Kirklees Draft Local Plan Development Plan Document

Development Plan Representation - Kirklees Draft Local Plan Development Plan Document On behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Penistone Road, Shelley Site H169) January 2016

1. Introduction Spawforths have been instructed by Taylor Wimpey to submit representations to the Kirklees Draft Local Plan Development Plan Document. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Kirklees Draft Local Plan and is keen to further the role of Kirklees within the Leeds City Region and Yorkshire and Humber as a whole. As you are aware, Taylor Wimpey has significant land interests in the area and has made representations to earlier stages of the emerging Local Plan. Taylor Wimpey would like to make comments on the following topics/sections/policies in the Draft Local Plan: Spatial Development Strategy Policy DLP2 Policy DLP3 Policy DLP5 Policy DLP7 Housing Strategy Policy DLP11 Green Belt Review Rejected Site: H169 Penistone Road, Shelley In each case, observations are set out with reference to the provisions of the Framework and where necessary, amendments are suggested to ensure that the Local Plan is made sound. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the opportunity for further engagement and the opportunity to appear at the Examination in Public. We trust that you will confirm that these representations are duly made and will give due consideration to these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss any issues raised in this Representation further. 2

2. National Planning Policy Context and Tests of Soundness The Government's core objectives as established through the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are sustainable development and growth. Paragraph 14 of the Framework stresses the need for Local Plans to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area. The core planning principles are set out at paragraph 17. These include that planning should make every effort to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes and businesses that the country needs. Plans should take account of market signals and allocate sufficient land to accommodate development within their area. The key focus throughout the Framework is to build a strong, competitive economy and to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. In relation to Local Plan formulation, paragraph 150 of the Framework states that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development which reflects the vision and aspirations of local community. The Framework indicates that Local Plans must be consistent with the Framework and should set out the opportunities for development and provide clear policies on what will and will not be permitted and where. In relation to the examination of Local Plans, paragraph 182 of the Framework sets out the tests of soundness and establishes that: The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is sound namely that it is: Positively prepared the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; Justified the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; 3

Effective the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and Consistent with national policy the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. This document therefore considers the content of the Kirklees Draft Local Plan on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in light of this planning policy context. 4

3. Spatial Development Strategy Taylor Wimpey is encouraged by the Spatial Development Strategy but is concerned with regards to the prioritisation of previously developed land. 3.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 3.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey is encouraged that the Spatial Development Strategy sets out to meet housing and employment needs through urban extensions and the recognition that greenfield sites will need to accommodate a significant proportion of that housing need. However, Taylor Wimpey object to the prioritisation and sequential approach alluded to in the 12 th bullet point which is reinforced in the supporting text through paragraph 4.5, which states: The draft Local Plan seeks to meet housing and employment needs with a priority for the delivery of brownfield sites. As there is not sufficient deliverable and/or developable brownfield supply to meet needs throughout the plan period, a sequential approach to land release is set out including brownfield sites followed by greenfield sites within settlements (where not required for open space uses), urban extensions and detached green belt sites. Taylor Wimpey would like to would like to highlight that the Framework only refers to encourage the re-use of previously developed sites (para 17) and that the Framework encourages the use of sustainable greenfield sites to meet housing growth and to boost 5

significantly the supply of housing (para 47). Furthermore, appropriate and sustainable greenfield sites should not be overlooked in favour of unsustainable brownfield sites. The policy should therefore be reviewed to focus on encouragement rather than prioritisation and a sequential approach in order to accord with the Framework. Taylor Wimpey is also concerned that the Green Belt Review which is being undertaken as part of the Local Plan process is not referred to, but is implied in relation to urban extensions and detached Green Belt sites. This is perhaps better addressed through the supporting text in paragraph 4.6 and will provide the policy link for the Green Belt Review. Taylor Wimpey is therefore concerned that the approach portrayed does not fully address national guidance through the Framework and PPG. 3.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Re-word the 12 th bullet point of the Spatial Development Strategy to encourage the re-use of previously developed land. Insert a sentence into paragraph 4.6 to cross refer to the Green Belt Review in order to provide that document with justification and status. 6

