AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: S Winfield

Tel: 0113 24 74707

REPORT OF SCRUTINY SUPPORT MANAGER SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) DATE: 4TH OCTOBER 2004

SUBJECT: INQUIRY INTO ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 At its meeting on 12th July, the Board formally agreed to conduct an inquiry into issues around access to the Leeds-Bradford International Airport.

1.2 Members have noted the projected increase in annual passenger numbers and the airport‘s development of an access strategy. Mindful of the impact increased traffic will have on the immediate area surrounding the airport and on congestion levels on routes into and out of the city, the Board wishes to ensure that any access strategy takes account of these issues and also takes the opportunity to enhance traffic flows and public transport for the benefit of the whole city.

2.0 INFORMATION RECEIVED

2.1 Attached to this cover report are draft Terms of Reference for an Inquiry into Airport Access issues (Appendix 1). Members may wish to make any amendments that they feel are appropriate.

2.2 Also attached to this report is a synopsis of the Surface Access Strategy, provided by John Wallis, Airport Transport Planning Adviser at Leeds-Bradford International Airport (Appendix 2).

2.3 John Wallis will be in attendance to answer questions. Dave Gilson (Head of Transport Policy at the Council) will also be attending. 3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Members are recommended to agree the terms of reference for the inquiry, with any amendments as appropriate.

3.2 Members are requested to note the contents of the Surface Access Strategy report and make any comments and recommendations as appropriate. SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)

INQUIRY INTO ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT ISSUES

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 At its meeting on 12th July 2004, Scrutiny Board (Development Services) agreed to pursue an inquiry into access to the airport issues.

1.2 Members considered information on the A6120 Ring Road Route Study at their meeting on 6th September. This report outlined the stages, costs and consultation arrangements for the study, which aims to identify possible strategies for development of the A6120 ring road. As part of this study, access to the airport issues were raised and the Board therefore agreed to establish terms of reference for further work on access to the airport.

1.3 Members are particularly interested in investigating the ways in which access to the airport initiatives and solutions are embedded in the transport plan for the West Yorkshire area and how the Surface Access Strategy for the airport might benefit the city‘s transport infrastructure as a whole.

2.0 SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY

2.1 The purpose of the Inquiry is to make an assessment of and, where appropriate, make recommendations on the following areas:

· Consideration of the Leeds Bradford International Airport Surface Access Strategy and how this relates to the Local Transport Plan and the Airport Development Strategy · The impact of the Government‘s White Paper “The Future of Air Transport‘ on access to the airport issues and future legislative requirements · Development of local highway initiatives (including the results from the A6120 Ring Road Route study) to improve road access to the airport · Measures planned or in place to calm traffic around / on airport access roads · Measures to tackle problems of congestion and “rat running‘ suffered by residents who live on or close to main access routes to the airport, and how these will be tackled in any future strategy · The possibilities and options for improving public transport to the airport, including: · The potential for extending local bus services and / or a guided bus link from the outer ring road · The possibility of a link to a local railway station, such as Guiseley or Horsforth · The possibility of using a light rail system to access the airport, if such a scheme is implemented in the city.

3.0 SCRUTINY BOARD TERMS OF REFERENCE

3.1 The Inquiry falls within this Scrutiny Board‘s Terms of Reference which empower it;

”To review departmental performance and to make such reports and recommendations as it considers appropriate.–

4.0 TIMETABLE FOR THE INQUIRY

4.1 The Inquiry will take place over four sessions of the Board.

· October 4th · November 29th · January 10th · February 7th

4.2 The above sessions and the length of the Inquiry are subject to change.

5.0 SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

5.1 SESSION ONE ’

To agree terms of reference and receive a report on the current position in relation to the Surface Access Strategy.

5.2 SESSION TWO -

· The department to provide evidence on the following:

- Consideration of the Leeds Bradford International Airport Surface Access Strategy and how this relates to the Local Transport Plan and the Airport Development Strategy

- The impact of the Government‘s White Paper “The Future of Air Transport‘ on access to the airport issues and future legislative requirements - Development of local highway initiatives (including the results from the A6120 Ring Road Route study) to improve road access to the airport

- Measures planned or in place to calm traffic around / on airport access roads

- Measures to tackle problems of congestion and “rat running‘ suffered by residents who live on or close to main access routes to the airport, and how these will be tackled in any future strategy

5.3 SESSION THREE ’ · To pursue, as appropriate, issues raised in the previous session · The department to provide evidence on the following: - The possibilities and options for improving public transport to the airport, including: - The potential for extending local bus services and / or a guided bus link from the outer ring road - The possibility of a link to a local railway station, such as Guiseley or Horsforth - The possibility of using a light rail system to access the airport, if such a scheme is implemented in the city.

5.4 SESSION FOUR ’ · To agree the Board‘s final report and recommendations

6.0 WITNESSES 6.1 The following witnesses have been identified as possible contributors to the Inquiry:

· Director of the Development department · Head of Transport Policy · A representative from the Leeds-Bradford International Airport Metro · City Services representative SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

¨ The Airport Company has developed a Surface Access Strategy, which was submitted to the Department of the Environmental Transport and the Regions (DETR) now Department for Transport (DfT), as an integral part of the West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan in July 2000, covering the financial years 2001/02 to 2005/06.

¨ However, in view of the time which has elapsed since the original development of the airport Surface Access Strategy and the developing nature of transport policy, the Airport Company has commissioned ARUP in Leeds to facilitate during 2004,, the following elements of work:-

Ø Review and update the existing Airport Surface Access Strategy for inclusion within the emerging Airport Master Plan

Ø Provide input into the developing Regional Special Strategy

Ø Provide input into the Local Transport Plan Annual Progress Report

Ø Prepare an Implementation Plan to accompany the publication of the draft Master Plan by the end of 2004.

¨ The Strategy contains elements which are achievable in the short, medium and long term, and adopts an integrated approach containing initiatives to improve public transport whilst recognising the need to ensure that the Airport remains accessible for the large number of people travelling by private car.

¨ Many of these initiatives are currently being developed and implemented, in line with anticipated passenger growth at the Airport, as follows:-

Ø Airport Transport Forum (ATF) £ An ATF has now been fully established and regular meetings are held to discuss transport issues and to endorse and ratify transport proposals and initiatives.

Ø Bus Service Initiatives £ Bus services to the Airport are being continually improved and developed, i.e.:

· A new “Airlink‘ bus service was established in October 2001, linking the Airport to Leeds City Centre and Otley with an hourly frequency. From April 2002, this service has been improved to a half-hourly frequency. Modern single-deck buses are used with level boarding and luggage facilities. As from mid-March 2004, this service has benefited from the opening of the new Transport Interchange at Leeds Station and the establishment of the new facilities on the terminal building forecourt at the Airport. This service £ 757 £ has recently been re-tendered and from 1st November 2004 will be run by First Leeds, using new buses.

