Leeds Holds its Forward Planning Course – Despite Icebergs on the Horizon

Notes on the Leeds City Council Development Plans Panel (DPP) Meeting of 16th October 2018

I have assumed that readers of this will recognise the various acronyms used in the notes.

The meeting had two items of interest: –

  1. A report of housing need – changes to household projections and Government Methodology / Guidance. (This from the most recent Gov housing need projections).
  2. Site Allocation Plan Update

Meeting documents are at https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/g8245/Public%20reports%20pack%2016th-Oct-2018%2011.30%20Development%20Plan%20Panel.pdf?T=10

The reports start at page 7.


New housing needs projection (2016 sub-national housing projections) from Gov show national reduction by 25% over next 25 years, and in Leeds down 32%. Stats come with a health warning, as the methodology used now has changed again, leading to some confusion.

Figures that Gov will be publish in December 2018 are much more likely to be better indicators and these current figures can only be regarded as a signal to lower housing needs, without any sound quantification of that.

Leeds intends to note the downward trend, but not to change their methodology or their current target. See 3.7 page 10 for Leeds’ justification of this.

Gov figures ignores effects of economic growth. Leeds situation within Leeds City Region (and its plans) is expected to generate the extra need well above the basic housing needs identified by Gov methodology.

Leeds think their methodology is way ahead of that of the Gov. New Gov method has removed household projection data going back to 1971 and limits it from 2001. One might argue that a more modern set of projections for 2001 to 2016 in a time of recession and austerity is more relevant to reality than a wider period of 1971 to 2016, when there have been periods of strong growth.

What is clear is that the “downward housing target trajectory” (as Leeds have put it) is true and significant. What is also clear is that Leeds pays lip-service to it and will determine Leeds figures based on what they think and not using approved methodology. We cannot therefore expect there to be much, if any, change to the situation already proposed within CSSR.


Report starts page 15 in Agenda notes.

SAP hearing report. Leeds is “spinning” the Inspector’s comments on limiting the loss of green belt. “The Inspectors agree with us that………….”

Two issues have emerged from the Inspectors: –

a). Broad locations out. Sites remain GB.

b). Procedural issue, in that Inspectors said they were testing the RSAP against the CS. But throwing out BL means that they now want Leeds to revert to the original SAP, and it is this they will test against the CS in their final report. However, this will be done only in terms of the first part of the plan period 2014 to 2023 (for which there would be a housing target of no more than 42,000 – and therefore no need for GB).

Based on this new approach this would suggest that there remain GB sites to accommodate 6,450 houses in the plan to 2023. A review of the SAP in 2023 would then look at the later period.

However, CSSR gets in the way! The elephant in the room (as kept coming up in the hearing) is that housing need is clearly falling. See later in this report.

This is Leeds’ plan of action: –

Based on Inspector’s most recent correspondence re BL and reverting to original SAP – Provide Modifications list to Inspector by the end of October 2018.

Inspectors then respond with their modifications (when?)

Leeds review these and carries out any new site assessments (sustainability appraisals and GB reviews) needed where sites are modified out, and new ones come in. This is based within HMCAs. A site removed in a HMCA is replaced by one or more sites within the same HMCA.

This information to DPP and Exec Board, to agree action and agree further public consultation for 6-weeks.

Response to consultation submitted directly to Inspectors (as previous).

Inspectors provide their report on the whole SAP hearing, based on the original SAP. Can’t imagine this being before May??? 2019.

Concerns about “weight” of Leeds’ plan, in planning determinations. Weight of dev plan increases at each stage of “progress”. A dev plan before SAP hearing had less weight than one after it. Dev plan will have more weight after Leeds modifications, and then after Inspectors suggested modification etc. etc.

But ………………. In the back ground is the CSSR.

Inspector Sherratt (one of the SAP Inspectors) has been appointed to hear this. Martin Elliot talked about a hearing in February 2018 if they can book her and the Programme Manager (Helen Wilson).

So, the CS and SAP train is moving along a set of rails. The CSSR and any revised SAP would be moving along another set of rails.

I think the two will collide timewise, and the result might be that CSSR and RSSAP emerge (by stealth – what a surprise) as the dev plan direction – and Leeds will pat themselves on the back as a job well done. This is what we have been suggesting Leeds does.