4. Policy DLP2 Location of New Development Taylor Wimpey is encouraged by the approach towards the Location of New Development; however the level of new housing provision in Shelley does not reflect its role and function. 4.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 4.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey is encouraged by the approach towards the Spatial Development Strategy and locations for growth. The focus of development will understandably be towards Huddersfield and Dewsbury but in relation to Part 2, the scale of development will reflect: The settlement s size, function and character; and Spatial priorities for urban renaissance and regeneration; and The need to provide for new homes and jobs; Furthermore, the final part of the policy emphasises that development will be permitted where it supports the delivery of housing and employment growth in sustainable way taking account of: Delivering the housing and job requirements set out in the local plan; The need to maintain a supply of specific deliverable sites, in accordance with national policy; 7

Ensuring delivery of housing and jobs in smaller settlements to meet local housing and employment needs. These sets of principles enshrined in Policy DLP2 create an agenda that the Plan should follow. These sets of principles and criteria allow for the potential for housing allocations in smaller settlements in the Kirklees Rural area, which has been proposed in a number of instances. However, unfortunately in the case of Shelley the level of new housing proposed does not reflect the size and status and sustainability of the settlement or the Council s own evidence. 4.3. Proposed Change Increase the level of housing provision in Shelley. 8

5. Policy DLP3 Providing Infrastructure Taylor Wimpey supports the approach towards infrastructure planning. 5.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is sound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 5.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey supports the approach to infrastructure planning and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL will deliver a number of benefits in the form of more legal certainty enabling sub-regional infrastructure and the mitigation of cumulative impacts to be funded from CIL, a broader (and therefore fairer) range of developments contributing, improvements in transparency, and greater certainty and predictability as to the level of contribution which will be required. However, a cautionary approach should be taken towards CIL to ensure that a robust approach is adopted, particularly with affordable housing and local site requirements and the interaction of CIL with Section 106 agreements to ensure that development remains viable and deliverable. 5.3. Proposed Change No change 9

6. Policy DLP5 Safeguarded Land Taylor Wimpey objects to the approach towards safeguarded land. 6.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 6.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey are encouraged by the acknowledgement in Policy DLP5 that safeguarded land will be identified in the Local Plan to ensure that Green Belt boundaries will endure and provide permanence in the long term. Although safeguarded from development, safeguarded sites are generally considered to be the next pool of sites as they are excluded from the Green Belt. As such they can also be considered reserve sites, if allocations do not proceed as expected, as they have already been considered through a Green Belt Review and Site Assessment. Safeguarded sites therefore need to accord with the Framework criteria for allocation and be available, suitable, achievable and therefore deliverable. Safeguarded sites also need to accord with the Spatial Development Strategy. Furthermore, in relation to the quantum of safeguarded land therefore should be at least 10 to 15 years worth of housing provision to ensure the Green Belt boundary endures beyond the plan period. Paragraph 85 of the Framework identifies that where necessary Local Plans should provide safeguarded land to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period and that local authorities should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period. Furthermore, the 10

Framework is clear that once established Green Belt boundaries should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period (para 83). There is therefore an in-built presumption within the Framework that where it is justified to amend Green Belt boundaries this should be undertaken as part of the local plan process and that the new Green Belt boundaries should not require alteration at the end of the plan period. Taylor Wimpey question whether sufficient land has been identified as safeguarded land and whether it is in the right locations or whether the right sites have been identified. Analysis shows that only 152ha of land is proposed as safeguarded land which is the equivalent of approximately 3 years worth of housing land. The sites identified for safeguarding are also largely small, from the 68 sites identified 47 are less then 2ha and only one is over 10ha. Taylor Wimpey also question whether the right criteria in accordance with the Framework has been utilised. The Housing Technical Paper (Nov 2015) states that sites have been safeguarded where constraints exist which preclude their delivery in this plan period but there are reasonable prospects that these could come forward in the next plan period. This is incorrect, Taylor Wimpey consider that to satisfy the tests that there should be reasonable prospects for delivery in this plan period to justify a sites removal from the Green Belt and allocation for safeguarding. For example, in Shelley Site SL2173 East of Far Bank has been identified, which is 2.72ha in size. This site has no available access, is in disparate ownerships and therefore does not accord with the Framework criteria for allocation. The site is not deliverable and does not satisfy the criteria for allocation. Taylor Wimpey therefore suggests that the approach to safeguarded land be reviewed and further land be identified. 6.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Review the approach to safeguarded sites to accord with national guidance Allocate further safeguarded sites 11

