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.

At this point in the meeting Members were asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

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 29 October 2010.

There were three registrations to speak under the Council’s public participation scheme

A representative of Meadland’s Residents Group spoke in support of Issue 3 Option 1 in the Core Strategy report and urged Members to protect York’s Green Belt.

A Member of the Public spoke in relation to the LDF Working Group meeting on 6^th September. He advised that other local authorities respond to residents concerns relating to houses of multiple occupation and urged City of York Council to do the same.

A Member of the Public spoke to raise concerns regarding the Transport implications document and the lack of mention of climate change. He referred Members to the report by Alan Simpson which highlights the importance of more parks and open spaces for the City. He cited Harrogate as a town which is a leader in environmental management.

This report provides a progress update on the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) and outlines the next steps for 8 key area of work that are required to complete the Preferred Options document.

Members considered a progress report on the City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) which outlined the next steps for 8 key areas of work that are required to complete the Preferred Options document. The areas of work include:

• Review of the conclusions of the York Economic Vision report to consider if and how best to incorporate these into the AAP.
• Production of the Conservation Area Appraisal and incorporation of the findings into the AAP.
• Production of the City Centre Movement and Accessibility Framework and incorporation of the findings into the AAP.
• Public realm and key sites analysis and options.
• Analysis of the deliverability of the preferred option.
• Finalising the submission Core Strategy section on the City Centre.
• Drafting the preferred options document.
• The Sustainability Appraisal of the document.

The report was intended as an update to make Members aware of the current situation.

Members then raised the following issues:

•  Air Quality should be considered in the City Centre Movement and Accessibility document.
• Whether Officers are assessing the deliverability of the proposals of the economic visioning work.
• Concern at the timing of the consultation in relation to some of the above items of work.
• Whether Micklegate should be considered in the City Centre Movement and Accessibility document.
• Progress of discussions regarding the Castle Piccadilly site

RESOLVED:             That Members noted the report.

REASON:                  To help progress the Area Action Plan to its next stage of development.

This report presents the analysis of the implications for transport arising from the proposed growth assumptions within the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. It suggests investment in transport infrastructure and other measures that would be necessary to support the projected growth in employment and housing.

Members considered a report which presented the analysis of the implications for transport arising from the proposed growth assumptions within Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy. The report also suggested investments in transport infrastructure and other measures that would be necessary to support the projected growth in employment and housing.

Officers advised that the report followed on from the LDF Preferred Options Topic Paper 3 – Transport prepared by Halcrow in June 2009. The key outcomes for York as gathered from the analysis were outlined at paragraph 4 of the report.

Members made the following comments:

• It would be useful for Members to have further detail on what the impact would be if more people were commuting into the City due to a lack of housing.
• Certain Members queried whether information on the impact of Carbon Dioxide due to traffic growth would be included in the final report.
• The recommendations from the recent Traffic Congestion Scrutiny Final report should be noted by Officers especially in relation to bus services and the scale of investment required and innovative forms of funding.
• Shifts in vehicle types to non-carbon models would be effective in York in relation to air quality and should be encouraged as early as possible.
• Members acknowledged that Government funding will be a major issue and will affect what can realistically be achieved in York.

Members suggested that the proposed approach detailed at paragraph 68 of the report be amended to include the following bullet points:

• Put together and seek a major funding bid to tackle congestion.
• Earliest Introduction of non-carbon fuel based transport as soon as possible.

RESOLVED: (i)         That Members noted the content of the report.

 (ii)That the proposed approach outlined at paragraph 68 of the report be amended to include the additional bullet points as detailed above.

REASON:                  To enable the transport implications and transport investment requirements to be taken into account in preparing the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

This report follows on from the report considered by Members on 4 October 2010 which highlighted a series of issues relating to the Core Strategy arising from the changing policy context, specifically seeking Members’ views on potential alterations to the spatial strategy component of the LDF Core Strategy.

Members considered a report which followed on from a report presented to them on 4^th October which highlighted a series of issues relating to the Core Strategy arising from the changing policy context, specifically seeking Members views on potential alterations to the spatial strategy component of the LDF Core Strategy.

The report, following on from the 4^th October meeting considered further the following issues:

• The level of future housing;
• The level of future employment land provision; and
• Options for identifying the extent of York’s Green Belt.

In addition it also considered the implications of different levels of housing growth on Affordable Housing delivery and included information on the potential issues surrounding the soundness of the plan.

Members put forward the following comments:

The Level of Future Housing

Members considered the implications of levels of growth against need, implications on affordable housing levels and the potential implications for The Green Belt.

Discussions were also had on the inclusion of windfalls. There was a acceptance that York benefited from windfalls but the key issue discussed was the potential levels relative to Government guidance and the need to prove acceptable at enquiry.

The majority of the group supported the lower levels of housing (around 569 pa). Officers were asked to look at the further reallocation of employment sites for housing and to consider whether higher densities could be achieved towards the end of the plan period. Some Members raised opposition to this figure.

The Level of Future Employment Land Provision

• Members supported the continuation of up to 1,000 jobs pa.
• Members reiterated that in respect of Northminster (Area of Search I) and the existing employment allocation it would be prudent to identify and safeguard some land for employment in that area.
• Members referred Officers to their comments made at the last meeting particularly relating to proposed area of search ‘C’ and North Selby Mine.

Options for identifying York’s Green Belt

Members agreed on Option 1 – to retain the existing draft Green Belt in line with citywide consultation responses.

RESOLVED: (i)That Members instructed Officers on the future approach to be taken through LDF Core Strategy as outlined above.

(ii)That Members instructed Officers to seek legal advice with regard to the issue of ‘Soundness’ of any proposed future approach for the LDF Core Strategy.

REASON:      (i) To help progress the LDF Core Strategy to its next stage of development.

                      (ii) To help progress the LDF Core Strategy to its next stage of development.