Agenda and minutes

At this point, members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Councillor Merrett declared a Personal Non-Prejudicial Interest in Item 4 on the Agenda, Employment Land Review – Evidence Base, as he works in Hudson House in York.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on 6 January 2009.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on 6 January be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to part (ii) of the resolution to Minute 21 being amended to read “That Members’ comments on the City Centre Area Action Plan Issues and Options Report – Consultation Summary be taken into account.”

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 5.00 pm on Monday 2 March.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

This report advises Members of the preparation of  the Employment Land Review (ELR) that the Council has commissioned as a key part of the evidence base to support the Local Development Framework and Members are asked to approve the study for publication as part of the LDF evidence base.

[The detailed annexes that accompany the study will be available to view ahead of the meeting in the Members Library, in Guildhall Reception and from the author of this report.]

Members considered the Employment Land Review - Evidence Base report, which advised them on the Preparation of the Employment Land Review (ELR) commissioned as a key part of the evidence base to support the Local Development Framework (LDF). The Report had been prepared by the Council consultants Entec with advice from Lawrence Hannah LLP.  The study was based on the stage 1 Employment Land Review produced for the Council by SQW (Segal Quince Wicksteed), reported to members in 2007.

The Principal Development Officer introduced the report, which reviewed the current main employment areas in York and provided future potential sites. The Officer stated that it must be noted that Entec were not suggesting future allocations, but had provided a list of assessed sites ranked 1-92 with the top ranked 19 sites for possible B1(a) office use, B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 uses.. The land yielded from these 19 sites could provide a starting point for further work.

Officers highlighted the re-development opportunities at the Foss Basin and that the authority would do further work on this. A new office district in York Central was discussed with potential floorspace of 87,000 –100,000 square metres.

Officers explained that Members were not asked to endorse particular sites, but to agree that the information provided would be used to inform the consideration of potential approaches to the Core Strategy and other LDF documents.

Comments and questions were then raised by Members to which Officers responded.

• In distinguishing the office-type sites Members asked if it had been the intention of officers to identify Premier or Standard sites. Officers responded that according to Entec the market would decide.  However, Entec had said that it was very important to identify sites for different use classes and make sure the sites were available.  Entec had predicted a growth in the storage and distribution sector, especially with more Internet sales and distribution, and saw small-scale high quality businesses developing from this.  However, it was felt that one needed to be very cautious in designating categories as this might stifle potential development.
• Ranking. Officers confirmed that the ranking in the report was considered a starting point for Members to make decisions. Of the 19 sites shortlisted, Officers felt that this provided sufficient choice for allocation to begin with.
• Members were surprised that the Huntington site 64 was still included. Officers confirmed that Members had earlier given approval for this site and this had been called in by the Secretary of State. The Inspectors report had found no justification in the short term, but this site formed part of the choices that Members could make.
• Questions were asked about the Clifton Moor site and its potential. Officers highlighted the success of the Eco Business Centre, despite the views of the consultant and felt that this site, with the right conditions, was not a closed door.
• With regard to the Clifton Moor site, Members asked whether Entec had visited all the sites, as members had been disappointed with the description of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.