7. Policy DLP7 Place Shaping Taylor Wimpey is encouraged by the approach towards place shaping in the Kirklees Rural sub-area but greater recognition should be ascribed to settlements in the east and accessibility. 7.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 7.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey supports the approach towards place shaping on a sub-area basis. Kirklees has distinct character areas from Huddersfield, through to North Kirklees and urban regeneration areas, through to rural towns and villages. The Kirklees Rural context (Section 5.4) recognises that the area has: Rail links to Huddersfield, but this should also recognise that there are links to the south including Sheffield and Barnsley as well. The Dearne Valley area and eastern part of the sub-area has good links to the M1. Gentle slopes in the east provide opportunity to expand settlements. This context creates the opportunity to allocate sufficient sites in the eastern area of the Kirklees Rural sub-area. 12

7.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Recognise that settlements in the east are sustainable settlements and that rail links exist to the south towards Sheffield. 13

8. Housing Strategy Taylor Wimpey objects to the housing strategy and approach to delivering the objectively assessed housing need 8.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 8.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey objects to the housing strategy and level of housing provision in the Plan period. Taylor Wimpey does not consider that the approach the Council are seeking to adopt will deliver the housing requirement and are concerned that this will cause ramifications for the aspirations for housing and economic growth in the District. Taylor Wimpey is encouraged with the annual requirement of 1,630 new homes per year and the overall requirement of 29,340. Although Taylor Wimpey consider this could be set higher to show greater aspirations towards economic and housing growth the main cause for concern is the approach towards delivering housing and identifying housing allocations to achieve those growth aspirations. Windfall Allowance Taylor Wimpey accepts that windfall sites form part of the housing land supply. The Framework states a windfall allowance can be included within the Local Plan (para 48), however this must be based upon robust and compelling evidence that such sites have come 14

forward in the past and will continue to come forward. That evidence must therefore be published to justify such an approach. The Housing Technical Paper (November 2015) provides insufficient evidence on the derivation and analysis of windfalls to justify a level of windfalls equivalent to 28% of the annual requirement. This is a significant level of housing provision to come from unknown sources. This is amplified in the housing trajectory Figure 7 in paragraph 7.24 of the Plan which shows the Council under achieving against the requirement in the latter years of the Plan and windfalls making up a significant proportion of the annual delivery, up towards 50% of anticipated completions. Taylor Wimpey consider that delivery from windfalls will reduce in future years compared to past trends due to the effect of having an up to date plan with allocations and a more rigorous and up to date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). In particular, Taylor Wimpey considers that large sites will be included in the SHLAA and/or allocated for development. The proportion of large site windfalls will therefore diminish. Furthermore, Taylor Wimpey considers the Council appear to not be allocating sufficient housing sites to meet its objectively assessed housing need. To deliver the ambitions of the Plan and economic growth and to provide certainty on delivery sites accommodating the full housing requirement should be identified in the Plan period. Taylor Wimpey accepts within such an approach there will be a certain level of windfall development, but not as high as being currently suggested in the Plan. Without a full and encompassing approach there is danger that the economic growth and regeneration ambitions of the Council and City Region Authorities will be missed. Under Delivery The Council appear to be discounting a significant level of under provision by only taking under provision from the start of the emerging new Plan period and not taking account of the significant under provision in recent years. The UDP expired in 2006 in relation to the housing requirement and housing allocations and the under provision should be assessed from the end of that period against the intervening RSS requirement. The Council s under delivery from 2006 to 2014 is therefore -2,724 dwellings and should be accounted for in the first five years of the Plan as per national guidance. 15