A29/JDW September 2004 1 SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

· A new half-hourly bus service to Bradford City Centre and local employment catchment areas was established in April 2001. This service has also recently been re-tendered and a new bespoke service to Bradford is to be provided from 1st November 2004, using new buses and will be operated by Pegasus.com (previously Aztecbird) of Guiseley. This new service will operate via Yeadon and Guiseley and will connect the Airport with Guiseley, Shipley, Bradford Foster Square and Bradford Interchange Rail Stations. The service will also now benefit from the new facilities at the Airport, which include dedicated, well signed bus stops, with new state-of-the-art bus shelters immediately outside the terminal building.

· Since the opening of the new bus facilities at the Airport, new and better-presented timetable information has been provided, both within the new bus shelters and at strategic locations within the Airport Terminal Building.

· In addition, the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive is developing a new real-time Passenger Information System. It has already been agreed that both the bus shelters and terminal building at the Airport will be fitted with this technology. It is proposed to carry out the national launch of this system at the Airport, hopefully during 2004.

· In addition to the improved services to Leeds, Bradford and the surrounding communities, the Airport Company is looking to establish a new direct bus service to Harrogate and North Yorkshire. Discussions have taken place between all the appropriate stakeholders and tenders have been invited, by North Yorkshire County Council, in terms of an hourly 7-day service between Harrogate Bus Station and the airport.

· In support of these initiatives, the Airport Company has allocated well in excess of 100,000 during 2004. This contribution will certainly be maintained and is likely to increase in future years. This funding, in the form of revenue support, is provided from the Airport‘s car parking income.

Ø Targets A prime objective of the Airport Surface Access Strategy is to increase the proportion of travellers to the airport who use public transport (excluding taxis) from less than 2% in 2000 to around 10% by 2011, representing a five fold increase.

A29/JDW September 2004 2 SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

· As a result of the improved bus services provided, and the Airport Company‘s marketing and promotional efforts, the level of public transport usage has risen to around 4% and is expected to continue to grow. This is indicated in Table 1:

Table 1 Mode Splits (%) for Passengers using LBA

Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter 99/00 00 00/01 01 01/02 02 02/03 Private 66% 69% 70% 69% 65% 65% 64% Car Taxi: Hackney 8% 8% 8% 6% 9% 5% 6% Private Hire 17% 14% 17% 14% 18% 13% 14% Total 25% 22% 25% 20% 27% 18% 20% Minibus/ Coach 7% 7% 3% 9% 5% 14% 12% Public Service 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% Bus TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Target to achieve 10% using public transport by 2011.

Ø Fixed Public Transport Link · A study into the potential for a fixed public transport link to Leeds Bradford International Airport has been carried out and has recommended the examination of an LRT extension from Lawnswood through Holt Park, serving the airport and potentially further extended to Guiseley, to link with the existing Heavy Rail Services.

· Accordingly, it is proposed in liaison with the West Yorkshire PTE to commission further work to prepare a full appraisal of such an LRT extension, as appropriate.

· Latterly, as part of the work being carried out by ARUP, the potential for a new rail connection (heavy or light) from the Leeds-Harrogate line at Horsforth, also potentially extended through to Guiseley, is being re-examined in liaison with West Yorkshire PTE.

Ø Highway Access · A study to review future policy and strategy for the development and management of the Leeds Outer Ring Road has been commissioned by Leeds City Council and is scheduled for completion by early 2005. Access to the airport from both Leeds and Bradford forms an integral element of this study.

A29/JDW September 2004 3 SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

· As a result, the potential for a new highway link between the airport and the strategic road network is being assessed.

· Work is now almost complete on a scheme on Whitehouse Lane, which is designed to improve access to the Airport and improve road safety, by reducing traffic speeds and providing crossing facilities.

Ø Car Parking · Additional growth in passengers to 2.3 million is expected by the end of 2004, essentially from “no-frills‘ operators.

· The catchment area for such operations extends beyond the immediate region of West Yorkshire and attracts more passengers who are prepared to make longer journeys to fly on services at the right price and at a time that best suits them.

· This fundamental change in air transport services has impacted upon all airport resources and car parking provision in particular. A review of the car parking strategy and a comparison with other airports (Liverpool, East Midlands and also Newcastle) operating similar services has been undertaken to assess the impact of such services on car parking.

· Looking at the pattern that exists at other airports, a ratio of 1500 to 2000 long-stay car parking spaces per million passengers (mppa) would appear to be the requirement to support such operations. For short-stay car parking, around 200-300 spaces per mppa would appear to be required.

· However, compared with other similar airports, Leeds Bradford has traditionally had a substantially lower number of long-stay spaces per mppa. The Airport experiences a high drop-off/pick-up rate because of its close proximity to densely populated areas.

· Accordingly, whilst a sufficient number of spaces needs to be provided, it is considered that a balance should be maintained between demand and environmental issues and that if carefully managed, a ratio of 1100 spaces per mppa would seem reasonable and appropriate for long-stay car parking.

· With regard to short-stay car parking, throughout 2003, a peaking of capacity was experienced on a daily and sometimes hourly basis, and 200 spaces in the long-stay car park have been allocated for short- stay use to address this issue. Nonetheless, it has been determined to leave the current ratio unchanged at 350 spaces per mppa.

A29/JDW September 2004 4 SURFACE ACCESS STRATEGY ’ SYNOPSIS

· In order to maintain these ratios, planning permission has recently been granted in terms of a further 500 space extension to the long- stay car park. This will bring the number of long-stay spaces up to 2100 in 2005.

· In terms of future development, feasibility work is currently in hand looking at the potential for decking over the existing car parking areas, particularly in the area in front of the terminal building where the topography lends itself to this approach.

Ø Green Travel Plan · In addition, an Airport Green Travel Plan has been developed and submitted to the City Council‘s Development Department for discussion and ultimate approval.

· The Green Travel Plan sets out a wide range of initiatives including features such as:-

q Measures that encourage travel to work by public transport q Measures that encourage cycling and walking to work q A car sharing scheme q A review of standard working hours/working from home initiatives q Continuous monitoring of the plan to raise awareness and provide information about alternatives etc

· It is aimed at encouraging all employees at the airport complex, both Airport Company and all Service Partners, to use alternatives to driving work alone, and also providing passengers and visitors with alternative ways of travelling to and from the airport.

¨ Current Position As previously indicated, it is intended that the updated Airport Surface Access Strategy will provide input into the forthcoming Local Transport Plan 2 and the developing Regional Spatial Strategy as well as forming a basic element of the emerging Airport Master Plan, all of which are being processed over the coming months.

