Agenda and minutes

At this point, 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.

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the register of interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interest which they might have in respect of the business on the agenda. No additional interests were declared.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Tuesday 7 October 2014.  Members of the public can speak on agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register to speak please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of the agenda.

Filming, Recording or Webcasting 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 sound 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 (whose contact details are 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/downloads/download/3130/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings

It was reported that there had been one registration to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that a Member of the Council had also requested to speak.

Mr Charlesworth, representing Earswick Action Group, expressed concern at the inclusion of a safeguarded site (SF14) at Earswick.  He stated that the inclusion of the site made the plan unsound as it did not take into account infrastructure overload and did not meet the “exceptional circumstances” test for use of green belt land.  Mr Charlesworth stated that ten villages had formed an alliance to challenge the inclusion of any safeguarded sites.  He requested that their concerns be heeded and that the proposals in respect of Earswick and other villages be removed from the plan.

Councillor Watt expressed concerns regarding the inclusion of sites in or near Skelton.  He stated that housing targets in the plan were unrealistic and unachievable.  He urged that the Plan be referred back to Cabinet to enable Members to work together to address concerns that had been raised.

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet at their meeting held on 25 September 2014 in relation to the above item, which has been called in firstly by Councillors Steward, Watt and Doughty and secondly by Councillors Aspden, Ayre and Cuthertson  in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of Cabinet

Members considered a report which asked them to consider the decisions made by Cabinet at their meeting held on 25 September 2014, in relation to publication of the Draft Local Plan and Proposals Map.  Cabinet had been asked to consider whether the Local Plan Publication Draft and Proposals Map should be published for statutory consultation in accordance with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 (S12012/767).

Details of the Cabinet’s decision were attached as Annex A to the report and the original report to the Cabinet attached as Annex B.  The decision had firstly been called in by Councillors Steward, Watt and Doughty on the grounds that:

·        “The plan fails to reflect the importance of the unique protections York was given when the Regional Spatial Strategy was abolished and from this incorrect presumption proposes too much building on the Greenbelt and building which is well in excess of the exceptional circumstances required.

·        The plan is according the lead cabinet member Cllr Dave Merrett a ‘very ambitious plan’, which is in contrast to the legislation which requires plans to be about need rather than ambition.

·        The proposed level of growth of approximately 1,000 dwellings a year (996 according to the draft) is more than required by the council’s own supporting data regarding future population, employment and housing needs.  It is driven by a philosophy of “growing the economy” in a way which is in no way proven to be sustainable.

·        The draft fails to take account in any meaningful way of the public consultation responses to the Preferred Options and Further Sites.

·        The plan continues to plan for safeguarded land beyond the life of the plan when there is no requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for this. Local Authorities are only required to provide viable and deliverable sites for years 1-5 of the Local Plan and only “broad locations for growth” for years 5-15 and there is absolutely no requirement for a 25 year plan with specific sites.

·        The NPPF is clear that previous under delivery should be accounted for by the 20% buffer in the first five years and nowhere does it state that local planning authorities should also make provision for an inherited shortfall (or backlog) and annualise it over the plan period as the City of York Council has done. As a result, the housing trajectories are 126 dwellings higher each year than is necessary.

·        The NPPF states that where there is a record of under delivery, local planning authorities should deploy a buffer supply of 20% for 5 years “moved forward from later in the plan period”. The proposed buffer supply is being proposed in addition to later years’ allocations, rather than being taken from them.

·        The plan does not provide a true or robust justification for the Freight Consolidated Centre on the A1237 and its proposed removal from the Greenbelt.

·        The proposed solar sites are in contradiction of government legislation which discourages them in rural open countryside.

·        The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.