Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer informing Members of the intention to consult on a draft Local Development Order to simplify planning requirements in support of the Aire Valley Leeds Enterprise Zone and seeking  comments on the proposals

The plans in respect of this report will follow

(report attached)

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing information on the intention to consult on a draft Local Development Order (LDO) to simplify planning requirements in support of the Aire Valley Leeds Enterprise Zone and seeking comments from Members on the draft.  An extract of a letter received on 5^th January 2011 from the Secretary of State Department of Communities and Local Government relating to the creation of Enterprise Zones and the timescales for these was read out for Members’ information

  Details of the consultations already carried out with Ward Members were provided as were details of the public consultation proposed on the final draft of LDO 2: Extensions, alterations and changes of use of industrial properties

  Councillor Pryke declared a personal interest as a member of Leeds Initiative Board on regeneration which had discussed proposals for an Enterprise Zone for Aire Valley Leeds and proposals for East Leeds

  Officers presented the report and corrected errors at Appendix A and the text version 1.2 of the Local Development Order (2).  These included the need to delete reference to LDO 1 and Solar Panels on the contents page and subsequently re-number the LDO and deletion of the commencement date of 1^st April 2012 at para 5.1

  Members were informed that Leeds had decided to bring the benefits of the Enterprise Zone to a wider area with sites at Cross Green Industrial Park, Stourton and the industrial parts of Hunslet as defined on the plan circulated to Members being included alongside the four Enterprise Zone sites

  Discussion ensued on the appropriateness of such a report being considered by Plans Panel East.  The Chair advised that although the report did not relate to a specific application, occasionally reports were brought to Panel for Members’ comments

  Concerns were also raised that Executive Board had not seen the proposals and neither had the Aire Valley Leeds Board (AVLB); that AVLB Members had strongly held views; whether these views had been incorporated into the LDO and that AVLB should be the lead on this important matter

  The Chair explained that the Aire Valley Leeds Board would be consulted with all comments being forwarded to Executive Board

  A copy of the draft LDO 2 which was included in the submitted report was outlined by Officers

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the extension to the EZ and that this should have been agreed with Members

·  the site at Cross Green and whether there were any exclusions on the developments permitted under the LDO

·  that some zones were split between Wards and that Members required much more information than what was being provided

·  the status of the Council in the LDO and whether it was a statutory consultee or a voluntary one

·  whether applications for housing on the sites fell within the LDO

·  the number of Council owned sites available in the EZ

·  the aim of the LDO, whether this was about a planning approach or relaxing some of the bureaucracy and whether the result would be that anything could be built

·  concerns that people would not be aware of proposed extensions and alterations until work commenced with concerns that people would not be protected against noise, dust etc

·  that the specified uses included light and general industry with concerns about the definition of ‘industry’ and the need to ensure environmentally hazardous or inappropriate research industries were not allowed under B1(b), B1(c) or B2 classes

·  the possibility of the LDO resulting in displacement rather than creating new businesses

·  that the projected number of jobs to be achieved from the LDO – 30,000 – 40,000 was ambitious

·  whether all of the outline permissions granted on sites within the EZ had been to Panel and that Members would not necessarily know all of the details associated with these schemes so could not easily accept what was being proposed in the draft LDO for the area

·  that the comments made by Ward Members at their briefing should have been included in the report before Panel

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that uses allowed in the LDO2 framework were restricted and did not include developments that required an Environmental Impact Assessment such as those relating to Energy from Waste facilities which would be dealt with under the normal planning regulations as would any housing developments on these sites

·  in terms of sites within the EZ which were owned by LCC, two remained, these being at Thornes Farm

·  that Building Regulations and Environmental Health Regulations would still need to be complied with so providing protection for neighbouring properties/ residents/ workers etc

·  in terms of displacement, Central Government was keen to ensure that new EZ zones did not cause this and that neighbouring areas had to be taken into account

·  that the estimated number of jobs flowing from the creation of the EZ had been based upon figures derived from the outline planning permissions which had been secured on several of the sites and that these figures were constantly being reviewed

·  that the business rates exemption; creation of bespoke units; employment and skills initiatives and excellent transport links could be provided to new businesses through the EZ

Concerns continued to be raised about the process and order which

had been undertaken to inform Members about the draft LDO; the possible waiving of planning restrictions; concerns that Members were not in receipt of sufficient information to agree to this and the Executive Member for Development and Chief Planning Officer be informed of these concerns

  RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made and that further briefing sessions be offered to Ward Members

  (During consideration of this matter, Councillor Pryke left the meeting)