A29/JDW September 2004 5 AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: S Winfield

Tel: 24 74707

REPORT OF THE CHIEF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES OFFICER SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)

DATE : 4TH OCTOBER 2004 SUBJECT : EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - PROBITY IN PLANNING FOLLOW-UP

Electoral Wards Affected : Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 The Board‘s Terms of Reference require it to receive and review external audit reports pertaining to its area of responsibility.

1.2 One such report has been referred to this Scrutiny Board, relating to a review of internal audit.

1.3 The report, attached as Appendix 1, is a follow-up audit report, and states the main conclusions from the original audit and gives a progress report on the action plan.

1.4 Attached at appendix 2 is an update on progress made since the follow-up audit report was produced.

1.5 A representative from the department will be in attendance at today‘s meeting to answer Members‘ questions arising from the audit report.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Members are asked to receive and consider the report and decide whether any further investigation is required and what form that investigation may take. SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)

4TH OCTOBER 2004

AUDIT REPORT ’ PROBITY IN PLANNING FOLLOW UP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Probity in Planning Follow Up report follows an audit undertaken during 2000/01 which focused on arrangements in place for ensuring probity in planning decisions. An action plan was agreed and has been updated in the 2003/04 report.

1.2 The action plan attached to the audit report gives details of what had been achieved up until January 2004. In order to provide Members of the Board with a more recent update on the actions, progress is against each action is detailed below.

2.0 PROGRESS ON ACTIONS

2.1 Please refer to the following table. The last column details progress made since the follow-up audit report was produced in January 2004. Probity in Planning follow-up Audit Report

This table details progress made on actions since the Follow-up audit report was produced in January 2004.

Action from Original Audit (2000/01) Action taken to address this (detailed Progress made since January 2004 in Jan 2004 follow-up audit report) R1 Consider the District Audit good The checklist has been used extensively. No further action required in the context of practice checklists and re-consult with the audit report. Members before finalising the Members‘ Code of Conduct. R2 Ensure the code of conduct, once The code of conduct has been adopted Revised advice on the code is being adopted, is subject to a periodic review to and is being re-reviewed by a joint officer- prepared for consideration by Members. ensure that it remains relevant and is member working group to ensure that it followed in practice. remains relevant. The LGA has also updated their advice which has been taken into account. Officers and senior members would talk to specific members where non-compliance was apparent and would take legal advice where appropriate. R3 Consider allowing the public to This has been considered and since June No further action required in the context of participate at Panel meetings. 2003 the public are now able to speak at the audit report. panel meeting with a 55% take up rate. This approach is going well but will be monitored to ensure it is effective (as panel meetings can take longer as a result). Other changes to panel meetings include clearer and more transparent presentations. R4 Ensure Panel reports state clearly This is now made clear on panel reports. No further action required in the context of when application is for land or buildings the audit report. owned by LCC.

R5 Ensure that when site visits take This has been actioned and is the team No further action required in the context of place, they are documented to a leader‘s responsibility as they “manage‘ the audit report. consistent standard. the site visits. R6 At the site visits, aim to ensure that all There is now a protocol for site visits - no No further action required in the context of Members are fully engaged in the representations are allowed at the visit, the audit report. process. they are only for officers to present matters of fact relating to the planning application. Links to public participation at panel meetings (R3 above). R7 Ensure consistency in the two DC The joint working group enables this. No further action required in the context of panels‘ approaches to resolving the audit report. Meetings are held significant planning issues. between the Panel Chairs and senior managers to keep issues under review. R8 After each site visit Members should This has been done and has resulted in a No further action required in the context of address whether it was useful or not and decrease in the number of site visits. the audit report. explore other options for gaining a better There has also been an increase in the understanding of the site. amount of visual information presented at panel meetings. R9 Ensure consultees‘ views are explicit Revised format of panel reports - No further action required in the context of in the Panel reports and that conclusions consultees‘ views are detailed in full in the the audit report. Member satisfaction will are clearly evidenced on the planning background section. continue to be reviewed periodically. files. R10 Consider whether it is appropriate to This has been reveiwed and revised ie No further action required in the context of take all applications with one letter those applications with one letter contrary the audit report. contrary to officer recommendations to to officer recommendations do not go to Panel. panel. The scheme of delegation has been updated to reflect this. R11 Ensure that any future changes to Members are satisfied with the level of No further action required in the context of the reports that go to the panels does not information which is now provided in the the audit report. Member satisfaction will significantly reduce the level of panel presentations and reports. continue to be reviewed periodically. information provided. R12 Ensure that the Members of both This has been reviewed and has been No further action required in the context of panels are adequately undated on improved through the public being able to the audit report. However, panel members changes since the panel agenda was speak at panel meetings and handouts have raised concerns about specific produced. For example, consider being provided for any additional issues from time to time. Member producing a written update sheet for information (subject to the chair‘s satisfaction will continue to be reviewed circulation to all Members. permission) although some updates are periodically. still verbal. This is not seen as a big issue as there are now fewer items at each meeting and there are not many updates. R13 For overturned recommendations, This has been action - a minute is made No further action required in the context of ensure that the minutes clearly state that of the details and a report with the the audit report. this was an overturned recommendation reasons is taken to the next panel and where applicable, the reasons for the meeting. decision being overturned and the voting details. R14 Ensure planning files contain all The processes for putting a planning file No further action required in the context of relevant, important documentation. together have been reviewed and files are the audit report. Periodic quality checks subject to review by team leaders. will continue. R15 Review the planning application This has been done and targets have No further action required in the context of process to identify whether there are any improved considerably (as illustrated by the audit report. Implementation of new delays which could be addressed. the planning performance indicators). This computer system expected in phases from should be further improved once the new November 04 £ March 05. planning computer system is implemented. R16 Ensure planning Members are This is done corporately. No further action required in the context of reminded of the requirements for the audit report. recording hospitality offered. R17 Review overall approach to site visits See R5 and 6 above. No further action required in the context of to ensure that lobbying is minimised, the audit report. including the frequency with which Members ask for site visits. R18 Complete review and revision of This has been done twice since our No further action required in the context of Supplementary Planning Guidance for original audit. the audit report. Affordable Housing. R19 Ensure LCC is adequately prepared Links to R18. The system for negotiating No further action required in the context of for negotiating Affordable Housing affordable housing planning obligations the audit report. Section 106 procedures planning obligations. was a complicated paper chase. The are currently being updated. (see also system is now much simpler and involves R20 and R21) fewer steps. R20 Ensure that the Procedures for This function is now carried out by The review of structures has now been S106s are as robust as possible, enforcement officers (EOs) and the completed and recruitment of especially around responsibility for resourcing levels are currently being enforcement officers is progressing. A realising the obligation. reviewed. There is a recruitment issues new post has been created to oversee around EOs and salaries, structures and and monitor all phases of planning workloads are also being reviewed. obligation processes. Recruitment is underway. R21 Ensure Planning files include a clear Procedures have been reviewed and Section 106 procedures are currently trail for the calculation and subsequent updated to ensure there is a clear trail. A being updated. A new post has been agreement of the planning obligation new format has been developed for created to oversee and monitor all phases amount. Greenspace S106s. of planning obligation processes. Recruitment is underway. R22 Continue to seek to reduce any This is still an issue and attempts have Section 106 procedures are currently problems in completing legal agreements been made to resolve it by starting being updated. A new post has been and where these problems lie. Continue discussions at the pre planning created to oversee and monitor all phases to seek to reduce delays. application stage. Things have improved of planning obligation processes. but there is a recruitment issue around Recruitment is underway. planning lawyers. R23 Consider including the following in The whole planning obligation system is Section 106 procedures are currently legal agreements: the form of payment under review by central government so being updated and will be further and who to; a close down statement to the procedures may change. reviewed in the light of any changes applicant showing how the money was introduced by government. A new post spent. has been created to oversee and monitor all phases of planning obligation processes. Recruitment is underway. R24 Ensure that the current system for The database for tracking planning Implementation of new computer system monitoring planning obligations can be obligations was considered by LCC but expected in phases from November 04 £ used to provide summary information. found not to be useful therefore was not March 05. A new post has been created implemented. Improvements have been to oversee and monitor all phases of made to internal systems, but should be planning obligation processes. further developed when the new planning Recruitment is underway. system is implemented. R25 Ensure that sound procedures are The situation has improved but more is A review of structures has now been put in place to ensure that the planning required. completed and recruitment of obligation is realised. enforcement officers is progressing. A new post has been created to oversee and monitor all phases of planning obligation processes. Recruitment is underway. R26 ensure that planning obligation Reports are now produced to show how Section 106 procedures are currently money is used and recorded the money collected through planning being updated. A new post has been appropriately. obligations has been spent. Internal Audit created to oversee and monitor all phases has recently undertaken an audit for the of planning obligation processes. use of S278 income. The outcome from Recruitment is underway. this audit (which is currently in draft stage) was that procedures were generally sound. There were a number of areas identified where controls could be enhanced, for example: providing written statements to developers detailing the balance left on their account; ensuring that outstanding balances to / from developers are identified and paid / collected. AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: S Winfield

