Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on the following applications for long stay city centre commuter car parks:

(Reports attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report on 16 applications relating to the provision of city centre commuter car parking. The report also addressed the purpose and status of the City Centre Commuter Car Parking Policy (CCCCP Policy) and how this had been applied as a material consideration in the assessment of each of the applications.

Members had regard to the CCCCP policy which set out the basis for granting consent to applications for a maximum of 3,200 temporary commuter car parking spaces within the city centre core and fringe car parking areas for a period of 5 years. The submitted applications totalled 4568 spaces. Members were therefore aware of the assessment criteria and the competing nature of the 16 applications before them

The Head of Planning Services outlined the procedure to be adopted for this Panel meeting and stated that of the 4568 spaces proposed in the applications, 3391 were currently in use. The applications had been assessed on their merits in line with the Policy. It was noted that the cap of 3200 spaces had been reached taking the comments of the Highways Authority regarding highways safety and the capacity of the strategic highway network into account.

The Legal Adviser reminded Members that a comparative assessment of each of the applications was required and therefore it was essential that all Members remained in the meeting throughout in order to have any part in the necessary voting

The Area Planning Manager, Central Area Team, set out the relevant polices within the Unitary Development Plan and presented the background to the introduction of the CCCCP strategy. Executive Board had agreed the CCCCP Policy and the criteria by which to assess any applications as stated in Appendix 1. A team including officers from the Highways Authority and Leeds City Council (landscaping, highways and planning) had carried out a comparative assessment of each application and had ranked them in order of those that best met the preference criteria as shown in Appendix 3. This showed that the 11 highest scoring applications were recommended for approval, the remaining 5 lowest scoring applications were recommended for refusal. It was noted that the total recommended for approval would still exceed the cap – but by a marginal number (18 spaces)

Members paused at this point to consider the policy framework for the decision making and discussed the following:

-  Any one of the 16 applications would be considered acceptable providing they were within the cap of 3200 as the Highways Authority did not consider any proposal to have an adverse impact on the strategic highway network.

-  The difference between the strategic highways network (Highways Agency) and the input of the local highways authority (LCC) regarding local highway network issues.

-  The assessment criteria and the weighting given to some criteria. Some Members commented that public safety (in terms of lighting/CCTV/natural surveillance) and biodiversity were of equal importance to the highways assessment

-  Noted that Executive Board could not have predicted that all applications received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68