Weetwood impasse drags on in Leeds

Two years on from submitting plans, Pickard Properties must wait a while longer for a verdict on its proposals for 127 build-to-rent homes at the former police station site, on the northern fringe of the city.

Submitted in September 2022, Pickard’s project went before the panel in August as a position statement, and was then considered at the Leeds City Council south and west plans panel session on 31 October.

However, with councillor after councillor expressing concerns over viability, a decision is not now expected until January, when the district valuer’s presence will be requested.

The proposal

The verdict from planning officers was a recommendation to approve, through the usual mechanism of the chief planning officer being delegated to secure the necessary commitments.

In and of itself, the proposal is not really at issue: the intention is for a single L-shaped building of six storeys at its tallest with extensive landscaping, and a pedestrian footbridge to Otley Road.

The project is designed by Halliday Clark Architects with Quod advising on planning.

Focused on a site in Far Headingley to the north-west of Leeds city centre, between Otley Road and the ring road. In planning terms, it is within the Adel neighbourhood.

The site currently houses two buildings, formerly occupied by West Yorkshire Police. Since the force departed in 2023, the site has been used for the shooting of a police TV show. The buildings will be demolished.

The sticking point is viability. Although the project is inked in for a desirable area, with homes likely to sell well, the BTR model is unproven in such a location within Leeds, the city’s previous and current schemes being delivered through this model being more central.

Pickard’s position is that the scheme is simply unviable should it be required to deliver on-site affordable housing at the volume required by Leeds’ policy. Instead, it has proposed a one-off commuted sum of £700,000 for off-site provision.

The viability question

Much, as ever, comes down to interpretation. The broad position as set out in the Leeds Core Strategy of 2014 states the affordable housing proposals in BTR can be 20% either on-site discounted market rent, or provided as a financial contribution in lieu of on-site delivery.

In this particular location, the financial contribution for sites should be financially equivalent to 35% conventional affordable housing, however the site is very close to the policy boundary, where that drops to 15%.

Quod said in its viability assessment that “the financial viability of the scheme is significantly constrained due to recent increases in construction costs caused by the increasing costs of materials such as steel, chronic shortages of skilled labour, sustained rises in the cost of energy and a range of supply chain related difficulties.”

Both war in Ukraine and Brexit continue to impact costs, Quod said. The firm said it believes the offer of £700,000 to represent around 15%.

This is the sticking point. As set out by planning officers, the full requirement at the 35% Zone 1 level would amount to £6.6m.

Officers said: “In light of viability issues the applicants have proposed an off-site affordable housing contribution of £700,000, plus a late-stage overage clause which will either provide additional payment of up to a combined total of £6.6m or the delivery of 20% discount market rent units on site.”

The district valuer, said officers, has undertaken significant testing and analysis, and while the figures don’t marry up exactly with those offered by the applicant, the DV is in broad agreement that the scheme does have viability issues, cannot support affordable housing, and that the suggested £700,000 “is not wholly unreasonable in this context”.

The meeting

In all, the application exercised the plans panel for around two hours.

Quod senior director Tim Waring addressed the panel, explaining for context the local nature of Pickard’s work: this is a local property company, invested in the area for decades, with a track record of decent development in the area, such as at Carlton Hill, he said.

Members were not convinced that the £700,000 would represent best value, however. Cllr Andy Parnham said “it feels like the developer is trying to ride roughshod over us” and asked the legal director to spell out any potential grounds for refusal.

Cllr Colin Campbell spoke at various points to raise questions around the viability calculations, and with a third hour of deliberation approaching, it was proposed that a decision be deferred until a future meeting, once the enhanced input of the district valuer can be secured.

The proposals can be viewed on Leeds’ planning portal with the reference 22/06370/FU.