Agenda item

Dave Caulfield, Head of City Development, and Martin Grainger, Principal Development Officer will explain about the LDF and how you can influence the planning of York’s future.

Dave Caulfield, Head of City Development, CYC, and Martin Grainger, Principal Development Officer, CYC.

Dave Caulfield introduced the Local Development Framework (LDF) to residents as part of the citywide consultation process currently underway. The following points were noted:

4.1 A leaflet explaining the LDF core strategy has been distributed to every household in the city and City of York Council is seeking residents’ responses by August 28^th.

4.2 The LDF is the planning strategy for the physical growth of the city of York over the next 20-25 years; it addresses the issue of achieving growth in population and the local economy while protecting the unique character of the city.

4.3 Some of the challenges the LDF seeks to address are: a projected population of 30,000 by 2030; an aging population; the need to provide 850 new homes every year; the creation of at least 1,000 new jobs every year, after the current recession; climate change – how to accommodate growth and minimise the impact on the environment; sustainable communities: achieving growth without creating a twin-track city.

4.4 The LDF Core Strategy consists of: planning vision; spatial strategy (identifying areas for growth); strategic policies (encouraging development of the right type).

4.5 The key elements of the planning vision are: protect the history and unique character of the city; maintain community cohesion; provide accessible services; establish a permanent green belt for the city; concentrate development in the main urban area; support appropriate levels of affordable housing; protect wildlife and the natural environment.

4.6 The key elements of the spatial strategy are: protecting York’s unique character and setting; concentrating development in areas well served by public transport and services; managing flood risk; protecting wildlife and habitats.

4.7 The strategy aims to maximise development opportunities in urban areas and minimise use of green field land, but due to a shortfall of 4,400 in the projected number of houses required, they have sought to identify areas in the draft greenbelt for development. This process has taken into account the importance of strays and the river; areas that retain a rural setting; existing green corridors; and areas at risk of flooding.

4.8 Having identified possible areas, they then sought to identify the locations that offered the most sustainable development. They identified several areas, which would be the preferred locations for development should it be required. According to current projections, the sites would not be needed until 2021 at the earliest.

4.9 Area A, the preferred choice for development, is the area to the North of Monks Cross; area B is east of Metcalfe Lane; area C, north of Hull Road, is preferred for light industrial development.

4.10 Under the strategic policies, CYC is committed to promoting high standards of design in future developments, helping to create a new layer of history that the city can be proud of.

 

Questions:

1 How will area B be accessed?

The response was given that more detailed transport modelling will be required in order to establish if sustainable development is deliverable in a given site, so much more research would be required into access to Area B.

 

2. Will the hedgerows be taken into account if roads have to be widened?

The response was given that the proposed areas would have 70% development and 30% open space. A robust analysis of the area would take into account hedgerows; before a location can go forward, it must be shown to be workable.

 

3. Would you agree that there is already a perceived greenbelt in York?

The response was given that there is a draft greenbelt.

 

4. Isn’t there enough land within the draft greenbelt to take us to 2024, at 850 houses per year? Isn’t it CYC that want to advance the LDF to 2030?

The response was given that according to projections there is sufficient land up to 2021. The LDF proposes to concentrate development in the existing built up area; additional windfall sites that may come forward could push back the date of the urban extension. The end date for the LDF is 2030 as when the green belt is set for the first time, boundaries must be set for 20 years.

 

5. The LDF opens the door to developers; isn’t it envisaged that the A64 would be the green belt boundary?

The response was given that this is not the case. 

 

6. Isn’t Q8 in the consultation document a loaded question? It is very difficult to remove areas from consideration once they’ve been published in the consultation document.

The response was given that the approach is to protect York’s landscape; CYC is not being pressured by developers. The areas in the document were passed only for the purposes of consultation.

 

7. Should the projected population of the city not be in the region of 245,000?

The response was given that the Regional Spatial Strategy includes a policy of population restraint for York.

 

8. The LDF consultation document was ratified by the Council Executive on May 26. The Executive were presented with two documents: option 1 was this document, and was supported by council officers; option 2, did not include development on green belt areas, and was supported by the LDF working group. Why wasn’t option 2 offered for consultation?

The response was given that the LDF had to take into account the Regional Spatial Strategy, which is a statutory document. Members wanted to consult the public on a strategy that could go forward. If the plan did not comply with the RSS, it would be found unsound at the public inquiry stage. The Executive amended the consultation document to enable consultation on issues such as inclusion of windfalls to meet the required housing numbers and the issue of developing in the draft green belt.

