Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability, and to question the Cabinet Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.2.1.

Council received a written report from Councillor Merrett, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability.

 

Notice had been received of nineteen questions on the report submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  The first four questions were put and answered as follows and Councillor Merrett undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions

 

(i)      From Cllr Watt

 

“Will the Cabinet Member explain why he has failed to honour the commitment made by the Labour Group to the people of York – through its support for the Council’s motion to respect the responses of York’s residents to the Local Plan Preferred Options consultation – by his issuing a Further Sites Consultation that confirms a disregard for the public’s consultation submissions?”

 

The Cabinet Member replied:

“Clearly Councillor Watt hasn’t understood, or doesn’t wish to, the nature of the recent limited supplementary consultation, despite sitting on the Local Plan working group where officers explained the purpose of this limited additional consultation in detail,  which is about ensuring that additional sites that have been submitted as part of the initial consultation or where there have been significant changes to existing proposed sites that they are consulted on, so we can consider the whole set of responses both to the original consultation and in regard to these additional sites on the same basis. The public response to both the Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation and the Further Sites consultation are being used to inform the drafting of the revised Publication Draft Local Plan version, which will come back to members and be subject itself to consultation later this year.”

 

 

(ii)     From Cllr Aspden

 

“Could the Cabinet Member detail how many recharges have taken place at each point since they were installed and what is the breakdown of users by council/public sector and private residents/businesses?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“The six electric vehicle charging points installed by City of York Council in Council car parks and Park&Ride sites have been used 212 times since activation in October 2013.

62001 – 35 uses

62002 – 45 uses

62003 – 23 uses

62004 – 85 uses

62005 – 9 uses

62006 – 24 uses

Usage by Council of electric pool car is on-site at Ecodepot, not public charge point so the usage has been by private residents/visitors/businesses.”

 

(iii)    From Cllr Doughty

 

“Referring to the Local Plan Extra Sites Consultation, how does the Cabinet Member propose to engage with residents' perceptions that the Labour administration is encouraging developers to bring forward proposals for development on proposed 'safeguarded land' prior to the Local Plan having been adopted, leaving residents to believe these developments are 'done deals'?”

 

The Cabinet Member replied:

“I’m happy to make absolutely clear that no decision has yet been made on the final portfolio of sites for inclusion in the Publication Draft Local Plan.  This will be considered by Members later this year.  Any discussion with developers and landowners are carefully placed in the content of the current stage of plan development, and are in order to get them to demonstrate sufficient thought and evidence that their sites address the Government’s requirements that proposed sites for inclusion are viable and deliverable, and meet the required housing trajectories. However we cannot control what individual landowners and developers say and claim about what they hope might happen with their sites. I hope Councillor Doughty and the Conservative Group and outer York MP will now correct some of the misleading information they have been giving to residents on this issue, and explain to their residents that this is what their conservative government requires us to do.”

 

(iv)    From Cllr Reid

 

“Could the Cabinet Member outline exactly what the £10,000 secured for the Home Energy Programme will deliver?”

 

The Cabinet Member replied:

“The purpose of this project is to save residents money on their fuel bills, through two different streams of work: 1.switching energy tariffs via the CYC/ iChoosr Big Community Switch and 2. using less energy in the home.

1)   Saving money by switching energy. This funding part supports a dedicated resource for helping residents  save money by switching energy providers. It capitalises on the momentum built from the first switching scheme in December 2013 to February 2014, where 743 people registered and 242 people switched (a 32% conversion rate, which is significantly higher than the national average of 22%). The next two scheduled switches are August 2014 and January 2015.

2)   Behavioural changes. There are simple, practical actions that anyone can do around the home, with possible savings of £280 a year[1]. This funding also helps support a dedicated officer to reach the community through face-to-face advice is an invaluable way to disseminate the messages

This project is city-wide but has a particular focus on specific areas in need and currently experiencing fuel poverty and / or living in an energy inefficient home.”

 

(v)     From Cllr Steward

 

“In light of the comments of Nick Boles MP, the Planning Minister, regarding housing targets, re: that the Council is required to  “demonstrate ...  reasons  it needs to supply those numbers [of houses], which cannot be that it is ambitious or that it is going for growth. If it has no good arguments or good evidence, it is a Plan to meet not need but ambition and dreams, which is… not what plans are meant to do” and also that “a vaulting ambition is not a sufficient justification for threatening protected land. Ambition and the desire to grow faster than one’s neighbours or perhaps to build a small empire is not a sufficient justification for putting protections at risk,” will the Cabinet Member assure us that he and his officers will give serious consideration to reducing the housing targets within the proposed Local Plan to a more sustainable level and one that complements York’s actual housing needs and residents’ views?”

 

Reply:

“The Council are required to produce an Objective Assessment of Housing Need under the NPPF. This work is ongoing and will evidence the approach to housing in the Local Plan.