Taylor Wimpey are concerned that the Council has also subsequently taken the approach of the Liverpool method to take into account and spread the under supply across the plan period. Taylor Wimpey is concerned that this process does not satisfactorily address the Objectively Assessed Housing Need. Buffer Taylor Wimpey supports the principle of a buffer to provide additional flexibility within the Plan. However, Taylor Wimpey questions whether the identification of a 5% buffer is sufficient given the potential for non-delivery and under delivery of sites, particularly from the current sites with planning permission which totals 6,350 dwellings. There will be sites that will lapse or take longer to come forward and deliver homes. Many local plans include a 10% buffer and Taylor Wimpey suggests that a higher buffer be considered. Distribution of allocations in the Kirklees Rural Sub-Area Taylor Wimpey is concerned with the distribution of housing allocations in the Kirklees Rural Sub-Area and that a disparity exists between the western and eastern areas and that the allocations for new homes in the rural sub-areas are skewed towards the west. The Rural East area is identified to accommodate 2,535 new homes whilst the Rural West is shown to have 2,613 dwellings. This difference of 78 dwellings is not huge but through furth4er analysis is significant when the choice and range of sites is reviewed. A significant proportion and over a third of the new homes in the Rural East area are identified on the Storthes Hall Park site for 864 dwellings. Therefore in the rest of the Kirklees Rural East area are 1,671 dwellings, which is only a third of the Kirklees Rural sub-area provision. In addition, the remaining housing allocations in the Rural East are primarily smaller sites. From the remaining 30 sites, 19 are proposed for less than 40 units and only 5 sites are over 100 dwellings. This approach could harm the housing market in the Rural East through under providing the range and choice of sites and potential for new homes, which could result in housing market stress. Furthermore, Policy DLP7 Place Shaping explains that the eastern area of Kirklees Rural is flatter and there are opportunities to expand settlements with good access to the M1. However, the proposed spatial distribution of new housing allocations does not reflect such an approach and therefore the emerging Plan is presently internally inconsistent. 16

More specifically, the settlement of Shelley which is one of the larger and more sustainable settlements in the Kirklees Rural sub-area only has a single small housing allocation for 18 houses (H225), which is addressed as Shepley in the emerging Plan. Shelley scores favourably in the settlement appraisal and is considered to have good accessibility to services and facilities. Taylor Wimpey objects to smaller and less sustainable settlements having sizable allocations relative to the scale and size of settlement when the settlement of Shelley effectively has no housing allocations appropriate to its size, function and role. The approach taken appears to be disproportionate. Settlements such as Thurstonland, which is a significantly smaller settlement with less facilities and services has a larger housing allocation, similarly Stocksmoor which is significantly smaller with less services and facilities has two albeit small housing allocations totalling 39 dwellings, however this is still more then is allocated to Shelley. This list is not exhaustive and there are numerous examples of significant issues with the distribution of housing allocations in the rural area. Therefore, there is a massive and significant under provision in housing in the eastern area and Taylor Wimpey considers this spatial distribution needs to be remedied and further provision of housing needs to be identified in the Kirklees Rural East sub-area Site Capacity Taylor Wimpey considers that significant inaccuracies on potential site capacity exist. Through a brief analysis of proposed housing allocations it is apparent that gross and net site areas are largely the same. The only discounting takes place when areas of sites are covered by trees or at risk from flooding. Therefore, no site has been reduced to take account for the need for on-site POS, SUDS, drainage or infrastructure. Therefore, site capacities have not been calculated on a net developable area, which is typically 65-70 percent of the gross site area. Taylor Wimpey considers this could mean that sites do not reach expected capacities and as such the housing requirement will not be achieved. From a brief analysis of sites in the Kirklees Rural area, if net developable site areas were used rather than 5,148 dwellings being created only 3,663 dwellings may come forward, based on 30 dwellings per hectare which appears to be the average for the Rural Sub-Area. This is a significant under provision of 1,485 dwellings against expectation. Taylor Wimpey consider that expected site capacities should be reviewed and reassessed appropriately and that further sites need to be identified to overcome this anticipated shortfall. 17

8.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Review and publish all evidence on windfall analysis Increase the under delivery allowance to take account of the intervening period and address this in the first five years of the Plan Include a higher buffer for non-delivery, under-delivery and lapsed sites to provide additional flexibility Address the disparity in the distribution of housing in the Kirklees Rural Sub-Area Increase the number of housing allocations in the east of Kirklees Rural Sub-Area. Allocate housing sites in Shelley (H169) Review site capacity and address the issue with gross and net site areas. 18

