Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Snow Room - Ground Floor, West Offices (G035). View directions
Contact: Laura Clark Democracy Officer
Webcast: video recording
Declarations of Interest
At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:
· any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests
· any prejudicial interests or
· any disclosable pecuniary interests
which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.
Members were asked to declare any personal interests notincluded on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they might have in respect of business on the agenda.
Councillor Cuthbertson declared that he was a trustee of the
York Museums Trust so had a personal non-prejudicial interest in
the Castle Gateway item.
To approve and sign the minutes of the Local Plan Working Group meeting held on 5 December 2016.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 December2016 be approved as a correct record and then signed by the Chair.
At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak, regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the remit of the Working Group, may do so. The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Friday 20 January 2017.
Filming or Recording Meetings
Please note this meeting may be filmed and webcast, or audio recorded, and that includes any registered public speakers, who have given their permission. The broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts or, if recorded, this will be uploaded onto the Council’s website following the meeting.
Residents are welcome to photograph, film or record Councillors and Officers at all meetings open to the press and public. This includes the use of social media reporting, i.e. tweeting. Anyone wishing to film, record or take photos at any public meeting should contact the Democracy Officer (contact details at the foot of this agenda) in advance of the meeting.
The Council’s protocol on Webcasting, Filming & Recording of Meetings ensures that these practices are carried out in a manner both respectful to the conduct of the meeting and all those present. It can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf
It was reported that there had been
one registration to speak
4. Castle Gateway Vision and Draft Area of Opportunity Policy
Mr Paul Hepworth spoke, on behalf of Cycling UK, in support of the proposal for a Foss cycle bridge and for cycle underpass facilities on the inner ring road at Castle Mills. He also emphasised the that the Foss cycle bridge should be a dedicated, high quality structure.
This report sets out the vision for the regeneration of the area around Piccadilly, Coppergate Centre, the Eye of York, Clifford’s Tower, St George’s Field and the Foss Basin, referred to as the Castle Gateway. It also sets out a draft Area of Opportunity Policy for adoption in the Local Plan.
Members considered a report setting out the vision for the regeneration of the areaaround Piccadilly, Coppergate Centre, the Eye of York, Clifford’s Tower, St George’s Field and the Foss Basin, referred to as the Castle Gateway. The report also set out a draft Area of Opportunity Policy for adoption in the Local Plan.
Officers gave a brief background to the report and talked Members through the draft Area of Opportunity Policy.
In response to Member questions Officers stated:
· Routes for delivery vehicles to access commercial premises would depend on the car parking option chosen. This was currently being investigated.
· Following Coppergate 2 there were clearer parameters about what was achievable for this project.
· During discussions English Heritage had stated that the building suggested for the current car park would not work for them operationally as a visitors centre.
During discussion Members welcomed the report and made the following points:
· There should be a focus on cross party involvement in taking forward this plan.
· In terms of car parking, consideration must be given to those with disabilities. If a multi – story was chosen then provision needed to be made for accessible parking. This could also be a good opportunity to promote the ‘Shopmobility’ scheme and rethink its current location, which was difficult to access.
Members also requested that Item VI of the Draft Area of Opportunity Policy be amended to:
I. Consider important sightlines across the Castle Gateway area
II. Consider tree planting on Piccadilly
I. That Officers respond to comments made at themeeting and circulate their response to Executive on Thursday 26 January 2017.
· the renaming of the regeneration area as Castle Gateway be noted
· the vision for the Castle Gateway be considered
· the Castle Gateway draft Area of Opportunity Policy for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan be considered
· the intention to develop a masterplan for the development of the council’s assets, infrastructure and public spaces within the Castle Gateway area be noted
· the intention to create a stakeholder group to guide and develop the masterplan be noted
· change the name to better reflect the geography andnature of the area
· deliver the regeneration aims of the Castle Gatewayproject
ensure the Castle Gateway
vision is enshrined in
· provide a cohesive and informed design approach tothe Castle Gateway
· ensure the masterplan is driven by key stakeholders asprincipal custodians for this area of the city
This report provides an update on the emerging Local Plan and, in particular, on the initial consideration of the newly submitted Ministry of Defence (MOD) sites against the Local Plan Site Selection methodology following the report to Executive on 7 December 2016.
Members then considered a report which provided an update on the emerging Local Plan and inparticular on the initial consideration of the newly submitted Ministry of Defence (MOD) sites against the Local Plan Site Selection methodology following the report to Executive on 7 December 2016.
Officers gave a brief background to the report and discussed the site selection methodology which had been applied to the three MOD sites.
In response to Member questions Officers clarified that no recommendations were being made for the use of the sites, or their inclusion in the Local Plan, work to determine their suitability was ongoing.
During discussion Members made the following comments:
· Some Members expressed the view that there was still a hope the MOD may reconsider the closure of the three sites, in order to protect both jobs and the heritage of York’s military connection.
· Members requested the inclusion of site maps in future reports. Officers confirmed that they were seeking further clarity on the boundary of the three MOD sites.
· There were concerns over the impact that delaying the Local Plan any further may have, particularly if it were to heighten the risk of government intervention.
Officers confirmed that a letter had been sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) seeking reassurances, but that a response had yet to come back. Informal discussions had taken place and Officers still felt that it was important to consider these sites in detail to ensure delivery of a compliant Local Plan.
Members requested sight of the letter which had been sent to the DCLG, to which Officers agreed.
Resolved: That, in accordance with Option One, the LPWG request that the Executive:
i. Note progress on the consideration of the identified MOD sites for housing land within the context of the Local Plan
ii. Instruct Officers to produce a report highlighting detailed implications to the Local Development Scheme, including any budget implications.
iii. Note the impact of the additional costs that will arise and the
requirement to consider as part of the future years budget
Reason: To produce an NPPF compliant Local Plan.