Tel: 0113 24 74707

REPORT OF SCRUTINY SUPPORT MANAGER SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) DATE: 4TH OCTOBER 2004 SUBJECT: OTLEY FREIGHT FORUM - UPDATE ON PROGRESS

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In 2003/04, the previous Board conducted an inquiry into HGV traffic issues in the Otley area. In April 2004, they recommended that restrictions be put in place for HGV traffic travelling on minor roads in the Otley area.

1.2 A Freight Forum was established to consider the issues and facilitate discussions between key partners. The Forum has now met twice.

1.3 At its meeting on 6th September 2004, the current Board received the minutes of the initial meeting of the Forum, held in May, as part of its Monitoring Report. Members requested further information on progress made by the Forum.

2.0 INFORMATION RECEIVED

2.1 Attached to this report are the minutes of the Forum‘s second meeting held on 16th July 2004.

2.2 Also attached are the formal terms of reference for the forum, and a report that the forum received on Traffic Flows in Otley.

2.3 The last item attached is a series of recent press articles on HGV traffic in Otley, for Members‘ information.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Members are requested to note the information provided and establish whether any further scrutiny is required. DRAFT OTLEY HGV FORUM

MINUTES OF MEETING 2 AT 2.00PM ON FRIDAY 16th JULY 2004 AT OTLEY CIVIC CENTRE

Present: Mr Jason Copper (Chair) Yorkshire & Humber Assembly Mr Alan McVeigh North Yorks County Council Cllr John Fort North Yorks County Council Mr Bob Orange Hanson Mr David Harding Hanson Cllr Judith Davey Pool Parish Council Cllr Hazel Lee Pool Parish Council Cllr Pat Walker Pool Parish Council Cllr Millie Stott Otley & District Road Safety Committee l Mr Brain Findlay SOOR Mr Phil Coyne SOOR Mr Geoff Wright SOOR Cllr Clive Fox Ward Member Cllr John Eveleigh Otley Town Council Mr John Burton Harrogate Borough Council Mr P Fisher Harrogate Borough Council Mr Andrew Hall Leeds City Council Mr Stephen Clark Leeds City Council Mr Gwyn Owen (mins.) Leeds City Council

Note; it is requested that all Actions be undertaken by the next meeting unless otherwise stated. 1.0 Apologies for Absence Mr Malcolm Bingham £FTA Mr Ian Gallagher- Bradford MDC Cllr Campbell - Ward Member Cllr Kirkland - Ward Member Mr Graham Lamond - Hanson 2.0 Minutes Agreed

3.0 Matters Arising 4.0 Press Attendance Action Given that this issue was unresolved from the previous meeting, it was the intention to resolve the issue at the start of this meeting. However as no members of the Press were present, it was discussed as part of the (Draft)Terms of Reference. 5.0 Draft Terms of Reference Action In response to a request at the previous meeting(although omitted from the minutes), organisations had been asked to submit what they felt where the key issues for the

OtleyHGVForumMeeting160704.doc DRAFT Forum. SOOR had also submitted an Impact Statement. LCC had attempted to encapsulate these submissions into a D TofR (attached) which were circulated immediately before the meeting. A sustained discussion ensued with particular regard to the Aim and Objectives 2 and 3. Some at the meeting felt that the draft objective was too geographically narrow, while SOOR felt that anything the Forum might achieve would be diluted if the geographical scope was increased. Mr Hall felt that any form of words should only concern LCC itself with local roads. After further discussion a new form of words was agreed for the Aim:- To work together to reduce the impact of HGV traffic on local roads in Otley and the adjacent communities, in dialogue with affected parties along with the consideration LCC of appropriate measures and initiatives. Mr McVeigh also queried whether Aim 4 should be considered an objective as he felt that TRO‘s were a method of achieving objectives rather than an objective in itself. Mr Hall felt that given the LCC scrutiny panel had had made specific reference to TRO‘s, they should have a specific reference within the T of R. Invitees: Cllr Stott stated that she was representing Otley & District Road Safety Group, and the Forum noted that LCC Harrogate Borough Council were present at this meeting and agreed to their future attendance, in addition to an Action Group representing Leathley, Farnley & Norwood £ should they come forward. LCC would now draw up geographical parameters for any future invitees. Reporting: All agreed on the form of words in the Draft T of R.

6.0 Traffic Regulation Order Procedures Action Mr Hall tabled a paper on this issue(see attached) Cllr Fox asked if the DfT would be able to object to any LCC order £ LCC would check. 7.0 Traffic Flows in the Otley Area ’ Report by LCC Monitoring Mr Clarke gave a detailed presentation (attached) and responded to a number of queries regarding the presentation with particular regard to the aggregate mixing plant immediately to the North West of Otley bridge. LCC A Police speed survey had recently been conducted and it was felt that the Police would be prepared to share the information with LCC Monitoring group. 8.0 The Way Forward Mr Harvey on behalf of Hanson offered to further refine the voluntary one-way agreement by having in-bound

OtleyHGVForumMeeting160704.doc DRAFT lorries turn right onto Westgate and up to the by-pass rather than proceeding along Kirkgate. This offer was welcomed by the meeting, but it was felt that Westgate primary school should be consulted. Mr Harvey pointed Hanson out that the majority of vehicles had passed through Otley before morning school. LCC would arrange to Monitor the new arrangement and Mr Hall also said that LCC‘s Traffic Management section are looking at the possibility of a LCC TRO restricting all HGV‘s from Kirkgate. In response to queries regarding the compliance of drivers with then existing voluntary one-way system Mr Harvey said that the vast majority of drivers were observing the system and action had been taken against those who transgressed. In addition Hanson would continue take action against drivers speeding or using mobile phones. It was felt that this could be further enforced through the use of LCC‘s Speed Indicator Demonstrator(SID) on LCC Newall Carr Road. LCC would arrange.

9.0 DONM: 2pm, Friday October 8th, Otley Civic Centre.

OtleyHGVForumMeeting160704.doc (Proposed) Terms of Reference : Otley HGV Forum

Chair: Jason Copper, Yorkshire & Humber Assembly

Invitees: · Otley Town Council (2) · SOOR (2) · Leeds City Council: Executive Member & Officer Otley & Yeadon £ 2 Members Adel & Wharfedale £ 1 Member Secretary · Hanson Aggregates (2) · Pool Parish Council (2) · North Yorks County Council (2) · Bradford MDC · Freight Transport Association (FTA) · Road Haulage Association (RHA) · Police · Arthington Parish Council

Invited to This Meeting: (Future Attendance Subject to The Agreement of the Forum)

· Harrogate Borough Council · Leathley/Farnley/ Norwood Action Group

Reporting

This Forum wishes to promote the open, honest and unfettered discussion of the issues involved. As such members should be able to express opinions and views freely. It is also important that the public are fully informed of the work of the Forum. Therefore members of the Press are invited to observe the meeting, but where any Member feels their contribution would be constrained by this presence the Chair has the authority of the Meeting to request that the Press leave. Aim:

To work together to reduce the impact of heavy goods vehicle traffic on local roads in Otley and the adjacent communities in dialogue with affected parties along with the consideration of appropriate measures and initiatives.

Objectives:

1 To achieve a greater understanding of the nature, purpose and journeys of Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic in the town of Otley and adjacent communities.

2 In particular to investigate the impact of Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic immediately to the north of the town of Otley.

3 To consider possible measures for reducing the volume of Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic in the town of Otley, including the role of Traffic Regulation Orders.

4 To ensure that all other avenues and options are fully explored prior to the consideration of Traffic Regulation Orders.

5 To have due regard for the impacts of any proposed measures on road safety and the environment in Otley and adjacent communities.

6 To take account of the needs of the local economy and business in both Otley and adjacent communities.

7 To ensure that full and proper engagement and consultation takes place with the communities affected.

8 To seek expert advice and opinion as appropriate.

9 To provide all the relevant stakeholders and participants in the Forum with a full and fair hearing and respect all views and opinions. ÙÊÚ ÔÑÉÍ× ÒÌ ÉÛÑÇ

¬»°¸²°Ü òÝ ´¿®µø Ó±·Ü¹»·µ¹ÜÑ º½½¹÷°µÌ ­µ®Üи·µ» §·¿¹÷‹ ±·Ü¹»·µ¹ÜÑ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ºØ ·¹¸©§®­¼ ®±Ì ª¬®±¼¿º¬³®³¹º± ±´·½§Ó ²´¬½®´¹½¬Í

ÛڹѲ» º½½¹÷° ¬»®½½ ï𧧠»¿®­¨ ¿°·¿­²¿½÷¿ì Ю±½»­··²¹¼ ¿¬ß¬ д¹¬§º·²· ½É ¿¬ß¬ Û«·ßµ ª­´ ¬ßµó°‹ ¬»®½½  »¿®­¨ì ÐÇ­·ß µ½±¸·©²±­ Ó²¿­ Û«·ßµ»°°Ü ±´´ Ó÷®Ðß®¿Ì ¬»®½½ ï𧧠»¿®­¨ì Ы¬¹Ý¬§ Χ¬··²É²­¿ νݹ߷ а­¼²·ß±¬ß²½¹ ª§¬ß­ ·Ý±Ü­º·

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ «´»¹§­º ´× ³¬×´¹¿Ý®½´¬ Û¬»µ®»°Ñ¹÷ Ô ³·ÜÑ ­°µ¼ ÐÌÉÔ Þ²¹¸ ³¬·­¿ Ô±¬Éɲ» νݹ߷ Û±·Ü¹»·µ¹ÜÑ ÐÞÎÎ ´Ýß½¯¬ß²» ¬¹¿ «¬¹Ý¬§ νݹ߷ ÛªØ Ù·÷ г½ß© «¬¹Ý¬§ ¬¹¿ ´Ýß½¯¬ß²» д· ±­øݲ±­¿ ¬¹¿ ±­øÝ­·ß­¿

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ¸Ñ¹´¬´·´ÍÓ ×´¹ Ü®·­Ó ÛºÜÔÑ·¹ÜÑ ¼·Ü¹»·µ¹ÜÑ ·½ º»¿°‹ »µ®½½¹÷ Ы¬¹Ý¬§ Χ¬··²É²­¿ νݹ߷ ÷ÌÉÔó ÛÙÊ ¹ÐÐß° а­¼²·ß±¬ß²½¹ ª§¬ß­ ·Ý±Ü­º ̸«¼­¨Ó®» î®­÷« Ú§§Ú дÝß½¯¬ß²» »½Ý¹ß· ß½ ¯½¹²ß½± ½¹­ØÓ¬º ·º·ß­¯ ̾¿í­¼®­» Ú§§¬ ±Ö ή½¼®­» Ú§§‹ ÐÔ½Ó¹ έ¹ß±­ ¯¬¹Ý¬§ »©­»¸· Ì î®­÷« Ú§§‹ »¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ Ì×ø ¸­¬º»º «½®­º ï÷î