What does this mean for GB sites? Answer: nothing. The ones at risk during the RSAP are still at risk. Martin Elliot suggested that DPP should “expect few surprises” in terms of sites allocated and suggested this was necessary to avoid further lengthy public consultation. He stated at the moment that there were no indications from Inspector’s as to what sites they might want to remove in their proposed modifications.

I believe that we should be praying for the Inspectors to make significant site changes in their modifications, and that these then take Leeds to needing public consultation. Time will then pass significantly, and the CSSR train will be up to speed and overtake the CS / SAP train, so that we get housing target properly reflected in revised site allocations – with as little GB as possible.


Martin Hughes

Chair, Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance

17th October 2018

YGA Responds in Broad Terms to Leeds’ “Broad Locations”

This is the YGA response to the  Site Allocations Plan Review Consultation, which closes today in about 25 minutes.


Dear Sirs

I am responding to the Site Allocation Plan review on behalf of Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance (YGA).

YGA is concerned about the unnecessary inclusion of green spaces, and especially Green Belt (GB), into Leeds’ currently confused forward plans for housing provision. This SAP review does not go to allay the confusion on this; it compounds it.

YGA supports comments made by CPRE on the SAP Review, whose arguments are strong indicators to the unsoundness of the SAP Review on which this response is based.

YGA notes numerous plans with varying titles – only one of which is adopted: –

SAP – original SAP, the part 1 hearing of which commenced on 23/10/2017

SAPR – the revised SAP proposal – the subject of this consultation

CS – the original Core Strategy – approved April 2014

CSSR – the CS Selective Review – now in consultation from 9th February 2018.

To avoid any doubt, the non-use of the standard Word or Online response forms should not invalidate this response, neither should comments that relate to CSSR, which we believe is strongly connected to SAPR. One cannot be considered without the other. We do not accept statements from Leeds City Council indicating invalidation of comments about CSSR within this SAPR.

YGA wishes to make a few wide overarching points, which are not attributed to any SAPR amendment number, but look at the lack of soundness of the whole SAPR: –

  1. SAPR and CSSR cannot be separated. They are indelibly linked, however far Leeds would like to go in attempting to uncouple them. The principle exists that the CS sets a housing target and roughly where to place them (HMCAs). The SAP sets out the exact sites for that. The SAP supports the CS, with the CS coming first and being followed by any SAP. It is not reasonable for Leeds to suggest that the two plans (though we agree they are, in Leeds’ case, developed separately) should not be linked in this consultation response.
  2. The testing of the SAPR against an out of date CS is unsound. It is illogical to validate a key site allocating plan for Leeds, where the land needed to be allocated for housing is so way out of kilter with the actual CS test figure. It is also clear that carrying out such a test raises inconsistencies between the CS and SAPR especially in relation to the Spatial Policies within the CS, namely SP1 and SP6.
  3. Broad locations (BL) is a fudge, being used as a device to prop up the testing of the SAPR against a CS that is out of date. The evidence for this is the CSSR itself, in consultation now. All BL does is to place a stay of use on GB land for a 5-year period, which provides no long-term protection – failing in keeping GB land permanently open – as called for within NPPF 79.
  4. Our assessment indicates that land for c. 46,000 dwellings would need to be allocated for the proposed CSSR revised housing target. This is c. 20,000 houses for land allocation less that the current out of date CS. With GB allocations originally set in SAP at c. 12,500, the reduction is more than enough to exclude any GB at all.
  5. At the very minimum, to allow the illogical test of the SAPR against the out of date CS, all GB sites should be allocated to BL (retaining our BL objections), until CSSR has been completed. Leaving c. 6,000 dwellings allocated in phase one from GB, and re-designating the remaining c. 6,500 land as BL remains a fudge, leaves allocations from GB failing tests of exceptional circumstances (based on achieving a housing target), and provides limited c. 5-year protection in the future to some GB BL-designated sites.
  6. Claims that GB sites moved to phase one allocations for housing are those with the least impact on GB is mostly nonsense. The allocation of a fraction of Parlington is an illustration of that. It cannot be said that the allocation of any land at Parlington has least impact on the GB, so it cannot be said that one third of the site will either. Parlington can be shown to be unsustainable, so one third of Parlington is even more unsustainable.
  7. YGA notes that Safeguarded or PAS sites have been re-designated as BL, having previously been identified within UDP 2006. With our reservations repeated about BL, we accept the designation of these sites, so that they are given up to 5-years of protection. However, ultimately, we expect to see these sites remain in the GB because they will be unlikely to be required for housing, given a CSSR reduced allocated land housing target.
  8. The SAPR will allocate land from the GB to fulfil an out of date housing target, which is not justified and where exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated, and will not be able to be demonstrated. The CSSR provides the evidence that GB allocations are not required, and the evidence that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant loss of most GB.
  9. The SAPR cannot be set aside separately from the CSSR – now in consultation, overlapping with this SAPR consultation. It makes no sense to place the planning procedure that sets housing target and plan period (amongst other things) after a site allocation plan procedure that allocates land based on the housing target. It’s back to front; cart before horse. YGA does not accept Leeds’ reasons for continuing with the SAPR and the subsequent hearing (planned for July 2018).
  10. The government has stated that it will give planning authorities time to address government proposals concerning reduced housing targets (published in September 2017) and Leeds should come in line with that, carry out the CSSR and then address the SAPR. It is illogical to do anything else, especially where the procedure in developing a local development framework is well-established as CS first followed by SAP. Leeds will not be left undefended against house builders appealing speculative planning applications, because the Government has said that there will be weight assigned by Planning Inspectors to substantially developed local plans, which are having to be realigned – along with their SAPs – to reflect government baseline housing assessments.
  11. The solution to the forward planning confusion is to halt the SAPR, bring forward the CSSR, and as soon as possible reset the SAPR to deliver the sites called for in the CSSR. This is the only logical approach.
  12. If Leeds persists with the SAPR on technical grounds, and if it can BL- designate roughly half of the GB housing, then it can BL-designate it all, until such a time as CSSR is properly and fully in position and the real need for GB has been assessed through a comprehensive and region-wide GB assessment and review. 
  13. SAPR is a “sticking plaster” plan that needs to be suspended, the CSSR adopted, and then reintroduced, so that it can be based on proper housing need assessment.

