Agenda and minutes

  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstance shall be specified in the minutes).

  Whilst there were no formal late items, the Panel was in receipt of the following documents:

·  revised information in respect of the report on Aire Valley Leeds

Area Action Plan and Urban Eco Settlement (minute 15 refers) which reflected the changes which had occurred at Government level

·  a letter from the Department for Communities and Local

Government dated 6^th July in respect of the revocation of the RSS and providing some ‘question and answer’ advice on immediate issues arising from the announcement, for Members’ information

To declare any personal / prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

  There were no declarations of interest

To receive any apologies for absence from the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mulherin who was substituted for by Councillor Nash and from Councillor Smith

To approve the minutes of the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 22^nd June 2010.

RESOLVED-  That the minutes of the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 22^nd June 2010 be approved.

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing an update on the progress made in relation to the proposed Area Action Plan and the Urban Eco Settlement proposals for the Aire Valley in the context of the City Region.

(Report attached)

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the progress on the proposed Area Action Plan (AAP) and the Urban Eco Settlement proposals for the Aire Valley Leeds in the context of the City Region

  The Head of Forward Planning and Implementation presented the report and stated that a report on this matter would be considered by Executive Board at its meeting on 21^st July

  Members were informed that there was a relationship between the Urban Eco Settlement (UES) and the scope and content of the AAP and in order to test some of the thinking around the UES, Officers had been asked to cover the development of standards for sustainable issues

  The UES was a fast-moving process and work was ongoing with the Leeds City Region, with funding at a national level being split regionally to ensure that areas developed positively, using the principles of sustainability.  However, the sum of money to be made available had been significantly reduced from £1.2m to £600,000

  A key issue in the preparation of the AAP related to its boundary which had been adjusted and now extended to the south-east part of the City Centre, linking into the proposed city park area, Marsh Lane and Yarm Street, Cross Green and other areas in City and Hunslet Ward and Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Ward, so providing further opportunities to use UES funding to make sustainable improvements to existing properties

  The key themes of the AAP were outlined, these being:

·  the statutory planning process

·  capacity building

·  piloting innovation

·  eco skills and training

·  capital development

Members discussed the report and commented on the following

matters:

·  the revised southern boundary of the AAP; this being the railway line and that a more appropriate boundary would be the M62

·  whether by extending the boundary, the existing resources would be stretched or whether additional resources would be made available

·  the possibility of a new city park on the Tetley’s Brewery site; that the extension of the boundary of the AAP to include this was understood, but that there needed to be a good reason for the extension of the boundary to the railway line

·  that the inclusion of Cross Green in the boundary was welcomed as it was a deprived area with poor housing and these issues needed to be addressed

·  that the proposals would provide the opportunity for some work to take place whilst the economic situation improved

·  whether improvements would be undertaken to non-residential properties, and if this was the case, that Hunslet Library should be considered

·  the need for further explanation of the figures contained in the  report which set out the original bid figures for projects and the agreed funding

·  why a bid was being made for Transport Feasibility Studies when this was not classed as being essential

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that if the southern boundary was extended further to the M62, it was felt that resources would become stretched, particularly as there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider a report of the Director of City Development providing details of the PPG17 study, highlighting the main tasks involved in its preparation (including data collection and inputting), and outlining an update on the progress made to date.

(Report attached)

  The Panel considered a report of the Director of City Development on a PPG17 study which had been undertaken to collect data on the range of sports, open space and recreation sites within the Leeds boundary, which would inform the evidence base of the LDF, including the Core Strategy as well as assisting in delivering services and initiatives

  Members received a presentation from a Principal Planner and were shown maps of the city highlighting the different types of open space

  Members were informed that PPG17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ was soon to be replaced and that consultation on this had closed on 1^st June 2010.  The proposed replacement would retain the requirement set out in PPG17 for LPAs to keep up to date assessments of the existing and future needs

  In providing details of each slide, the Principal Planner stated that sites of 2000 sqm or above had only been included as had been set out in the UDP, with this methodology being continued.  However, golf courses had been omitted from the outdoor sports data as they distorted the information due to their size.  Furthermore many of these were private courses, so not open to everyone.  Harewood House had also not been included as there was an admission charge and that the decision had been taken at an early stage to exclude agricultural land and public rights of way (PROW) from the data; this comprising much of the Harewood estate.  If this estate was to be included, then this would need an additional layer of information to pick up these site specific circumstances as they were currently excluded from the study definitions

  Information was provided on the following:

·  park and garden sites

·  amenity sites

·  childrens’ play facilities

·  outdoor sports sites

·  allotments

·  natural greenspace

·  cemeteries and green corridors

Members discussed the information and commented on the following

matters:

·  whether Lotherton Hall should be excluded as well as Harewood House

·  the need to show Harewood House in some form due to its status and its value to the city

·  that it was possible to walk large areas of the Harewood estate as Public Right of Way (PROW) and that PROWs were a huge facility in Leeds and that this should be recognised

·  whether the information which was collected would be used by professionals or lay people

·  that Otley Chevin was now shown as natural greenspace as opposed to a city park

·  that the amount of park land varied across the city, with inner areas being the worst provided for

·  that excluding Templenewsam, the inner east of the city was poorly served for park land despite the existence of East End Park which was not greatly used due to problems with vandalism

·  the need for neighbourhood parks to receive more attention

·  that the quality of some inner city parks was not as good as it could be and there could be the potential for better land use

·  the need for a city park which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To note that the next meeting of the Panel is scheduled for Tuesday, 10^th August 2010 at 1.30 p.m. in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

  Tuesday 10^th August 2010 at 1.30pm