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ Ì×ø ¸­¬º»º «½®­º ïÔî

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ð´§Ý· ²¸¸º ï÷ß Ó­Ý¹ºî

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ð´§Ý· çø¸º ïóóìߪî

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ºÌÚ ´±©­ú Ø ÙÊø û÷

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ «»¹Ø­Ó ±·Ý¬ ̹¿ª²¨±­®±²Ö½ ¨¼­º¿» ÖØ Ùʎ´¨ Þ»¬©²¬¬é æð¿¿ ¼éï ç¸ð¿¿ ±«®­Ì «é §±®­Ìï¼Ó ½¼­ì± çî Û¿¿Û Þª·ºï¬éì¬ ³­«ß ݧŽ¹Ì Ì®Øج̩ ÙÊ´ ³ó«²Ì ±ºØ±¬Ì© ߺﵲ¬¬‹ ̾¼©© ­¿ª²¨±­®±²Ö½ ·©®±¿ Ó®±® 뮨 ÷Ö©©¿÷±¿Ó ®± æ ¨²±¿¨³ ̸»Þ êìëïÑ ¬´§Þ® ê·¼¹±Þ ²­ ´»Þ ­²·´» º¼¹Þ ²Î ´»Þ ª¼ÉÞ· ¿»ß·ÎÞ Ì¸»Þ çìïР𲲧 ª²ß¹ ²­ ´»Þ Þߺ´ º¼¹Þ ²Î ¬´§Þ® ̸»Þ çììÔ ¶ÞÞ¹º ª²ß¹ «¾º´ ´² ´»Þ Þߺ´ ²Î ´»Þ ¬´§Þ® ó®°íߺº ̸»Þ çìÔè© ê·ß¹Î²·¹ ª²ß¹ «¾º´ ´² ´» Þ º²¾´» ×Þº´ ²Î ´»Þ ¬´§Þ® ó®°íߺº ̸»Þ çììÔ µ§³§Þ® ª²ß¹ «¾º´ ´² ´»Þ ­²·´» ×Þº´ ²Î ´»Þ ¬´§Þ® ó®°íߺº ÌÎÖ¼­½¿»¨ ÖØ ©¿¨¨ ±«®½ ðæ µ²½¨ ±®¿½ ±Ö í¿ ±«­Ö¼ª« ±­²·¨ Ì纺޺º½Þ­´ ó® ß ¼­ºíÞÖ´¼²­ ²Î ´»Þ ¹¼º´·¼ó¾´¼²­ ²Î î²¾·­Þ® ´¼½Þº

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ «»¹Ø­Ó Ù½ÍÑ·½ÍÑ®º

èêç° ÙÊ´¹Ì ѼÌ̺éØ ©±­«®Ø± ¾©ó¬ Ó ò¬©²¬¬é æð¿¿ ¼éï ç¸ð¿¿ ±«®­Ìø ÌèØÑ ²Î ´»ÞºÞ Ùʎøº ûèÐ÷ } »ß¹ 󾺼­Þºº ×¼´»¼­ ¬´§Þ® ÌëÐï ²Î ´»ÞºÞ Ùʎøº ûìÑ÷} ×Þ·Þ íߺº¼­± ´»·²¾±» ¬´§Þ® ²­ ´»·²¾±» ´·¼íº

èç°ç ÙÊ´¹Ì «é ©±­«®Ø± ©­ºÑÌ ûÛ ¿÷í ²¬­¬ ѼÌ̺éØ ©±­«®Ø± ¾©ó¬Ó ®ÌºéØ ©±¬ Ý°°¿ òӵѼÌÌ èëëî ÙÊ´¹Ì «é ©±­«®Ø± ©­ºÑÌ ûî ç÷í ²¬­¬ ѼÌ̺éØ ©±­«®Ø± ¾©ó¬Ó §«²é Ž¬é©­¬ «é ©±­«®Ø± ©­ºÑÌ

èÛ°ê ÙÊ´¹Ì ûëÛ÷í ®Ì¬ï ©±¬ »°îÎç ¾©ó¬Ó »­ºïج ©« ì­«ÌÌ ©±¬ ɺ·¬­ ×±¼­³¬ø çëî «³ ©±¬Ì¬ ÙÊ´¹Ì ûç°÷ í ²¬­¬ ì­«Ì̺éØ ©±¬ ò­ºïج «é ©±­«®Ø± ©­ºÑÌ Ñ¼Ì̺éØ ©±­«®Ø± ¾©ó¬Ó

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ÙÊ° ø¹Ý××½§ «Ö·½® °Þ¿­--

¸®±«¹©® ¸«²Ý »¬Ý×±¬

ÑÝ ´×§¬Þ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ «­¬º½®½Ø½®Ó ®´ Ï´»¹¬­Ó ø½¿­ ¸»®ì´×× îûûï ûï çûï èûï îëî îé䀘 䀘çë éûï êûï ëûï ìûï íûï ìîï ìïç ïéé îûï ûï ð³ ·²«¬»­ëðî ·²«¬»­ë䀚³ ·²«¬»­ë ±½¿´Ì ¸®«½¹Ä®

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ©»Ý¹¹Ó ø¹Ý××½§

Ô±²¹¬¸®²»¹æ è ïª ·æ®½´­æ¾ ²¼¾æ»·æÐ Ô³»æ¨½ñì´²¹´»æ¸æ è Ìï ·æ®½´­æ¾ ²¼¾æ»·æÐ

Ô¿®æ °ºº»²ñ½¨°¸æ º»²º²»¸½²¹ ²¯ «§°»»© ·æ®½´­æ¾ »æ´²»ÐæÐ °¸ æ°´® ¾½¸æ ½¾ ¬½·æ¹ ¼æ­²ø ûØ ¸²¸°­ ÙÊ÷Þè êëÌðªðßØ çëðîÛßØ çëëß Ñ°¾¸ ²¯ í¸­æ©ÉßØ çëßÉïªßØ çëëß æ¾¸ ²¯ í¸­æ©ÉßØ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬ »°´°āº¿²°±³ »°¿®¬³²°±³ ÙÊ° ²´Ø­¿­¬®º

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ÙÊÚ ´±©­º ®³©ß êðíèø

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ÙÊÚ ´±©­º ®³©ß êððí É»¬º÷Þ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ÙÊÚ ´±©­º ®³©ß ìðëïç

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ÙÊÚ ´±©­º ®³©ß êðïÛ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ÙÊÚ ´±©­º ®³©ß êððí É¿ˮº÷Þ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ܬ­ìÎÝÓ «Óº®­¿ ’­º»·®º

