Agenda and minutes

To declare any personal / prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 13 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

  The following Members declared personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 13 of the Members Code of Conduct

  Councillor D Blackburn –  agenda item 8 – Leeds Local Development Framework – Revised Local Development Scheme - declared a personal interest  as a member of the West Leeds Gateway Regeneration Board, which had been consulted on the West Leeds Gateway Area Action Plan which was referred to in the report (minute 40 refers)

  Councillor Cleasby – agenda item 8 – Leeds Local Development Framework – Revised Local Development Scheme – declared a personal interest as a member of the Airport Consultative Committee, as reference was made in the report to Leeds/Bradford Airport (minute 40 refers)

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Carter and Councillor J Procter, who was substituted for by Councillor Latty

To approve the minutes from the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 2^nd January 2007

(minutes attached)

  RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 2^nd January 2007 be agreed

To consider a report of the Director of Development setting out the conclusions of UDP Policies consistent with Government advice and to recommend approval of which policies of the UDP should be ‘saved’ and which should be ‘deleted’, prior to approval by Executive Board and submission to the Secretary of State

(report attached)

  Members considered a report by the Director of Development setting out the conclusions of UDP policies consistent with Government advice and submitted a schedule of policies proposed to be ‘saved’ and those proposed to be ‘deleted’, for Members’ approval

  Officers presented the report and advised the Panel that those policies which would be saved would be done so for an indefinite period or until they were superseded by an LDF (Local Development Framework) document

  Over 680 policies had been examined by officers and tested against a set of criteria determined by the Government, as set out in the submitted report, with 131 policies being proposed for deletion.  The deletions were for a variety of reasons including that some policies were now contrary to national guidance, or that they were superfluous.  The Head of Planning and Economic Policy stated officers were of the view that no policy which could be regarded as being contentious was being deleted

  The Panel discussed the following matters:

·  whether there was an opportunity for a third party challenge to any deleted policies

·  the need for further clarification of some policies identified by a code, ie N01, N5, and the inclusion of a glossary of terms within the document

  Officers stated that there was nothing built into the process to allow for public consultation about which policies were saved/deleted, and that it was for Officers and the Government Office to decide

  RESOLVED – That the following be endorsed by Development Plan Panel

(i)  To approve the proposals to save and delete UDP policies as

set out in the schedules contained within the submitted report

(ii)  To recommend that the Executive Board approves the proposals

to save and delete UDP policies as set out in the schedules contained within the submitted report, for submission to the Secretary of State

To consider a report of the Director of Development setting out proposed updates, the ‘rolling forward’ and new injections into the current LDF LDS programme, with a recommendation that Development Plan Panel recommend that Executive Board approves the LDS for submission to the Secretary of State

(report attached)

  Members considered a report setting out proposed updates, the ‘rolling forward’ and new injections in to the current LDF Local Development Scheme programme.  Appended to the report was a revised LDS scheme dated March 2007

  Updated Development Plan Documents to reflect the latest changes in respect of Aire Valley Leeds AAP and West Leeds Gateway AAP were tabled at the meeting, together with a GANNTT chart

  Officers explained that Local Planning Authorities were now assessed in terms of the Planning Delivery Grant on how they performed in respect of the milestones set out in the LDF, and that officers had reviewed the timetable for the existing Leeds LDS and had made some revisions to this

  Four new strategic pieces of work had been put in place, these being Development Plan Documents relating to:

·  Greenspace/Housing and employment site allocation

·  Transport issues

·  Environment designations

·  Retail and Town Centre issues

Progress on the work programme would be reviewed yearly through

the Annual Monitoring Report, with timescales being adjusted further if necessary

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the timescales for the preparation of AAPs

·  travel plans and the monitoring arrangements for these

·  the retention of SPG relating to Supertram

·  whether a policy for road charging was being considered as part

of the LDS

Officers responded as follows:

·  regarding AAPs , four were currently being prepared but

consideration was being given to whether in some areas AAPs were the most effective tool to address certain issues, or whether a strategic context for broader policy issues, eg transport, might be more appropriate

·  on the monitoring of Travel Plans, it was considered that the

provision of a framework would help with better enforcement of them

·  whilst Supertram was not proceeding, the relevant SPG was

being retained as the Bus Rapid Transport was being considered and could utilise some of the routes set aside for Supertram.   Officers confirmed the policy would be kept under review

·  regarding road charging, the Council had not taken a view on

this matter, and the LDS would not be the mechanism to introduce any such policy

  RESOLVED –

  (i)  To note the updates and revisions to the Local Development Framework – Local Development Scheme, included as Appendix 1 of the submitted report and the comments now made

  (ii)  That Development Plan Panel recommend that Executive Board approve the updates and revisions to the Local Development Scheme included as Appendix 1 of the submitted report, for submission to the Secretary of State in due course

To consider a report setting out the Preferred Options in respect of the City Centre area, and seeking approval of the paper and the Panel’s  recommendation of its  approval by Executive Board

(report attached)

  The Panel considered a detailed report setting out the Preferred Options in respect of the city centre area, following the informal, Regulation 25 consultation process.  Notes of an informal consultation which took place on the CCAAP in October 2005 were tabled as additional background information

  Officers presented the report and highlighted the main points of the Preferred Options

  Members were informed that whilst Leeds had always been a commercial centre with leisure and retail facilities, due to the number of residential units which had, and were, emerging in the city centre, there was now an established residential use in the area.  This use was welcomed and added to the vitality and diversity of the city centre.  However, it was important that the commercial function of the area was not displaced, and that the 125,000 jobs within the city centre needed to be sustained to support the other functions

  Regarding the size of the city centre, the Panel was informed that consultation had been carried out last year on whether this should be extended on three corners, these being at Kirkstall Road, Mabgate and South Accommodation Road.  Varying responses had been received with one view being that the city centre should remain compact, ie walkable, whereas some land owners considered that extensions to the city centre should be made as these would add to the renaissance of the city

  Research on the amount of office space likely to be required in the city centre had formed the view that the city boundary need not be extended to include the Kirkstall Renaissance Area.  However, unless office development can be allowed at ground floor levels, the regeneration of the area will be thwarted as the flood risk in this area would preclude ground floor residential uses.  Therefore, the area should be included within the city centre but with the scale of office uses strictly limited

  The need to attract families to live in or near the city centre had been identified and proposals were included which would secure an amount of larger residential units with private amenity space within developments

  To ensure there were good transport links and to enable office accommodation to remain in the city centre, connectivity and accessibility was fundamental.  The CCAAP highlighted the importance of buses as a solution to transport congestion, with bus interchanges being proposed on the edges of the city centre to improve bus movement and circulation

  Members commented on the following matters:

• that the proposed extension of the city centre boundary to Kirkstall Road was unrealistic and that it was too far from the hub of the facilities within the city centre

• that family housing should be of a more human scale than was currently being built

• concerns that a residential area outside of the city centre boundary was marked as possible long stay commuter parking, and the view this should be considered for Affordable Housing

• the need for good linkages and the provision of health and education facilities in areas of family housing

• how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Tuesday 24^th April 2007 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  Tuesday 24^th April 2007 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds