Agenda and minutes

There were no appeals.

There was no exempt information.

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31  of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

No declarations were made.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor K Maqsood and Councillor L Mulherin who was due to attend for Agenda Item 8, Housing Mix – Recommendation Tracking.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2020.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2020 be confirmed as a correct record.

It was reported that there had still not been an update with regards to the proposed improvements at Morley Train Station.  Officers agreed to pursue this.

To receive an update on the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from the local Flood Risk Manager.

The report of the Flood Risk Manager provided the Board with an update on the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Jonathon Moxon, Flood Risk Manager and Councillor Mohammed Rafique, Executive Member were in attendance for this item.

Members were reminded that the Council had a statutory responsibility as the local Flood Authority and had to provide a flood strategy.  This was last refreshed in 2018 and is brought to the Board every year to check on progress.

The following was highlighted

·  Updates on phase two of the Flood Alleviation Scheme.

·  The biggest test this year in February during Storm Ciara and then Storm Dennis which were close to causing flood incidents - some of the defences installed had worked well including the movable weirs installed in the city centre during phase 1 Flood Alleviation Scheme works.

·  Inspection of flood defences and drainage.

·  Work with Planning as part of the flood risk strategy.

·  Hawthorn Terrace scheme in Garforth was completed during the past year.  This was the first scheme that had some funding from Highways England.

·  Completion of the Wykebeck Phase One scheme – this also provided a much improved greenspace and a new reservoir.

·  Mickletown Flood Alleviation Scheme – this would be delivered wholly through developer funding

·  Otley FAS – this was due to start in the New Year.

·  The FAS 2 scheme had now got full funding and schemes would enhance those delivered in phase 1.

In response to comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  The discretionary role of West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service in response to flooding – this used to be a statutory role but was now voluntary and WYFRS did not receive funding for this.

·  Insurance for properties in flood risk areas.

·  The funding gap for Phase 2 was initially around £23 million.  The government funded £21 million and funds were requested from Community Infrastructure Levies.  Further funding had come from the Yorkshire Flood Committee and Highways England.  A written summary would be provided for the Members.

·  There were different categories of flooding incidents depending on impact and severity.  Every report of flooding was recorded whether it was highways, greenspace, outbuildings or other properties.  The level and severity of flooding could have an impact on Recovery Grant Assistance.

·  Climate change impact – this had to be considered on new developments and requirements were made to allow for possible impacts of climate change.  There would usually be an uplift in these requirements to provide a higher than requested measure.  There were recognised national models to follow and these would be used as a baseline.  Locally, the Council worked closely with the University of Leeds.

·  As part of the submission for the devolution deal there was a request for funding for flood risk management.  Clarity was being sought on what was actually available and West Yorkshire Combined Authority were tabling a bid to Government for funds.

·  Farnley Wood Beck  - some funding had been secured from a developer for de-culverting of the beck.

RESOLVED –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To receive an update from the Director of City Development about the progress made in responding to the recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Board’s inquiry into Housing Mix.

The report of the Director of City Development set out the progress made in responding to the recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Inquiry into Housing Mix.

The following were in attendance for this item:

·  Martin Elliott, Head of Strategic Planning

·  Sarah Hellewell, Principal Planner

·  Adam Harvatt, Group Manager

The following was discussed:

·  Recommendation 3 – Alternative methods for public and Elected Member engagement.  This has also included work through Development Plans Panel and Joint Plans Panel

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4.

·  Recommendation 4 – Further work had been carried out with consultants that would support development in priority neighbourhood areas.  It was requested that information be shared with all Members. 

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4.

·  Recommendation 5 – There had been the development of three new plans since February but there had been a delay with referendums due to the postponement of elections.  Additional areas had also been identified for Neighbourhood Plans.  Some concern was expressed about the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Plans and reference was made to issues in Alwoodley.  It was suggested that this was something the Board could consider in more detail in the future.  There was also concern regarding low levels of public engagement in the neighbourhood planning process.  Members were informed that a more in depth position statement on Neighbourhood Plans would be prepared for the Board. With regard to concerns regarding HMOs it was reported that this was on the work programme for planning.

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4.

·  Recommendation 8 – The housing mix continued to be highlighted during the pre-planning stage of applications.  In terms of monitoring, there was skewed information from the city centre due to the number of one bed units and the monitoring information was broken down to take account for this.  Further information was requested on sites that had been delivered with 100% affordable housing and the number of units in these developments.  Members also discussed the issue of viability.

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4

·  Recommendation 9 – There was still some concern that the desired types of development were not being delivered.  It was reported that there had been some progress and monitoring would continue.

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4.

·  Recommendation 10 – All policies were being monitored.

It was proposed that the position status remains at 4.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That the report and discussion be noted.

(2)  That the monitoring status for each of the recommendations be agreed as proposed.

To consider the Scrutiny Board’s work schedule for the 2020/21 municipal year.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services asked Members to consider the Board’s Work Schedule for the remainder of the current municipal year.

The work schedule was appended to the report along with recent minutes from meetings of the Executive Board.

Members were reminded that there was to be a Budget Working Group Meeting on Thursday, 19 November 2020.

RESOLVED – That the report and Work Schedule be noted.

The next meeting of the Infrastructure, Investment and Inclusive Growth Board will be 20 January 2021 at 10.30am. There will be a pre meeting for all Board members at 10.15am.

Wednesday, 2o January 2020 at 10.30 a.m.  (There will be a pre-meeting for all Board Members at 10.15 a.m.)