Ì±Ô »¼¼­æ ¬ ¸®«Ô¹Ñ® ´¸§¼Ú ̳«ÔÐ »¼¼­æ ¬ ¸®«Ô¹Ñ® ñÔÔ§¿»¼Ó¸®§¼Ú ̲Էî¸Ô«¼­ ì© ®Ô¹«æ ß ݱº ­Ó¸Ó ̺§¼Ó« ¸«¼·­æ ¼Ð¼«Ñ¼­ Ô· Ó½½¼¸¼­ «ÔÓ­æ Ìذ¹Œð Ó¸ æ¸Ó«¸ Ô½ 쪪© ̲Էî¸Ô«î·Ñ æ¹æŒ¼·­¼­ ­¹¼ ¸Ô ×Ó·­Ó§îæÐ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ³°´·½¿¬±½²­º ®²Ð Ú²²· ÌÙ·«¼Óæ¼­ °ÊÉ ½§Ôßæ ¸®«Ô¹Ñ® »¼Ó¸®§¼Ú ÌݧæÔ î·«¼Óæ¼ ½§Ôßæ ¸®«Ô¹Ñ® ñÔÔ§ 䧱­¬¿º ©²¼© ÙÊ¢ ɧ½Ó· ë ðÒÒ

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ «»±»Ð§ Ú·¬­º ̺Է¸î·¹¼­ ŒÓ«¸îîŒÓ¸îÔ· î· ¸®¼ ³Ô«¹Ð ̵ԫÒî·Ñ ß Ô§§¼Óѹ¼æ î· Ç íÔ«Òæ ÌÙ·æ¸Ó§§Ó¸îÔ· Ô½ Î Œ¼«ÐÓ·¼·¸ Ô¹·¸¼«æ ÐÚ­Ó¬§§ ά±± °½¬¿ Ь±¹§­º Þ¬¹­ ÐÞ­¬ß©§­º Þ¬¹­ ̳¹«¸®¼« Ó·Ó§Úæîæ ½Ô« ´¸§¼Ú Ó·­ ñÔÔ§

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ ³°´¬¿± ²® Ú²·½¿Ñ }´±½²­º Ì´·¼ ßÓÚ æÚ渼Р޻­ºïج µ ¾®©ò«®éï ð °Î ûê÷í ³¬²¬­ ÙÊ´Ì Ì¾¼æ¸«î¸îÔ·æ Þ»­ºïج µ 协éò«®éï ð ÎÎ ûæ÷í ³¬²¬­ ÙÊ´Ì Þ»­ºïج µ ¾®©ò«®éï ð °Î ûê÷í ³¬²¬­ ÙÊ´Ì Ì´¸§¼Ú ¼Ó渼«· óÚˮŒÓææ Þ§«²é Ž¬é©­¬ µ 协éò«®éï ð ç¿¿ ûçë÷í ³¬²¬­ ÙÊ´Ì Þ§«²é Ž¬é©­¬ µ ¾®©ò«®éï ð ¸Î ûçÛ÷í ³¬²¬­ ÙÊ´Ì

»¼¼­Ý ·¬§± ·«²½´¬˘ »ª´ª±°³²ª¬¿ »ª³®}¿²ª¬¿ AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: S Winfield

Tel: 24 74707

REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY SUPPORT MANAGER SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)

DATE : 4TH OCTOBER 2004 SUBJECT : WORK PROGRAMME, FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS AND MONITORING REPORT

Electoral Wards Affected : Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The attached appendices provide Members with a copy of the Board‘s current Work Programme (Appendix 1) and the Forward Plan of Key Decisions (Appendix 2).

1.2 The Forward Plan of Key Decisions covers the period 1st October 2004 to 1st January 2005. Appendix 2 details those “key decisions‘ pertaining to this Board‘s Terms of Reference.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Board is requested to;

(i) Receive and make any changes to the attached Work Programme following decisions made at today‘s meeting.

(ii) Receive and note the Forward Plan of Key Decisions. SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) - WORK PROGRAMME - LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 2004 Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION NOTES DATE ENTERED INTO WORK PROGRAMME

Suggested Areas for Scrutiny Currently Unscheduled Theme: integrated Members will conduct further scrutiny on this The Local Transport Plan is due in its draft 12-07-04 transport - Inquiry issue when there have been further form from December. into Supertram developments in the Supertram project. Theme: integrated The Board will draft terms of reference and The Local Transport Plan is due in its draft 12-07-04 transport - Inquiry conduct an inquiry into the rail infrastructure form from December. into train stations and the siting of local stations, including the possible re-opening of train stations. Theme: integrated The Board will draft terms of reference and The Local Transport Plan is due in its draft 12-07-04 transport - Inquiry conduct an inquiry into congestion issues in form from December. into congestion the city and possible solutions. issues Energy and Water A previous Board received the external audit This report will come to the Board once it has 6-09-04 Management Audit report on Energy and Water Management in gone through the usual procedures. Report - follow up 2000. The Audit Commission has done a on follow up report on this which looks at how recommendations the department has implemented the made in 2000 Audit recommendations made in the original 2000 report report. Report on funding Members requested information on how to 6-09-04 opportunities for maximise funding from developers for road road safety and safety and other initiatives. other initiatives as part of new developments Issues around the Following discussions at Overview and 16-09-04 Wykebeck Valley Scrutiny Committee, development issues Road flooding pertinent to the flooding incident at Wykebeck Valley Road have been referred to the Board for scrutiny. SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) - WORK PROGRAMME - LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 2004 ITEM DESCRIPTION NOTES DATE ENTERED INTO WORK PROGRAMME

Meeting date: 4th October 2004 Access to the Members requested a report on the current 12-07-04 airport position with regard to access to the airport. Members will also receive draft terms of reference for an inquiry into issues around access to the airport. Probity in planning The Board is required to consider this audit 6-09-04 audit report and report as part of its corporate referrals. update Members will also receive an update on the action plan, describing progress made. Otley HGV Forum Members requested an update on progress 6-09-04 minutes made by the Forum in tackling HGV issues.

Meeting date: 1st November 2004 Planning Members requested a report on the planning 6-09-04 Notification notification process process Road Safety Members will receive reports on lengths of These reports will include information 12-07-04 road and sites for concern. displayed by area.

Members will also receive a report containing information on: · reduction in casualties as a result of traffic calming measures, · criteria for placing speed cameras and 30 mph signs, · clarification of figures and comparative information for other authorities, SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) - WORK PROGRAMME - LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 2004 ITEM DESCRIPTION NOTES DATE ENTERED INTO WORK PROGRAMME

· information on trends in accident levels, and , · levels of complaints about road safety measures. Meeting date: 29th November 2004 Budget Proposals The Board is required to consider the 12-07-04 department‘s budget proposals and feed any comments and recommendations to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who will then collate a response and submit this to the Executive Board. Meeting date: 10th January 2005 Park and Ride Members will receive a report on the recent The original idea for taking forward a Park 12-07-04 Study Park and Ride study on the whole of West and Ride study for Leeds was not progressed Yorkshire as there was not sufficient revenue money available. The brief was discussed with Metro and expanded to cover the whole of West Yorkshire. Metro appointed consultants and the study is ongoing and expected to report in October this year.

