or against; he is still awaiting the application.
John Pendleton asked whether given the 30 units per year per development issue was not pepper potting better? JP said unfortunately the developers have the upper hand as the Tory Government shrunk the planning process. Rockspring say they can build/sell 100 per year.
Steve Alldridge asked about sustainability in view of the 2006 UDP decision. Has sustainability changed? Is current proposal materially different?
JP said the second paragraph of the second Question on the hand out was the view of the officer writing the core strategy. The NPPF takes the definition of sustainability from the UN resolution for sustainability. There are 5 guiding principles:
- Making it easy for jobs to be created in towns/villages
- Moving from a net loss of biodiversity to a net gain.
- Replace poor design with better design
- Improve the conditions in which people work, travel and take leisure
- Improve choice of high quality homes
JP says the councillors are concerned across party. He thinks we cannot fight on sustainability and this is also the view of the planning officers. The chief planning officer’s view is that we would not have a case against sustainability for 930 houses. If elected members overturn an officer decision it would go to appeal and LCC will be penalised. LCC spent £1.2m fighting 10 appeals one of which was Church Fields. JP did not think there was the appetite to refute plans.
Someone (David Bentley?) said sustainability also applies to existing communities. JP was asked if he thought this scheme would go to the secretary of state but he thought not but said this was his personal view. He tried to get it for Church Fields but it was not called in.
AL said it was crucial that people got involved and that TAG was doing sterling work!
Steve A then gave a pitch for TAG and said that TAG did not believe this was cut and dried. JP said he started off on the wrong foot with TAG.
3. What can public do?
- JP said need to be sure of grounds.
- There are changes from 2005 so have to look at new issues
- How will it affect you?
- If relevant information is not in the planning application then say so.
- Officers think some development is appropriate – is there a level residents would accept?
800 + houses are need for a school etc.
Another issue from the planning application will be issues like – when is the road to be built? When will the school be built?
Residents need to consider and ward members will try to assist in forming a response.