Martin Hughes

Chair, Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance.

Leeds Publishes Core Strategy Review Consultation Papers – February 2018


The details of the Leeds Core Strategy Selective Review (CSSR) Consultation have been published, which started on 9/2/2018 and completes at 5 pm on 23/3/2018.


Details of the policy and paragraph changes can be seen at: –


The CSSR is fully separate from the Site Allocation Plan Review Consultation, which started on 15/1/2018 and completes at 5 pm on 26/2/2018.

For those of you with arithmophobia (fear of numbers) – you might want to stop reading now……!

Here is some background to the Core Strategy Selective Review.

Leeds admitted (July 2017) that the housing target (66,000) was too high and had promised a review and consultation. This consultation is it. Whilst covering a number of issues, the key ones are Leeds’ housing target and the plan period. These are proposed as a net requirement of 51,952 houses, in a revised plan period of 2017 to 2033.

It is notable that in the existing plan period of 2012 to 2028, 13,272 houses have been built in the 5-year period. If you add these to the 51,952 above, you get a total of c. 65,500 – not so different from the original 66,000: just 5 years longer to deliver them.

Leeds has delivered 13,272 houses (2012 to 2017), has in the original plans 43,769 houses allocated or identified on non-greenbelt sites, and planned for 12,385 on green belt land. This is a total of 69,424 – greater than the 66,000 in the current Core Strategy.

In September 2017, Government suggested the Leeds land allocation target should be 42,000 houses, with the figure excluding housing needed to accommodate “ambition growth”.

The numbers remain confusing, as the important measure is the housing number that requires the allocation of land that has not already been allocated. So, some corrections to the housing target figure, for land allocation, needs to be carried out, and this is explained in pages 4 to 7 of the Core Strategy Selective Review Publication Draft, copied above.

Whilst 51,952 is the target, Leeds expects to lose 150 houses per year in demolitions (c. 2,400 over the life of the plan). This figure is added back into the housing target to give 53, 856 for the period 2017 to 2033.

On the other side of the equation, Leeds has demonstrated in the past that some 500 houses per year (8,000 over the life of the plan) arise from employment land that becomes available for housing (4,000) and another 4,000 unoccupied houses coming back into use. Both of these do not require the allocation of new land. So these houses are taken off the housing target to give a revised total of 45,856 (c. 46,000) that need land to be allocated for them.