 

9. Why are you not allowed to include windfall sites in the projected housing figures?

The response was given that CYC believe they have a special case, and should be allowed to include windfall sites between 2025 and 2030. But the Inspector at the Public Inquiry stage will base their assessment on the regional plan.

 

10. I fear that we are all NIMBYs at heart. How does the consultation process take that into account?

The response was given that the Public Inquiry will consider all views.

(JM) I don’t agree with the LDF document, but developers could get access to all of the proposals that were made. Discounting Area B without consultation would undermine any plan.

 

11. Will officers listen to the results of the consultation?

The response was given that if people raise objections, officers have to come up with replies and, ultimately, members have to move it to the next stage.

 

12. What about Areas E and F?

The response was given that these sites have not been withdrawn but were included for consultation.

 

13. Regarding the changes in demographics in York, how is this being taken into consideration in relation to transport?

The response was given that the emphasis will be on mixed, sustainable communities. In the city centre, the action area plan focuses on accessibility. In terms of transport, they are working with Transport Planning to adopt softer modes of transport, planning for an aging population.

 

14. You mention that 70% of space is for development and 30 % is for open spaces; is this also applied in urban areas?

The response was given that this applies to sites over 5 hectares; it is assumed that sites under 5 hectares have an existing infrastructure.

 

15. We want to encourage social mobility; we don’t want social engineering to protect the green belt.

The response was given that City Development want the quality of life in urban areas to be comparable to that in suburban areas, with good quality housing. For this reason we are promoting 2/3 housing over flats.

 

16. Will the councillors back the local people if they reject the proposals?

The response was given that officers present a lot of evidence to members, and they are asked to take all of it into account.

 

17. Why are you defying an EU ruling in developing Derwenthorpe?

The response was given that this question cannot be addressed as part of a discussion on the LDF.

 

18. Are you working with York in Transition?

The response was given that the Eco Footprint of any future development was one of the key indicators to be taken into account, and fits with the bigger agenda of sustainable communities. DC pointed out that York is attempting to raise the standard of sustainability and become a leader in this area with the proposed development of the sugar site.

 

19. How do you address the problem of students - the fact that student housing is empty for three months of the year and the effect of this on communities?

The response was given that students are an asset to the city, though over-concentration can cause problems. A requirement to provide onsite accommodation for students is a condition for the future development of the university.

 

20. Why do we still have a draft green belt?

The response was given that the issue of fixing the green belt boundaries has been under discussion for 50 years. Once the plan is in place, it will be rigid.

 

21. Do neighbouring authorities have fixed green belts?

The response was given that the green belts have been set but the areas bordering York are largely open countryside.

 

22. Sites in Huntington were earmarked for development; are these still being considered?

The response was given that Huntington is site A on the LDF map, and therefore the preferred site for development. Without an established green belt, planning applications are scrutinised regionally; the LDF represents a plan-led approach that is available to developers rather than encouraging development on an ad hoc basis.

 

23. Will there be provision for a bus station?

The response was given that a bus interchange would be part of York Central development. There are debates about whether buses should have a central interchange or several different locations. The obvious location for a central interchange would be near the railway station; the priority is to help people shift between different forms of transport.

 

24. Does the LDF take into account the Parks and Open Spaces survey, which identifies a shortfall in open spaces in the east of the city?

The response was given that open space provision is taken very seriously. Planners are trying to use the Ings and green belt in a more positive way, providing access to existing open spaces. They are working with Natural England; the green infrastructure is as important as other infrastructure.

 

25. Wouldn’t area A create more problems in terms of transport, with people working in one area and living in another?

The response was given that in the east of the city was considered to offer the greatest sustainability in terms of transport.

 

26. What influence did the university have on the selection of sites B and C?

The response was given that the university had no input into the decision; it was recommended by consultants based on evidence. Site I is an alternative location for this development, so the university is not integral to it. The university did not ask for site C to be included. The advice from the Employment Land Review is available on the web.

 

27. Why not build on small sites around the city rather than two main blocks?

The response was given that we need to plan in a strategic way and it’s better to concentrate development in certain areas.

 

28. Has anyone looked at the finite size of the city, or conducted an Environmental Capacity Study?

The response was given that the view of planners is that the city can grow. The Local Development Framework is in effect a kind of Environmental Capacity Study.

 

29. The open space study also identified that there are no allotments in Osbaldwick.

The response was given that they are trying to find ways to address existing deficiencies and CYC Leisure are using the study to plan future strategy.