Agenda item

Open Forum

In accordance with Paragraphs 6.24 and 6.25 of the Area Committee Procedure Rules, at the discretion of the Chair a period of up to 10 minutes may be allocated at each ordinary meeting for members of the public to make representations or to ask questions on matters within the terms of reference of the Area Committee.  This period of time may be extended at the discretion of the Chair.  No member of the public shall speak for more than three minutes in the Open Forum, except by permission of the Chair.

Minutes:

In accordance with Paragraphs 6.24 and 6.25 of the Area Committee Procedure Rules, the Chair allowed a period of up to 10 minutes for members of the public to make representations or to ask questions on matters which fell within the remit of the Area Committee.

 

a)  Houses in Multiple Occupation

 

Further to Minute No.19(b) of the meeting held on 23rd September 2010, Dr Richard Tyler updated the meeting on developments in respect of proposed changes to HMO legislation.

 

The application for Judicial Review recently submitted by Milton Keynes Council had been refused.  However, an oral appeal hearing was now being sought, but no date had yet been fixed.

 

Two Early Day Motions had been submitted in the Commons, both containing 30+ signatures, seeking revocation of the Government’s latest proposals.  However, realistically, there was little chance of these succeeding.  An All-Party Parliamentary Group had also requested a meeting with Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, which might take place as early as today.  In the meantime, a Ministerial Statement by Grant Shapps relating to Article 4 Directions had later been contradicted by civil servants.

 

Dr Tyler raised two concerns.  Leeds City Council had supplied information in support of Milton Keynes application, but, presently, Milton Keynes was having to fund the action.  Dr Tyler suggested that, via the Area Committee, Leeds City Council should be requested to consider contributing towards Milton Keynes costs.

 

In the event of Milton Keynes’ action being unsuccessful, Leeds City Council also needed its own fall-back situation, in terms of setting in train its own Article 4 Direction.

 

The Chair indicated that Members were in discussion with relevant Council officers on this issue, and he would make contact with the relevant senior Planning Officers, in his capacity as Chair, to raise these two specific issues.  Dr Tyler was thanked for keeping the Committee informed.

 

In the meantime, it was noted that the proposed report to the Area Committee on the possible impact in Leeds of the new HMO legislation had been postponed until the December Area Committee meeting, by which time it was hoped that further information would have been made available by the Government.  Following the last meeting, a letter had been sent to Grant Shapps, outlining the Committee’s concerns.

 

 

b)  Royal Park School

 

Further to Minute No.19(f), 23rd September 2010, Tara Cleveland, Royal Park Community Consortium, updated the Committee on the current situation regarding the former school.

 

The Consortium had established a website – www.royalparkschool.org.  The yard had been cleared in a community exercise, and although a Community Builders grant bid, to fund a feasibility study, had been unsuccessful, nevertheless two freelance Development Workers had been engaged part-time, and it was planned to still proceed with the feasibility study.  In the meantime, there were holes in the roof, and thefts of equipment and fittings from inside the building continued.  Was there any more that the Council was prepared to do in terms of weather-proofing the building or security patrols?  Any support the Police could lend in terms of including the site in routine patrols would also be appreciated.

 

The Chair indicated that the Acting Area Manager had brought the Committee’s concerns to the attention of the Council’s Asset Management team, and would do so again.

 

Members expressed concern at the Council’s perceived inaction, not only in this case, but in other similar cases, where empty buildings were seemingly simply left to deteriorate until, ultimately, demolition was the only solution.  It was suggested that a Scrutiny Board Inquiry or Internal Audit inquiry was necessary to investigate the Council’s policy and alleged poor track record, and to effect change.  It was also suggested that the Council’s internal security service, Red Hall Security Services, should be used to provide security at the Royal Park School site – if necessary with possible funding from the Area Committee.

 

The Chair agreed to write regarding the suggested Scrutiny Board or Internal Audit inquiry.  It was also agreed that the Acting Area Manager should investigate the suggestion of possibly using Red Hall Security Services in respect of this site, and the costs, and report back to the next meeting.

 

c)  Leeds Girls High School

 

Further to Minute No.19(g), 23rd September 2010, Sue Buckle, South Headingley Community Association and Friends of Woodhouse Moor, reported that this issue was back on the agenda for the Plans Panel West meeting on 4th November 2010, with an officers’ recommendation that, subject to reserved matters, the development application be approved.  She urged people to make representations and as many people as possible to attend the meeting, even if they were only a silent presence.

 

Several Members expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which this application had allegedly been managed by planning officers, the content of the reports to the Plans Panel, and the alleged superficial considerations given, and weight attached, to issues which Local Members and the public regarded merited greater consideration in the overall scheme of the application.  It was again suggested that this should be subject to a Scrutiny Board Inquiry.  In the meantime, two Headingley Members stated that they had written to the Chief Executive on these issues.

 

d)  A local resident raised an issue regarding parking restrictions in Woodsley Road.  He was requested to leave his details with the Area Management Officer, and he could then be invited to attend the next Transport Sub-Group meeting.  Alternatively, he could, if he wished, raise the matter direct with one of his Ward Councillors.