Agenda item

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered to speak can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00pm on Wednesday 18 October 2017.  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 that, subject to available resources, this meeting will be filmed and webcast, or recorded, including any registered public speakers, who have given their permission.

This broadcast can be viewed at http://www.york.gov.uk/webcasts.

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/download/downloads/id/11406/protocol_for_webcasting_filming_and_recording_of_council_meetings_20160809.pdf

It was reported that there had been 3 registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that 3 Members of Council had also requested to speak.  The registrations were in respect of the following items:

Minerals and Waste Joint Plan

Kit Bennett stated he had previously made representations and raised concerns regarding a number of the proposed amendments outlined within the report, namely PC 62, 63, 66, 70, 79 and 80 which he perceived had been disregarded.  He stated that whilst these amendments were presented as minor changes, they would increase the vulnerability of the Local Plan to the harmful effects of unconventional hydrocarbon development, including fracking.

He asked that the amendments to PC 62, 63, 66, 70 and 80 be reversed, as the previous version was clearer and offered better protection from harmful environmental effects.  This could be done without the need for further consultation as the previous version of the Plan had been consulted on.  He stated that by doing this, the Council could protect our region from misleading definitions of fracking and unconventional hydrocarbons,

Mr Bennett referred to concerns as to buffer zones around homes not being large enough, the lack of buffer zones around Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), the wording of the plan not being strong enough around hydrocarbon development, and a lack of consideration of climate change.

He perceived that none of these concerns were taken into account and the amendments made and were listed as minor changes, could make the area more vulnerable to unconventional hydrocarbon development .

Mr Bennett felt that the officer responses in Annex B of the documents on the agenda did not address the issues he raised.  He stated that he was aware that this issue had been discussed at the Local Plan Working Group (LPWG) and he was glad to see the Head of Strategic Planning give some clarification regarding the Infrastructure Act definition not being adopted in this Plan. However he added that it was still vital to clarify what was meant by conventional and unconventional resources as put in PC 62, as this would leave the region very vulnerable to fracking under the guise of not fracking 

Disposal of Willow House

·        Councillor Craghill asked that this item be deferred for further consideration, raising concerns as to the protection of land adjacent to Walmgate Bar currently used as public open space. 

Further concerns were raised over the decision making process regarding the choice of bid.  Councillor Craghill questioned why it was necessary to accept the highest bid, given that from her analysis of capital sales, it appeared that the £4m target for the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme had already been exceeded.

She added that the area was saturated with student accommodation, and there was a need for further consideration to evaluate the impact on local residents and on council priorities, as it appeared that priority was being placed on the provision of student accommodation over care beds.

·        Councillor Flinders referred to the lack of green spaces within the City and highlighted that many people within the Walmgate area lived in flats and terraced gardens that did not have large gardens.  He added that the land adjacent to Walmgate Barr was well used by residents and referred to research on the positive impact that proximity to green space in urban areas had on mental health.

He highlighted that a recent event had been attended by ward councillors and 30 local residents who opposed the sale of the green space. 

Councillor Flinders stated that whilst he recognised the need to recycle council assets and did not oppose the sale of Willow House, there had to be a balance.  He concluded that the sale of this important green space would adversely affect the community and  asked that the decision be deferred to evaluate alternative options.

·        Councillor Pavlovic asked why the Council was not prioritising the building of social housing on this and other sites as they became available, given York’s housing needs.

Councillor Pavolic stated that if it was not possible to build social housing on the site, then the next best option would be for older persons’ accommodation.  He expressed surprise that only £995k in capital receipts had been accrued from the sales of other care homes, given the sale prices of £1.8 m for Oliver House and £1.6 m for Grove House.  He asked for an explanation for the differences between these sums and the £995k outlined in the Capital Programme.

He referred to the recent planning application for the re-development of the Carlton Tavern and the proposal for a care home which identified a shortfall of 672 care home beds within the City by 2020.   Councillor Pavlovic concluded that the Council had missed a key opportunity to deliver key objectives and provide care home bids, by rejecting a from a reputable provider that was £500k less than the recommended bid within the report.

York Central Access Road

Benjamin Hall, a resident and member of Friends of Holgate Community Garden, referred to the essential green space within a thriving community which would be devastated if the Southern option access route be forward by the York Central Partnership to the Executive for decision.

He stated that there had been overwhelming objection to this option during the consultation, further demonstrated by an online petition to save the Holgate Community Garden which had received 1,200 signatures and the recent ‘Make Some Noise’ event.  He asked that the Council and Partnership take note of this community feeling and that the Southern option be rejected.

Mr Hall added that the second aim of the community organisation was to safeguard the garden and park for future generations.  With the threat of the road removed, Holgate Community Gardens would need to be protected.  This would mean removal from the Local Plan Development site and steps taken to recognise it as an asset.

Matters Within the Remit of the Committee

Louise Ennis stated that she was representing members of the public and heritage planning professionals, who wished to express concerns as to irregularities that questioned the legitimacy of the planning decision taken regarding the Carlton Tavern on 18 October 2017.  These related particularly to Principles A and B of the Council’s Code of Governance.

Ms Ennis stated that there had been minimal consultation prior to the decision and that key evidence had been missing and misinformation uncorrected during the meeting.  She added that scrutiny should be applied to the Committee’s composition and expressed concerns as to the process which affected a finely balanced outcome.  She stated that she was representing strong calls for a review and annulment of the decision pending a further vote with full membership of the committee once key evidence had been provided.  She also highlighted that concerns from a number of individuals and organisations are likely to lead to a judicial review.