Agenda item

This report requests that the LDF Working Group recommend to the Executive approval of the LDF Allocations DPD Issues and Options document for consultation.

Members considered a report which presented the Issues and Options stage of the Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and asked them to decide whether they wished to make any changes to the DPD before recommending that it be approved by the Executive for consultation purposes.

Officers highlighted the following proposed amendments to the draft DPD attached as Annex A to the report:

• Paragraph 9.5 in Section 9, ‘Waste and Minerals’ - include a reference to a mechanical and biological treatment facility, and add a definition of this facility to the glossary at page 52 of the document.
• Site map for Monks Cross North in Maps Section 3, at page 44 - amend the ‘existing use’ information to reflect the current planning situation.
• Response Form at the end - include questions relating to age, gender, disability and ethnicity, in accordance with advice from Equalities Officers (all responses to these questions will be treated as confidential).

Members recommended the following amendments to the consultation process and to the document at Annex A:

(i)                 The amendments highlighted by Officers and recorded above.

(ii)               An extension to the consultation period indicated in paragraph 11 of the report, from 6 weeks to 8 weeks.

(iii)             In Section 1, ‘Introduction’:

·        Explain the context of the consultation proposals in terms of available resources, related Council strategies, the Council’s corporate sustainability priorities and the evidence base.

(iv)              In Section 2, ‘How to Get Involved’:

·        Add the words ‘if possible’ to the end of the sentence at paragraph 2.2, as respondents may not have this information.

(v)                In Section 3, ‘What Makes a Good Site for Development:

·        Amend Figure 2 to reflect the Council’s current transport policies more clearly and to make the text clearer and more readable.

(vi)              In Section 4, ‘Green Belt and Settlement Limits:

·        Amend paragraph 4.7 to reflect the Local Plan position regarding the coalescence of settlements.

·        Amend paragraph 4.8 to refer to outline the Local Plan position regarding permanence.

(vii)            In Section 5, ‘Housing’:

·        Amend paragraph 5.7 to reflect the current debate over the interpretation of PPS3 in relation to allowances for ‘windfalls’.

·        Re-word paragraph 5.8 to make it less specific to certain sites.

(viii)          In Section 6, ‘Employment’:

·        Amend paragraph 6.2 to clarify that the recommendations of the Future York Group have not been adopted by Council.

·        Include a paragraph under Table 6.2 to clarify the position regarding those land uses identified as ‘negative’ additional need (C and E in the table).

·        Amend paragraph 6.28 to strengthen the ‘caveat’ against the London Bridge site, on the grounds of sustainability, the protection of the historic character and setting of the city and why it was previously rejected.

(ix)              In Section 7, ‘Retail’:

·        Amend paragraph 7.4 to clarify why and how York needs to remain ‘competitive’ in terms of retail growth.

·        Amend paragraph 7.12 to emphasise the strategic requirement to cater for the retail needs of York Central and British Sugar sites.

·        Expand on Key Issue R1 to draw out more general comments about the kind of shopping that people want in York.

(x)                In Section 8, ‘Transport’:

·        Include a general caveat to emphasise that it will not be possible to adopt all proposed schemes.

·        Paragraph 8.12 - Officers to consult with colleagues in Transport Planning as to whether to include sites at Strensall, Copmanthorpe York Hospital and White Rose Business Park in the potential stops / railway halts for the tram-train scheme.

·        Key Issue T4 – clarify what is meant by the ‘transport interchange in the general station area’.

·        Key Issue T5 – define ‘junction improvements’ and make question 2 more specific.

·        Include existing and potential cycle routes on the map at section 5 of the Map Annex.

·        Show the potential York Northwest access routes for information and the bridge links across the Ouse as set out in the Local Plan, on the map in section 5 of the Map Annex.

(xi)              In Section 9, ‘Waste and Minerals’:

·        Paragraph 9.6 – amend date if bid is to come forward earlier.

·        Table 9.4  - consider including separate criteria for household waste sites.

(xii)            In Section 10, ‘Other Uses’:

·        Education – check with colleagues in Children’s Services on whether to include the issue of potential alternative school sites.

·        Paragraph 10.8 – remove the word ‘professional’ from the 4^th bullet point.

·        Open Space, paragraph 10.11 – amend to put more emphasis on provision for play.

·        Key Issue O3 – amend question to encourage suggestions on how to address any shortages of open space provision.

(xiii)          In Maps Section 2 (Housing):

·        Site ref. H/002 – amend boundary to reflect planning approval for housing on part of site.

·        Site ref. H/016 – amend text under ‘potential use’ to read “this site will be considered as part of the York Northwest AAP.”

·        Site ref. H/017 – cross-reference to open space use.

In respect of question no.1 in the list under Key Issue WM1 in Section 9, relating to household waste recycling sites, Cllr Merrett proposed, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, a motion in the following terms:

“That the two sites at Rufforth (Options A and B) be removed from the consultation on this section, as they are inappropriate for this use on the grounds of accessibility, sustainability and their location in the Green Belt.”

This motion was then put to the vote.  Four Members voted for and four against the motion.  Cllrs D’Agorne and Waller abstained from the vote.  The Chair then used her casting vote against the motion, which was accordingly declared lost.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the draft Issues and Options Allocations DPD at annex A to the report be referred to the Executive with a recommendation that it be approved for public consultation, subject to the changes agreed by the Working Group and recorded above.¹

REASON:      So that the Allocations DPD can be progressed to its next stage of development, as highlighted in the Council’s Local Development Scheme.

                        (ii)        That authority be delegated to the Director of City Strategy, in consultation with the Executive and Shadow Executive Members for City Strategy, to make any incidental changes to the draft document that are necessary as a result of the recommendations of the Working Group.²

REASON:      So that the changes recommended as a result of discussions at this meeting can be made and the report can progress through to the Executive.

                        (iii)       That authority be delegated to the Director of City Strategy, in consultation with the Executive and Shadow Executive Members for City Strategy, to approve the Sustainability Statement to accompany the Issues and Options document consultation.³

REASON:      So that the report and accompanying document can progress through to the Executive.

                        (iv)       That authority be delegated to the Director of City Strategy, in consultation with the Executive and Shadow Executive Members for City Strategy, to approve a Consultation Strategy that will set out the Issues and Options consultation methodology.⁴

REASON:      To ensure that the proposed methods of consultation are satisfactory to Members.