With the existing housing target set at 66,000 houses on land to be allocated, a reduction to 46,000 is eye-popping and must beg the question as to whether any Green Belt land release is required at all. You’ll recall that the Site Application Plan Review allocates c. 6,000 houses on Green Belt Land for development in phase 1 (the first 5 years of the plan from 2017 to 2022/2023) and places the remaining c. 6,500 in a new category, “broad locations”. This puts Green Belt land “on the shelf” for possible housing use later on after 2022/2023.

A powerful argument arises in that broad locations are being used to prop up the testing of the Site Allocations Plan (in July 2018) against a Core Strategy that will still be out of date in July 2018 (as the review will not have been completed).

It would be more logical for reset the Core Strategy to the new housing target and new plan period, and then test the revised Site Allocations Plan against that. Broad locations would not be needed, and proper Green Belt assessment should limit or exclude the use of any Green Belt site for new housing, as clearly there is enough land elsewhere already available, as Leeds has demonstrated.

What you should do now…………..

My recommendation is that you put in a response to the consultation. I fear we won’t be listened to – but that is another matter. No change there.

Your key points might be:  –

  • Acceptance of the new nett housing land requirement for c. 46,000 houses in the new plan period 2017 – 2033
  • Rejection of the Core Strategy Selective Review (CSSR) timing, in relation to the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) Review, on the basis that Leeds plans to test the revised Site Allocations Plan on an out of date Core Strategy, as the CSSR review will not have been completed by July 2018.
  • Call for the SAP hearing in July 2018 to be delayed until the CSSR has been completed, so that the revised SAP can be properly assessed by Inspectors against an in-date Core Strategy. 


This is a bit convoluted, but I believe Leeds have not made this easy for us, and I can’t help wondering if there is some method behind this.


Martin Hughes

Chair, Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance

Leeds Continues to Confuse on Forward Planning

At this stage of Leeds’ Forward Planning process, you might expect some clarity to have come out of the mess that Leeds have got themselves into. Not so.

Leeds Core Strategy (CS) sets out housing target, plan period and a host of policies relating to land use, housing, employment, retail and traveller requirement. Targets are set widely by identifying areas called housing market character areas (HMCA). The Site Allocations Plan (SAP) allocates land in these HMCAs for these purposes in detail.

The formation of the CS and SAP are two separate processes, with the CS fore-running the SAP, as you might expect – identify how many houses are needed (CS) and then determining where to locate them (SAP). The principle that the CS is followed by the SAP is well established in planning procedure.

Leeds adopted its CS in 2014 based on 66,000 houses, in a plan period 2012 – 2028. The SAP was to allocate land for those houses in a hearing due to start in October 2017.

Community groups and YGA have always stated that the housing target was too high, and challenged the way in which it was calculated, using out of date population statistics from the 2008 Census.

In July 2017, Leeds agreed that population data from the 2011 Census was indicating lower population growth, and that a revised housing target of 55,000 might be more accurate, and allow for a target that included growth and ambition. They also suggested extending the plan period to 2033. These changes require that a CS Selective Review be carried out, and this includes public consultation.

Government put in its penny-worth on housing targets during September 2017, proposing a methodology for calculation of them and an estimate of housing, which for Leeds was set at 42,000 houses, not taking account of growth or ambition. Projections for other northern cities were also significantly lower too.

YGA amongst others, challenged Leeds, and the SAP hearing Inspectors, about testing the SAP against an out of date CS (66,000 houses), when both Leeds and the government were suggesting a lower housing requirement. This would have led to the SAP allocating too much Green Belt land to housing that was not accurately assessed.

Leeds’ reaction to this was to allow the SAP to continue in October 2017 to allocate land for employment, retail, travellers and greenspaces (and other things), but to delay any further consideration of housing land allocation (including that on Green Belt) until July 2018 – a delay of 8 months.

Applying horse and cart theory to this might suggest that Leeds would carry out the CS Selective Review, as above, BEFORE allocating sites within the re-started SAP.

Leeds have not done this.

In January 2018 Leeds has published revisions to the SAP, for consultation now. In February 2018 they will be publishing details of CS Selective Review, the primary parts of which are a revision of housing target to 52,000, in a new plan period 2017 to 2033.

Leeds say that the SAP revisions will be in place sooner than the CS Selective Review revisions, and that it is important to allow the SAP to go ahead, based on a housing target of 66,000.