 

More specifically the NPPF indicates that local planning authorities should:

 

? use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;

? identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable11 sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. In fact, at last week’s meeting of Leeds City Region planning portfolio holders with him, he actually suggested that Council’s look to a 40% buffer to give them a margin against particular sites not coming forward as expected so they would still have a five year housing supply in place and therefore be able to resist unplanned housing sites coming forward;

? identify a supply of specific, developable12 sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.

 

We are doing exactly this, thereby hopefully avoiding the fate of a stream of other Conservative controlled Councils like Harrogate, who’ve pedalled illusions to their electorates that they can build minimally to protect green belts and who’ve been forced by the Conservative Governments National Planning Policy Framework via the planning inspectorate to withdrawn their plans because of their failure to provide adequate housing land supplies in their local areas.”

 

(vi)    From Cllr Firth

 

“Could the Cabinet Member outline the timetable for the next stage of the Local Plan and explainwhat exactly he means by “later in the year”?”

 

Reply:

 

“Clearly the exact timetable will be dependent on the response we receive to the Further Sites consultation, we would anticipate, however, reporting a Publication Draft Plan to Members in September. This would be followed by a City Wide Consultation.

(vii)   From Cllr Reid

 

“Could the Cabinet Member outline what York’s share of the £4.95million secured by Leeds City Council from the DECC is and what is York’s share of the 1000 vouchers connected to the Green Deal?”

Reply:

“Up to approx. £15k to refurbish and create a eco home in York which will support the promotion  of the Council’s new Green Deal programme (Paper on this new programme and delivery dates coming to Cabinet in October).  Up to approx. £15k will be provided in the form of free measures that will be installed in a home in York.  The 1000 vouchers will be on a first come first served basis.”

 

(viii)  From Cllr Aspden

 

“How can potential passengers exercise a preference to travel in an electric taxi and how are the services advertised?”

Reply:

“Services are advertised by the taxi firms directly.”

 

(ix)    From Cllr Hyman

 

“Would the Cabinet member confirm the dates of the Local Plan Working Group meetings at which residents will have the opportunity to make their views known before a final draft is prepared for the examination in public?”

Reply:

“Please refer to the response to question (vi) above.”

 

(x)     From Cllr Reid

 

“Whilst welcoming Labour’s commitment to continuing the Liberal Democrat programme of replacing the old 35 watt low pressure sodium lanterns to white LED lights, can the Cabinet Member outline who took the decision to turn off street lights in selected streets, when did they take it, where a cost analysis of the plan is, and how will residents be informed? As despite asking for this information on the 9th July I have yet to receive an answer.”

Reply:

“The operation of street lighting is the responsibility of my colleague Councillor Levene. I believe he would confirm that there are currently no schemes in place to turn off street lights in selected streets. 

 

Officers have taken a decision to reduce the lighting intensity in the early hours of the morning as part of the roll out of LED lights as this is now an option with these new lights that continues to meet the council’s statutory street lighting duties.  The roll out of LED lights with this capability was approved by the Executive Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods on 22^nd June 2010. Paragraph 13 indicated the use of more efficient lighting including LED’s to replace the existing low pressure sodium (SOX) lanterns.

The funding for the project is through the council’s capital investment programme and bids are submitted each year to support the works. In 2013/14 and 2014/15 the council provided £200k each year for the project. Due to the time taken to procure the supply of the LED lanterns it was not possible to install the LED’s in 2013/14 and therefore £160k was carried over into this year equating to £360k. This fund is being used to install the LED lanterns.”

(xi)      From Cllr Watt

 

“I ask the Cabinet member for environmental services, planning and sustainability matters why he continues to pursue a local plan that will devastate the environment in our rural areas by destroying open countryside that is needed for future food production; grossly exceeds foreseeable planning needs for economic growth and housing needs; and is not sustainable as evidenced by the daily near gridlock traffic in the Northern sector of York?”

 

Reply:

“The approach included within the Local Plan is designed to allow the City address the priorities of housing need and economic growth whilst ensuring that York’s unique built and natural environment is protected. The plan will consider the appropriate supporting infrastructure requirements and potential funding contributions from new developments via the new Community Infrastructure Levy process. You will also be aware of the major transport funding from the new Leeds City Region Combined Authority that will allow us to fund the Outer Ring Road upgrade if that is not sabotaged by you and your conservative colleagues.”

 

(xii)   From Cllr Steward

 

“When the Cabinet member comments that “the Authority has continued to engage with developers in York” and his discussion of sites that have already achieved planning permission, will he comment on the council’s relationship with potential developers of sites identified in the draft Local Plan, none of which are anywhere near to achieving planning permission?”

 

Reply:

“Please see the response to question 3.”

 

 

 

 

(xiii)  From Cllr Reid

 

“Is the Cabinet Member aware that most of the electric bus trips from the Poppleton Bar Park and Ride site have been running empty over the last 4 weeks?”

 

Reply:

“The delivery and operation of the Park & Ride sites is the responsibility of my colleague Councillor Levene. I believe he would confirm thatboth of the new Park & Ride services have been designed with greater capacity than that required at launch. It is anticipated that, in line with the way we set up other Park & Ride sites, usage will grow significantly as awareness of the Poppleton service grows.