9. Policy DLP11 Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Taylor Wimpey objects to aspects of Policy DLP11 9.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 9.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the principle of providing a broad mix of housing; however the Local Plan should not dictate the housing mix across the District. The Local Plan should achieve this through identifying the level of provision and the broad distribution of new housing. Although Strategic Housing Market Assessments can consider the broad issues of housing mix, the Local plan should not seek to control the housing mix across the District. It is both unnecessary and inflexible to seek to control the housing mix, since it would mean the housing market would be unable to adjust to market movements. Policy DLP11 and Paragraph 7.32 both state that schemes above 10 dwellings or 0.4ha and above should specifically reflect the proportions of households that require housing and achieve a mix of housing size, tenure and price as set out in the latest SHMA. This aspect of the policy is onerous and prescriptive, particularly as it is seeking to control size of units, mix, tenure and price. The price of units in particular is beyond the realm of the planning system and is a matter which market forces will dictate and is not a matter for the Local Authority or the Local Plan. This aspect of the policy should be removed. 19

Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the need for Affordable Housing and is encouraged by the approach in the policy to negotiate where viability evidence is demonstrated. Nevertheless, Taylor Wimpey is cognisant of the preparation of the CIL and the level at which this is established should not undermine the delivery of 20% affordable housing. However, Taylor Wimpey is concerned that Policy DLP11 is seeking to deliver at least 20% affordable housing, with no indication of an upper limit. However, paragraph 7.39 states that 20% of the total units on sites should be provided as affordable housing. Taylor Wimpey are concerned that the policy is seeking to deliver a minimum level of affordable housing. Taylor Wimpey considers that the policy be amended to remove reference to the term at least and provide certainty to the industry. However, Taylor Wimpey is concerned that the 20% target across the whole of Kirklees is potentially unjustified. Evidence supporting the Community Infrastructure Levy suggest that there could be difficulties with a 20% affordable housing target across the District, particularly in the lower value areas 4 and 5. Page 69 of the Report states: A 20% affordable housing requirement is not viable in all value areas and therefore we believe there is a case for variation with a lower rate in Value Areas 4 and 5, which could also help to incentivise development This is particularly concerning given much of Huddersfield and Dewsbury falls into these areas and a significant amount of growth is envisaged. Therefore, setting levels at 20% may mean that the submissions of viability assessments common practice rather than the exception. 9.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Remove the onerous and prescriptive approach to specifically dictate the housing mix, size, tenure and price of units on sites. The price element should be removed and the term specifically should be deleted so that all other aspects are encouraged to reflect. Remove the term at least from the third paragraph of the policy in reference to 20% affordable housing. 20

Review the approach to affordable housing to ensure all areas and sites are viable. 21

10. Green Belt Review Taylor Wimpey objects to the Green Belt Review. 10.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 10.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey considers that the Green Belt Review undertaken is deficient. The Green Belt Review appears to take the form of an urban edge assessment and does not thoroughly consider the role and purpose of the Green Belt in all areas and locations throughout the District. Therefore there is no up to date Green Belt Review which has set out a rigorous and robust methodology. Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees should have undertaken a three stage approach:- Stage 1 Identify general areas within the Green Belt Stage 2 Technical site assessment Stage 3 Re-appraisal of resultant land parcels. Such an approach has been undertaken elsewhere in the country, such as in Nottinghamshire and is a more transparent and rigorous approach. Taylor Wimpey has undertaken their own assessment of land to the west of Shelley and the report is attached to these representations. Taylor Wimpey consider that the Council s 22

view on the strong existing boundary is incorrect and does not consider the context and setting of the area as the Green Belt Review has focussed on edges and not the role and purpose of the land. From the attached Green Belt Assessment Taylor Wimpey s conclusions against the purposes are as follows: Contextually, the site is contained by development and activity being adjacent to residential properties, businesses and properties along Penistone Road, an access road to a farm and the Trans Pennine Trail and woodland to the north. Within this context the release of the site from the Green Belt has limited impact on openness and that redevelopment of the site would have low impact on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that Green Belt boundaries should be drawn so as not to include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. The site lies on the edge of Shelley with residential development located to the east and the A629 Penistone Road to the south, Healey Farm access road and the Trans Pennine Trail to the west and woodland/meadow to the north. Penistone Road, Shelley is therefore contained and will not lead to unrestricted sprawl or encroachment. The site is located on the edge of Shelley and is contained within its setting. The site would not therefore lead to the coalescence of towns. Whilst the development would result in development of some countryside the degree of encroachment into the countryside would be minimised. The site has no impact upon the setting of a historic town. The current location of the Green Belt boundary around Shelley is not robust and does not accord with the Framework where boundaries should be clearly defined using readily recognisable features to ensure permanency. In this area the Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around the edge of Shelley. The boundary in this location is defined by the rear boundaries of properties along Park Avenue and Hawthorn Way, which are primarily low walls and fences as shown in the photo below: 23

Photo 1: View of rear boundary wall of properties along Park Avenue and Hawthorne Way The built form surrounding the site suggests that the existing Green Belt boundary is not one that is logical. The proposed new boundary would be defined by roads (A629 Penistone Road and Healey Farm access road which are both well-defined) and tracks (Box Ings Lane) which is clear and well defined by trees, hedgerows and walls). Healey Farm access road and Box Ings Lane also form the Trans Pennine Trail in this location. To the north the boundary would be formed by Healey Greave Wood and meadow with the boundary formed by formed by woodland, wide tree belt and thick hedgerows and a well-defined footpath. This boundary would accord with the Framework and ensure that the Green Belt is clearly defined using readily recognisable features to ensure permanency reinforcing the urban context whilst providing a robust boundary for the future. All the boundaries have the potential to be further reinforced within the site through additional planting to ensure an effective transition between the development and the countryside beyond. Taylor Wimpey would like to remind the Council that Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed and drawn in accordance with Framework and with respect to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (para 80) and how to define boundaries (para 85). Taylor Wimpey therefore suggests that the Council review the existing and proposed Green Belt boundaries in this location. 10.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: 24

Undertake a full and robust and detailed Green Belt Assessment. 25

11. Rejected Site H169: Penistone Road, Shelley Taylor Wimpey objects to the rejection of the site at Penistone Road, Shelley for residential development and its retention in the Green Belt. 11.1. Test of Soundness Taylor Wimpey considers that Kirklees Draft Local Plan is unsound. Which test of soundness are comments about? X Positively Prepared X Effective X Justified X Consistency with National Policy 11.2. Justification Taylor Wimpey prepared and submitted an Advocacy Report last Autumn 2015, which demonstrated the availability, suitable and achievability of the site at Penistone Road, Shelley and that it fully accords with the deliverability criteria for allocation contained in the Framework. Taylor Wimpey objects to the rejection of the site at Penistone Road, Shelley (H169). The site is a sustainable site in a sustainable location and is a logical extension to Shelley. Shelley is one of the larger settlements in the Kirklees Rural sub-area. However, in the Draft Local Plan only one small site for 18 houses (H225), which is addressed as Shepley, appear to be allocated in the settlement. Shelley scores favourably in the settlement appraisal and is considered to have good accessibility to services and facilities. Taylor Wimpey objects to smaller and less sustainable settlements having sizable allocations relative to the scale and size of settlement when the settlement of Shelley effectively has no housing allocations appropriate to its size, function and role. The approach taken appears to be disproportionate. Settlements such as Thurstonland, which is a significantly smaller settlement has a larger housing allocation, similarly Stocksmoor which is significantly smaller with less services and facilities has two albeit small housing allocations totalling 39 dwellings, 26

however this is still more then is allocated to Shelley. Similarly, Emley and Farnley Tyas are significantly smaller settlements with housing allocations. This list is not exhaustive and there are numerous examples of significant issues with the distribution of housing allocations in the rural area. Some of the sites require Green Belt change and some sites have significant unresolved constraints such as the need for third party land to gain access (H358 Emley) and as such do not meet the Framework tests for deliverability and allocation. Furthermore, one of the Place Shaping principles explains that the eastern area of Kirklees Rural is flatter and there are opportunities to expand settlements with good access to the M1, however the spatial distribution between the eastern and western area is skewed towards the west with 2,613 dwellings allocated in the west and 2,535 dwellings in the east and the majority of those in the east are on the Storthes Hall Park site for 864 dwellings. Therefore in the rest of the Kirklees Rural East area are 1,671 dwellings, which is only a third of the sub-area provision. Therefore, there is a massive and significant under provision in housing in the eastern area. This spatial distribution needs to be remedied. The Council s own site assessment considers the site is sustainable and appropriate, except for its Green Belt status. However, as shown earlier the approach to the Green Belt Review is incorrect and the site is contained and a logical extension to Shelley which would strengthen the Green Belt boundary, coupled with the need to identify further sites to deliver the housing requirement. Overview of the proposals The indicative layout below creates areas of open space, tree belts and residential areas. The wider gross site area is 11.75 hectares. The size and location of the public open space is a response to the need to retain a green skyline for views from the south, to retain existing trees and to connect open space through the site. A central treed corridor of open space is indicated running north-south along the existing field edge in the eastern site area. Tree planting to rear gardens and vegetation throughout the scheme will create a landscaped setting and strong tree belts, which will both enhance the area and mitigate long distant views. The principal highway access for the scheme could potentially be in the south eastern site corner from Penistone Road, 27

The site is already well connected by existing public footpaths along the south eastern, northern and western boundaries, and proposed footpath connections would enhance pedestrian connectivity, including access to existing bus stops on Penistone Road. Development principles and benefits The site is located in a sustainable location and is well defined by existing housing, roads and tracks. The site is located on the edge of Shelley, which provides shops and services, and also access to public transport facilities, with bus stops located on Penistone Road and a train station at Shepley. Having concluded that the site is appropriate in locational terms for development, it is now relevant to assess it against the criteria for identifying allocations in the National Planning 28

Policy Framework, which states that local planning authorities should identify sufficient deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available, suitable and achievable. Deliverability The site is available, suitable and achievable and is deliverable in accordance with the NPPF and represents a sustainable residential opportunity on the edge of an established residential area. Taylor Wimpey intends to develop the site themselves which further demonstrates the site s deliverability. Availability Taylor Wimpey controls the site and therefore the site is available for development now. Suitability The proposed development can make an efficient and attractive use of the land. Although Green Belt land the site does represent an excellent opportunity for future housing and development. This site would allow housing to be delivered within an appropriate and sustainable location within Shelley. The development of this site would assist in creating a logical boundary to the Green Belt. The site is located within a highly sustainable location on the edge of Shelley. The site s development would clearly accord with the emphasis set out in the NPPF, particularly concerning the need to make more efficient use of land. The site benefits from being located close to a range of services and facilities, including local shops, public houses, primary school and other community facilities. The site is also within walking distance to bus routes to Huddersfield and the train station in Shepley. Furthermore, the site is a suitable Green Belt change, providing a more logical, robust and defensible green belt boundary for the future. Achievable It is considered that development on this site is achievable. There are no known constraints to its development. 29

Accessibility The main access into the site will be taken from Penistone Road. It is considered that a safe and suitable accesses can be created into the site, and that the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the local highways network. There is therefore no insurmountable constraint with regard to impact on local highways and access. The site fronts on to the A629 which provides good accessibility to Huddersfield and Sheffield and onwards to the M1 and M62 Motorways. The site is adjacent to a number of bus stops which provide access to routes, including towards Huddersfield Town Centre and Denby Dale (Routes 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84). The site is close to services and facilities, including schools, local shops and employment opportunities. The site is approximately 7 miles from Huddersfield Town Centre. Landscape The High Level Landscape Assessment has been undertaken by Spawforths Landscape Architects which indicates that the proposed development would form a logical extension to the existing Shelley residential area. The proposal would have a limited impact on the visual openness of the existing landscape, given its location and surrounding residential development. Other environmental matters Initial observations have been undertaken and there are no known environmental constraints to site delivery. Green Belt Assessment Due to the significant need and demand for housing and aspirations for economic and housing growth there is clearly a requirement for a strategic review of the approach to locations for future growth within the district. In order to plan for appropriate for the plan period there is a need to review the Green Belt boundaries. A review of the development limits of Shelley would ensure a holistic approach to the location of development for the future of the District. The Green Belt Review that the Council is undertaking only considers Green Belt edges against the five purposes of the Green Belt and is therefore not a full consideration or 30

strategic review of the Green Belt. The Assessment does not reflect the contained setting of the site and strong physical features and boundaries surrounding the site. The Assessment also does not reflect the poor boundary that currently exists which is the rear boundary of properties. Taylor Wimpey therefore commissioned Spawforths to undertake its own Green Belt Assessment, which accompanies these representations (Appendix 1) and the conclusions are summarised below: The Framework explains that there are five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, which is: 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and 5. To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Contextually, the site is contained by development and activity being adjacent to residential properties, businesses and properties along Penistone Road, an access road to a farm and the Trans Pennine Trail and woodland to the north. Within this context the release of the site from the Green Belt has limited impact on openness and that redevelopment of the site would have low impact on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that Green Belt boundaries should be drawn so as not to include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. The site lies on the edge of Shelley with residential development located to the east and the A629 Penistone Road to the south, Healey Farm access road and the Trans Pennine Trail to the west and woodland/meadow to the north. Penistone Road, Shelley is therefore contained and will not lead to unrestricted sprawl or encroachment. The site is located on the edge of Shelley and is contained within its setting. The site would not therefore lead to the coalescence of towns. Whilst the development 31