This leaves the same question as above – testing the SAP against an out of date CS. However, this problem is overcome by Leeds, by introducing “broad locations” – a device that earmarks Green Belt land for housing, without allocating it or taking it out of the Green Belt – effectively putting such land on the shelf for later use. There are now only two classifications for SAP housing sites – allocated, and broad locations. Allocated land is deemed suitable for housing now. Broad locations are sites that may or may not be required in the planning period after 2022 / 2023.

In the original CS, Leeds said it needed approximately 12,500 houses, out of the 66,000, to be placed on Green Belt land. In the original SAP, land would have been identified for this. The SAP revision will allocate some Green Belt for about half these houses, and designate the rest as broad locations, for later, if needed.

A few more questions arise: Some 13,500 houses have been built during the initial plan period of 2012 to 2017. If you add these to the 52,000 houses in the plan period 2017 to 2033, you get 65,500 houses. This is very close to the original CS target of 66,000. So, what we are seeing is much the same number of houses, but planned for a longer period.

This therefore raises Leeds’ intentions for the Green Belt sites designated as broad locations, in the plan period after 2022 / 2023. This means that YGA’s work is not over!

Donations made to YGA have meant we have been able to take expert advice from a planning barrister. We think the use of this advice was instrumental in delaying the SAP and causing Leeds to pause the allocation of many green belt sites.

Leeds’ introduction of “broad locations” allows them to carry on with an out of date CS, against which a revised SAP can be tested, where the SAP allocates limited Green Belt for housing, and lines up the rest for later, without its removal from the Green Belt. We think that this is ploy so that Leeds effectively makes no changes to overall housing numbers and where they are to be placed.

Where next for YGA?

We will be consulting with our planning barrister to obtain the best advice and have two chances to challenge what Leeds are doing. The first is in the two consultations on the SAP revisions and CS Selective Review consultations. The second is during the SAP re-started hearing in July 2018. We know that Leeds has not taken any notice of responses from public forward planning consultations, so we do not expect that to change. In the SAP revisions consultation of this moment, we are asked for comments about the allocation of some sites (or partial sites) to broad locations. The response document is prescriptive, warning that off-topic comments will be binned, on the basis that previous comments still stand and “have been considered”.

YGA feel that it must maintain three key challenges: –

  • The legality of the use of “broad locations” within a revised SAP, as a device to prop up testing of the SAP against an out of date CS
  • The illogical procedure of reviewing SAP before CS, where the principle of CS followed by SAP is well established in forward planning procedure
  • The continuing use of 1) quantum (housing number) and 2) “fairness” (that reduction in housing number should be reflected proportionately over the area of Leeds City) as exceptional circumstances for the removal of land for housing from the Green Belt.

Your help and support of YGA has got the organisation this far, but there is further to go. Thank you for the help you have given us, and please continue to provide it in any way you can. You can donate via the website www.yga.org.uk. Thank you.

Martin Hughes

Chairman, Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance

Revised housing target and implications on green belt requirement for Leeds?

Yesterday (21/11/2017) Leeds Development Plans Panel set the wheels in motion for a reduced housing target from 70,000 down to 52,000. This needs to be agreed by the Leeds Executive Board and form part of the Core Strategy Selective Review, which will go through its own consultation process in early 2018.

The other key decision yesterday concerned the introduction of “broad locations” in to a review of the Site Allocations Plan, the second part (allocation of housing and green belt) of which with be tested against the existing Core Strategy in about July 2018..

The notes I took at the meeting are below.

Development Plans Panel (DPP) 21/11/2017

1). Core Strategy Selective Review – Housing Target.

Paper from Robin Coghlan. Link: –http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/g8061/Public%20reports%20pack%2021st-Nov-2017%2013.30%20Development%20Plan%20Panel.pdf?T=10

Starts at page 7.

Summary recommendations

OAN Requirement /


Annual housing Plan period housing Land to allocate (houses) Indicative 5-year land supply (years)
DCLG Consultation (OAN) 2,649 42,384


36,784 11
SHMA ADJUSTMENT 3,247 51,952


46,352 9
SHMA REM 2017 3,478 55,648


50,048 8
SHMA HIGH GROWTH 3,783 60,528


54,928 7
Core Strategy 2014


4,700 70,000







REM = Regional Economic Model

SHMA = Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Land to Allocate = Housing target less windfalls etc.

