Agenda and minutes

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

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

  There were no formal late items but Panel Members were in receipt of the following additional information tabled by Officers for consideration at the meeting:

  LDF Core Strategy –Infrastructure Delivery Plan – a flow chart showing a stepped approach to infrastructure planning and delivery (as a basis to provide further information on the methodology advocated by the Planning Advisory Service)

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.

  The following Members declared 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:

  Revisions to the Local Development Scheme – Councillor Blackburn declared a personal interest as a member of the West Leeds Gateway Regeneration Board as the report proposed the withdrawal of the West Leeds Gateway Area Action Plan (minute 39 refers)

To approve the minutes of the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 2^nd February 2010

(report attached)

RESOLVED-  That the minutes of the Development Plan Panel meeting held on 2^nd February 2010 be approved, subject to the following amendments:

  The inclusion of Councillors Coulson and Latty in the attendance record for the meeting

  Minute 34 -  Leeds LDF Core Strategy – Preferred Approach - the deletion of the duplicate reference to Affordable Housing

To consider a report of the Director of City Development seeking agreement to changes to the Council’s Local Development Scheme

(report attached)

  The Panel considered a report of the Director of City Development setting out proposed changes to the Local Development Scheme (LDF) in respect of Area Action Plans (AAPs)

  The Head of Forward Planning and Implementation presented the report and explained that due to changes in national guidance through PPS12, there was a need for Local Authorities to prioritise the Core Strategy amongst all of the Local Development Framework (LDF) documents.  This increased emphasis on the production of a Core Strategy together with the current economic downturn which had led to uncertainty in the delivery of both long-term regeneration proposals and schemes which had already obtained planning permission, had led to the proposals before Members to withdraw three Area Action Plans, these being the EASEL AAP, the West Leeds Gateway APP and the City Centre AAP, although informal planning frameworks would remain to continue the work which had already been carried out.  It was emphasised also, that the continued regeneration and renaissance of such areas remained a priority; as a consequence a variety of mechanisms would continue to be explored to deliver priorities within these areas

  Regarding the production of a series of thematic Development Plan Documents (DPDs) there was also the proposal to remove the retail, greenspace and highways DPDs and replace these with a Site Allocations DPD which would cover some of the issues which would have been contained in these separate DPDs

  Concerning the Aire Valley Leeds AAP, it was proposed to progress this as the area had been accepted as one of the Leeds City Region Urban Eco-Settlements which would most likely lead to the proposals being properly tested through the planning system by public examination

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  whether by the withdrawal of the AAPs voids would be left in the planning process and how Officers would deal with an application which would have been contrary to the AAP

·  that much work had been done on the West Leeds Gateway AAP and to withdraw it at this relatively late stage could be regarded as a waste of public money

·  that the function of this AAP was to set the framework for regeneration money into areas of West Leeds where funding would not normally be provided and to reduce this to the lesser status of guidance would not be beneficial

·  that the proposed simultaneous withdrawal of three AAPs was dramatic

·  that the withdrawal of the West Leeds Gateway AAP was not appropriate and whilst it could be accepted that there might be funding issues, the progression of this AAP was needed to steer development

·  the amount of work required to complete the West Leeds Gateway AAP

·  in respect of the EASEL AAP, that development had already commenced on part of the site; that the community knowledge of EASEL was considerable; that to withdraw the AAP was a negative approach and that other partnerships should be sought to progress the development

·  that many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To consider a report of the Director of City Development outlining the working which is currently underway in the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan to support the LDF Core Strategy

(report attached)

  The Panel considered a report of the Director of City Development outlining the work which was being undertaken in the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), to support the Core Strategy

  The Head of Forward Planning and Implementation presented the report and stated that this was a challenging undertaking which was at an early stage.  A questionnaire had been sent out to key infrastructure providers to establish future plans and commitments within five year periods to establish where the major priorities were, with the responses being set out in the appendix to the submitted report

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the response given by Centrica and the need for a more meaningful response to be provided

·  that a response had not been received from Yorkshire Water

·  that energy provision for new homes must be considered

·  the need for infrastructure to be provided before housing developments occurred which did not seem to be the case

·  the likelihood of the proposals for EASEL and the West Leeds Area Gateway in view of the decisions taken on the previous report

·  concerns that responses relating to education had not been provided

·  that the number of applications for family housing being submitted was a concern in terms of infrastructure which the Council needed to provide and that this should be given more prominence within the report

·  concerns that the current infrastructure in some parts of the city was not adequate

·  regarding the health and wellbeing section, that regarding Joint Service Centres, that the PCT had pulled out of some of these and that efforts should be made to establish whether the PCT would support JSCs

·  that any work within the 5 year period 2010 – 2015 should have commenced and if this had not, then attention should be drawn to that fact

·  that in respect of the rail network and provision of park and ride facilities, these were required now

Officers informed the Panel that whilst the schedule submitted as

Appendix 1 to the report was a useful start, it was acknowledged that it reflected work in process and that Officers were seeking to work with a range of infrastructure providers and partners to address information gaps

RESOLVED – To note the report and the comments now made

Tuesday 13^th April 2010 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

  13^th April 2010 at 1.30pm