would result in development of some countryside the degree of encroachment into the countryside would be minimised. The site has no impact upon the setting of a historic town. The current location of the Green Belt boundary around Shelley is not robust and does not accord with the Framework where boundaries should be clearly defined using readily recognisable features to ensure permanency. In this area the Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around the edge of Shelley. The boundary in this location is defined by low walls and fences of rear boundaries of properties along Park Avenue and Hawthorn Way, The built form surrounding the site suggests that the existing Green Belt boundary is not one that is logical. The proposed new boundary would be defined by roads (A629 Penistone Road and Healey Farm access road which are both well-defined) and tracks (Box Ings Lane) which is clear and well defined by trees, hedgerows and walls). Healey Farm access road and Box Ings Lane also form the Trans Pennine Trail in this location. To the north the boundary would be formed by Healey Greave Wood and meadow with the boundary formed by woodland, wide tree belt and thick hedgerows and a well-defined footpath. This boundary would accord with the Framework and ensure that the Green Belt is clearly defined using readily recognisable features to ensure permanency reinforcing the urban context whilst providing a robust boundary for the future. All the boundaries have the potential to be further reinforced within the site through additional planting to ensure an effective transition between the development and the countryside beyond. Effective Use of Land Although the site is greenfield, the proposed scheme will utilise and enhance existing infrastructure. Although the site is not previously developed it is currently under-utilised. The site is easily accessible and the proposed main access is off Penistone Road. The scheme is therefore making an efficient and effective use of land and infrastructure. Delivering a Flexible Supply of Housing The Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to meet their full objectively assessed housing need. The site at Penistone Road, Shelley will reinforce the housing supply for the short to medium term and address the Districts housing needs in the early and middle periods of the Local Plan. 32

A Positive Response to the Key Objectives of the Framework The Framework sets out that the Governments key housing policy goal of boosting significantly the supply of housing and proactively driving and supporting sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. The Framework explains that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as extensions to towns, and creating mixed and sustainable communities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Sites should also make effective use of land and existing infrastructure. The proposal responds positively towards national guidance The site is appropriate for accommodating housing growth, being an expansion of an existing settlement. The proposed site is accessible to existing local community facilities, infrastructure and services, including public transport. The site has been assessed and is available, suitable and achievable for development. Potential Phasing of the Site The site also has the potential to be phased. The Plan below shows the potential for an early phase of around 100 homes contained by existing and reinforced trees, hedgerows and planting with a further 200 homes as a later phase. The second phase could come forward subsequently either within the Plan period or safeguarded for delivery in the next Plan period. 33

Benefits The development of the site would provide significant benefits. The site would provide housing that would meet the needs of Kirklees and the Rural Area, where there is limited potential for the development of housing. Therefore this site provides a unique opportunity in a sustainable location and without compromising the Green Belt function and purpose. In accordance with the Framework Taylor Wimpey has shown that: 34

The site is suitable for housing. The proposal will deliver high quality housing. The proposal can provide a good mix of housing commensurate to the demand and need in the area. The scheme uses land efficiently and effectively. The proposal is in line with planning for housing objectives. The site is within a sustainable location situated in close proximity to facilities and services and also to bus stops for local bus routes. The proposal will deliver public open space. 11.3. Proposed Change To overcome the objection and address soundness matters, the Council should: Allocate the site at Penistone Road, Shelley (11.75ha) for residential development, which could deliver approximately 300 dwellings. Alternatively, the site at Penistone Road, Shelley can be allocated as follows: o First phase for approximately 100 dwellings; and o Second phase for approximately 200 dwellings allocated within the Plan period or safeguarded for delivery in the next Plan period. 35

Appendix 1: Penistone Road, Shelley, Green Belt Assessment 36