DPP asked to recommend one of these 4 methodologies to Executive Board. Note that it’s the methodology being recommended, not the number – the number might change if the figures used in the methodology change. I don’t think councillors necessarily grasped this.

One hour of discussion and questioning by councillors resulted in a vote which went 7:2, and 2 abstentions, in favour of the SHMA Adjustment model. If you like, this is a recommendation to Exec. Board for 52,000 houses.

If Exec Board approves, this will move forward in the CS Selective Review and go to city-wide consultation during January / February 2018.

It was stressed that the housing target NOW, remains at 70,000 and that the SAP will continue to be tested against this – subject to 2) below. Lower target signals availability of good 5-years land supply.

2). Amendments to the Leeds Site Allocations Plan – further technical work on

housing allocations and safeguarded land and revised timetable

 Paper from Martin Elliot. Link: –


Starts at page 19.

Summary recommendations, which were approved by a majority for recommendation to Executive Board.

Development Plan Panel was invited to: –

  1. Note the update on further technical work on housing and Green Belt and revised

timetable for the hearing sessions of the SAP Examination

  1. Consider the revised approach to Green Belt sites in the Submitted SAP and the

consequent continued allocation of a selection of those sites, alongside the

designation of Broad Locations for the remainder

iii. Recommend to Executive Board that the Submission Draft SAP be amended to

reflect this revised approach and be subject to public consultation prior to

submission to the Secretary of State.

Key points: –

Of the 12,385 houses that were to be allocated on Green Belt GB) land, 5,594 will remain in SAP for allocation from GB. 6,787 houses proposed on GB will be defined as “broad locations” (BL). See table below.

BLs remain in the green belt, but are identified in the SAP as reserved land should it be needed after the first 5 years of the revised plan 2017 -2033.

BLs are loosely defined and can be general areas or site specific says Leeds. Leeds have gone with site specific. This is to best inform the public, they say.

All PAS sites (UDP safeguarded site) become BLs, unless already released for development.

To maximise GB in the “bank” and limit GB for use, some GB sites needs to be advanced in terms of phase. This is from later phases to phase 1. Those sites becoming BLs in phase 1 move to later phases.

Summary of sites can be seen at : – http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/b19028/Supplementary%20Pack%20-%20Items%206%20and%208%2021st-Nov-2017%2013.30%20Development%20Plan%20Panel.pdf?T=9

Starts at page 8.

SAP hearing on housing allocation now programmed for July 2018. This is expected to test the soundness of the revised SAP against 70,000 CS, and it is expected that the BLs will overcome the GB problems re allocating too many GB sites in the light of expected housing target reduction.

Fairness (re individual HMCA house targets and sites) still foremost in considerations. That is, any reductions in housing should be reflected across the whole city and be based on what has already been delivered. When submitted to Exec Board, this table will be extended to prove fairness, but e.g. adding a column that shows planning application approvals in each HMCA.

Table 1: Site Allocations Plan target per HMCA and number of homes needed to remain in each HMCA 

HMCA Target Submission SAP


Allocations on

current UDP Green


45.2% target of

Green Belt land to

remain as housing



54.8% target of GB

to be redesignated


Broad Locations


Aireborough 2,300 972 439 533


City Centre 10,200 0 0 0
East 11,400 245 111 134
Inner 10,000 0 0 0
North 6,000 1365 617 748
Outer North East 5,000 1974 892 1082
Outer North West 2,000 152 69 83
Outer South 2,600 1634 738 895
Outer South East 4,600 2595 1172 1422
Outer South West 7,200 2456 1109 1346
Outer West 4,700 992 448 544
Total 66,000 12,385 5,594 6,787


3). Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update 2017

 Paper from Matthew Brook / Kathryn Holloway. Link: –


Starts at page 33.

Summary recommendations, the least contentious item on the agenda, which was approved by majority. The committee agreed to publish the full report, which starts on page 43 from the link above.

DPP was requested to note: –

  1. This 2017 update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has used the Council’s established methodology in accordance with national planning policy and up-to-date interpretation of planning guidance.
  2. The assessment concludes that an improving stock of deliverable land supply exists in Leeds within the context of the strengthening market, recent planning permission activity and ongoing housing growth initiatives.
  3. The Council anticipates that it will be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply upon the adoption of the Site Allocations Plan, if not sooner pending changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and consequent implications for the housing land supply requirement for Leeds.


Martin Hughes

Chair, Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance