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.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.  No interests were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on Tuesday 15July 2008.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on 15 July 2008 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

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 Friday 1 August 2008.

It was reported that there had been one registration to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Mark Waters addressed the meeting, on behalf of the Friends of Osbaldwick Meadows.  He expressed the view that the Derwenthorpe development had caused a massive shortfall in green open space in the urban east side of York, particularly in Osbaldwick Ward, and asked what the Council proposed to do to alleviate this shortfall.

This report seeks approval to publish the full ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study’. The written study and large scale maps are available in the Members Library and an electronic version of the written study is available online.

Members considered a report which sought approval to publish the full ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study’ as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) evidence base.  The Study had been made available to view on-line and printed copies, including large scale maps, had been circulated to Members.

The Study, produced in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance note 17 (PPG 17) and its companion guide, assessed open spaces of public value which offered important opportunities for sport and recreation.  A previous version had been considered by the LDF Working Group on 8 January 2008, when a decision had been deferred pending further work to analyse area boundaries and consult on potential additional sites for inclusion in the Study.  This work had now been concluded and 68 additional sites had been included in the revised Study, together with a reconsideration of the standards.  .  The revised version also addressed concerns raised by Members on 8 January with regard to ‘Accessible Countryside’, green corridors and setting local quantity standards.

Three options were presented for Members’ consideration:

Option 1 – recommend approval of the Study for publication as part of the LDF evidence base;

Option 2- seek amendments to the Study prior to publication;

Option 3- request further work from Officers.

Members also received a presentation from PMP, the consultants who had produced the Study, reminding them of the purpose of PPG17 and outlining the methodology following during the assessment and the key findings resulting from this process.

Following questions and a full debate, the following recommendations and comments were agreed (by reference to the headings in the Executive Summary of the Study document and to the document appendices):

a)            Current position (p.ii):

-         should take into account the low satisfaction levels expressed by residents in some areas regarding the quantity of local parks;

-         needs to clarify that the standards do not preclude additional provision in the future in areas where further development occurs;

-         should consider whether all of the areas classified as ‘amenity green spaces’ are in fact usable as such -  Officers should review previous Member comments and, in some cases, review sites.

b)            Access (p.vi):

-         should take account of the fact that sites within the City Centre sites are accessible to those working as well as residing there.

-         the issue of ‘financial accessibility’ - not just distance - when setting local standards was noted;

-         the word ‘areas’ should be removed from the 3^rd bullet point.

c)            Quantity (p.vi, 1^st bullet point):

-         amend to reflect the actual levels of satisfaction with parks expressed by residents, as previously highlighted (see ‘a’ above).

d)         Parks and gardens (p.viii, 6^th bullet point):

-         query whether the upgrading of amenity green spaces would meet the need for parks in urban areas as suggested (the issue of size was highlighted), and what is meant by the ‘Acomb and Woodthorpe area’ – i.e. does it refer to wards or another type of geographical area?

e)            Amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.