 

	Month 1 trip numbers	Month 13 trip numbers	Month 25 trip numbers
Grimston Bar (1994):	3,889	14,525	21,891
Designer Outlet (2000):	9,606	18,495	21,524
Monks Cross (2004)	13,550	35,429	43,797
Poppleton Bar (2014)	9,148 (8/6/14  – 1/7/14)

 

 

(xiv)  From Cllr Steward

 

“Will he will acknowledge the deep concern within communities such as Earswick, Skelton and Rawcliffe, who are seeing eager developers already putting in the groundwork for planning applications, leading many residents to suspect an all-too-cosy relationship with the Council and worse still that these sites are already a ‘done deal’ and what is he seeking to do about it?”

 

Reply:

“Please see the response to question 3.”

 

(xv)   From Cllr Reid

 

“Given that the electricity used to recharge batteries does not all come from renewable sources (and hence add to carbon emission levels)why did the Cabinet Member authorize the opening of the Poppleton Bar Park and Ride site before it was finished?”

 

Reply:

“The delivery and operation of the Park & Ride sites is the responsibility of my colleague Councillor Levene. I believe he would confirm thatthe electric buses charge overnight at the First Depot in York. The electricity grid is off-peak at this time and of lower carbon intensity. There was a wind turbine in the design for Poppleton Bar however the supplier went out of business a month before installation. Officers are currently exploring alternative suppliers of renewable generation equipment for Poppleton Bar which could supply sufficient power for the on-site Rapid chargers which boost the range of the electric buses.

It would not be possible to provide all the energy for the buses from renewable sources without both renewable generation and energy storage capability at the present time. However to address Climate Change Act requirements, the Government intends to increase renewable energy generation over time, which lies behind the vehicle electrification strategy. Energy storage capability is also currently under development in the UK however there is not an available product which could be purchased currently.

Charging an electric bus from grid does however represent a 60% reduction in CO2/km compared to conventional diesel buses due to greater ‘Well to Wheel’ efficiencies, leave aside removing the diesel particulate from an air quality and health point of view.

In respect of the timing of the opening of the facility I understand this decision was taken by officers to open the park and ride at the earliest opportunity to maximise the benefit to the public whilst providing a safe environment.”

 

(xvi)  From Cllr Reid

 

“ How much will this depot cost to build and operate, who will pay for it, and why is it being located on a prominent Green Belt site?”

 

Reply:

“Assuming your reference to “this depot” actually refers to my comments on the compressed natural gas (CNG) / biomethane refuelling facility linked to a freight transhipment centre, then it will be for the site promoter to demonstrate the viability and deliverability of the site as part of the local plan process. However I am aware from past discussions that there is clear commercial interest in a freight transhipment centre in York from the logistics industry. The particular site that has been proposed is apparently the one and only location in York where the CNG supply pipe currently surfaces. It is also a brownfield site and obviously extremely well located relative to the principal road network.”

 

 

(xvii) From Cllr Reid

 

“A number of residents in my ward have asked when those who responded to last year’s consultation will receive feedback. Could the Cabinet Member confirm when this will happen?”

 

Reply:

 

“The report on the Publication draft Local Plan that will be considered by LPWG and Cabinet will include responses to the points raised by residents and others. As indicated in other responses the exact timing of these reports will be dependent on the level of response to the recently ended consultation but we currently anticipate September.”

 

(xviii) From Cllr Reid

 

“During the last 18 months over 90% of approved planning applications for housing in and around the city have been on brownfield sites. In the light of that continuing trend would he agree to include all potential brownfield building sites able to accommodate 2 or more housing units in the next draft of the Local Plan and would he also agree to reinstate the 10% windfall allowance (which he supported when it was included in the 2011 draft) and which recognises the volatile and changing nature of land use in the City?”

Reply:

“We will seek to use the maximum amount of brownfield land that passes the Government’s viability, deliverability and other tests. We will also reconsider the use of a windfall allowance in the light of the latest Government guidance.”

 

(xix)  From Cllr Reid

 

“How many houses have actually been completed (rather than just approved) for each of the following years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 and so far in 2014/15?”

Reply:

“As a result of a request for housing completions details from Cllr Reid for tonight’s Full Council Meeting, the table below provides both net and gross house completions levels for the previous three years.

 

Year	Completions	New Build	Net         Conversions /  COU	Net         Conversions	Net               Change of Use	Demolitions	Net Dwelling Gain
2011-2012	354	279	45	5	40	3	321
2012-2013	540	441	70	9	61	29	482
2013-2014	374	302	57	3	54	14	345
2011-2014	1268	1022	172	17	155	46	1148

 

Completions for this year’s monitoring period, 2014/15 (starting 1^st April 2014), are currently being compiled, however, these have not been confirmed and will only be verified after September of this year when a 6 monthly update has taken place based on site visits, Building Inspection Returns and contact with applicants/agents.”