Once the findings are available, the department will need to assess the implications for Leeds and how park and ride may fit into a wider parking strategy for Leeds. Performance The Board will receive information on the Management department‘s performance in order to report / Director,s contribute to the director‘s appraisal process. appraisal SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) - WORK PROGRAMME - LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 2004 ITEM DESCRIPTION NOTES DATE ENTERED INTO WORK PROGRAMME

Meeting date: 7th February 2005 Report on staffing Members requested information on staffing 6-09-04 issues in the issues in the planning department, especially, Planning recruitment and retention of staff and department workload.

Meeting date: 7th March 2005 Monitoring Report Members requested a 6 monthly update on 6-09-04 the following issues at the September meeting: · Inquiry into China Town · Energy Matters inquiry

Meeting date: 11th April 2005 SCRUTINY BOARD (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES) - WORK PROGRAMME - LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 2004 WORKING GROUP DESCRIPTION ATTENDEES DATES OF MEETINGS Landmark Leeds A working group of the Board established to Cllr Cleasby 11th August 04 consider lessons learned from the Landmark Cllr Bale Leeds project, and the implementation of Cllr Latty these lessons. Cllr G Hyde

Nicole Jackson Malcolm Foster LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS

For the period 1st October to 31st January 2005

Key Decisions Decision Maker Expected Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer Date of Consultation Considered by Decision (To whom Decision Maker representations should be made)

To seek approval of the Director of 4/10/04 Ward Members, Metro, The report to be issued to Director of Design and Authority to Development Police & Other the Decision maker Development implement the proposed Emergency Services bus lane at Wellington plus Public during Road, New Wortley advertisement of Traffic Regulation Order

To seek authority to Executive Board 13/10/04 Public consultation has The report to be issued to Director of progress the design and (Portfolio: already started and will the decision maker with the Development preparation of statutory Development) continue. Statutory agenda for the meeting orders for the A65 Quality consultation required Bus Corridor for Orders and consents will be carried out.

Urban Renaissance Executive Board 13/10/04 Extensive consultation The report to be issued to Director of Visioning £ to note the (Portfolio: has taken place to the decision maker with the Development contents of the report, to Development) date in order to agenda for the meeting endorse the report produce the report.

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc Key Decisions Decision Maker Expected Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer Date of Consultation Considered by Decision (To whom Decision Maker representations should be made) produced as a result of the Further consultation Urban Renaissance will take place on Visioning exercise and specific improvement agree the consultation areas. programme subject to funding from Yorkshire Forward

Supertram- seeking Executive Board 13/10/04 The report to be issued to Director of approval for changes to (Portfolio: the decision maker with the Development. contractual arrangements Development) agenda for the meeting. for the implementation of Supertram

Local Development Executive Board 17/11/04 The report to be issued to Director of Framework / Local (Portfolio: the decision maker with the Development Development Scheme £ To Development) agenda for the meeting have Member agreement on the City Council‘s Local Development Scheme setting out the approach to the production of the Council‘s Local Development Framework following changes to the Planning system

To consider a compulsory Executive Board 17/11/04 Ward Members The report to be issued to Director of purchase order in order to (Portfolio: the decision maker with the Development assemble a site for a major Development) agenda for the meeting

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc Key Decisions Decision Maker Expected Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer Date of Consultation Considered by Decision (To whom Decision Maker representations should be made) retail development at Commercial Street/Church Street/Ingram Parade, Rothwell

To approve the disposal of Executive Board 17/11/04 Ward Members / The report to be issued to Director of land for expansion of (Portfolio: Wetherby High School/ the decision maker with the Development Morrisons car park and to Development) Morrisons agenda for the meeting enter into development agreement for bus pull-in and re-provision of school car park

To consider the options Executive Board 17/11/04 Ward members and A report detailing the options Director of available for the future use (Portfolio: the tenants of both for the future use of two Development of two industrial properties, Development ) properties industrial properties at St St Ann‘s Mills and Abbey Ann‘s Mills and Abbey Mills Mills Kirkstall Leeds Kirkstall Leeds.

Leeds International Pool £ Executive Board 17/11/04 Ward Members and The report to be issued to Director of Consideration of offers and (Portfolio: Members of Council the decision maker with the Development schemes received for Development) agenda for the meeting redevelopment of the Leeds International Pool and selection of a party to whom the property will be sold

South Leeds Link Road Executive Board 17/11/04 Planning permission is The report to be issued to Director of Phase 2 Works- To (Portfolio: being sought the decision maker with the Development

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc Key Decisions Decision Maker Expected Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer Date of Consultation Considered by Decision (To whom Decision Maker representations should be made) authorise the incurring of Development) agenda for the meeting expenditure of 2,750,000 on the implementation of South Leeds Link Road Phase 2

Leeds Inner Ring Road Executive Board 17/11/04 The Scheme has The report to be issued to Director of Stage 7 £ To progress the (Portfolio: progressed through an the decision maker with the Development implementation of Leeds Development) extensive consultation agenda for the meeting Inner Ring Road Stage 7 process and has “Approved‘ status with the Local Transport Plan. Further consultation will take place as the project is progressed

Car Park / Traffic Executive Board 17/11/04 The report to be issued to Director of Management Signing (Portfolio: the decision maker with the Development System Development ) agenda for the meeting - To seek approval to carry out the design and go out to tender for this new system To seek approval to award the contract to build and

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc Key Decisions Decision Maker Expected Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer Date of Consultation Considered by Decision (To whom Decision Maker representations should be made) commission the system

NOTES

Key decisions are those executive decisions: · which result in the authority incurring expenditure or making savings over 500,000 per annum, or · are likely to have a significant effect on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards

Executive Board Portfolios Executive Member

Central and Corporate Councillor Mark Harris Development Councillor Andrew Carter City Services Councillor David Morton Neighbourhoods and Housing Councillor John Leslie Carter Leisure Councillor John Procter Learning Councillor Richard Harker Children‘s Services Councillor Brian Jennings Social Care and Health Councillor Peter Harrand Leader of the Green Group Councillor David Blackburn Leader of the Labour Group Councillor Keith Wakefield Advisory Member Councillor Judith Blake

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

BUDGET AND POLICY FRAMEWORK DECISIONS

Relating to Scrutiny Board (Development Services)

Decisions Decision Maker Expected Date Proposed Documents to be Lead Officer of Decision Consultation Considered by Decision Maker

Local Transport Plan Council June 2005 Via Executive Board Report to be issued to the Director of in accordance with decision maker with the Development requirements agenda for the meeting

NOTES:

The Council‘s Constitution, in Article 4, defines those plans and strategies which make up the Budget and Policy Framework. Details of the consultation process are published in the Council‘s Forward Plan as required under the Budget and Policy Framework.

Full Council (a meeting of all Members of the Council) are responsible for the adoption of the budget and policy framework.

g.mins/execbrd/forward plans/2004/oct04fplan.doc