►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Excellent
well
good
afternoon,
everybody
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
the
development
plan
panel.
I'm
council,
neil
walshart,
and
I'm
your
chair
just
got
a
few
things
to
go
through
in
my
in
my
usual
script,
to
make
sure
we're
all
legally
compliant
so
I'll.
Do
that
just
wanna
tell
any
members
what
members
of
the
public
watching
on
the
world
web
web
that
members
have
started
this
meeting
in
a
feisty
mood,
and
I
I'm
slightly
concerned
as
to
how
things
are
gonna
go
today,
but
let's
try.
B
We
are
broadcasting
on
the
council's
youtube
channel
to
ensure
that
members
of
the
public
can
observe
what
we're
doing
and
transparency
is
how
we
conduct
things
on
this
council
just
like
to
remind
members
that
our
health
and
safety
guidance
from
our
offices
tells
us
we
have
to
conduct
our
business
within
90
minutes,
so
conciseness
and
brevity
would
be
really
appreciated.
We've
got
a
lot
of
interesting
stuff
to
do
today.
I
think,
but
I
think
we
can
get
through
this,
so
I'm
going
to
do
introductions
and
go
around
in
alphabetical
order.
B
C
B
Wharf
deal
ward
council
brooks
would
be
next
month.
She
has
to
self-isolate.
At
the
moment,
council
campbell
is
in
another
meeting,
he'll
be
joining
us
shortly.
So
councillor
lamb.
Please.
B
B
Turning
to
officers,
martin
elliott.
K
B
B
B
Thank
you
so
much
right,
so
agender
item
six.
Colleagues,
if
you
could
turn
your
attention
to
the
minutes
of
the
last
meeting,
starting
on
page
seven
in
in
your
papers,
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
these
on
a
page
page
man,
I'm
going
to
anticipate
that
members
have
read
the
minutes.
There's
anything
anything
members
want
to
raise
in
the
minutes
are
any
matters
arising
from
either
members
or
officers.
H
Thank
you
chair,
just
just
on
the
local
plan,
update
just
to
alert
members
to
what
I'm
sure
they
already
know
that
executive
board
endorsed
consultation
on
the
material.
That's
subject
to
these
minutes
and
pre-publicity
on
the
local
plan.
Update
will
begin
next
monday
on
the
12th
of
july,
and
the
formal
consultation
will
start
on
the
19th
of
july
running
until
the
middle
of
september.
B
That
I'm
sure
we
can
all
agree
is
excellent
news
that
we're
making
progress
on
our
climate
emergency
led
local
plan
review.
Wonderful,
so
no
further
matters
right.
You
can
have
someone
to
move
the
minutes.
As
a
true
record,
your
members,
yep
nods,
are
in
the
room,
fantastic
thanks,
very
much.
Okay,
then.
So
turning
to
agenda
item
seven.
So
this
is
the
update
arising
from
current
and
future
national
guidance
changes.
B
As
we're
all
well
aware,
members,
there
is
an
awful
lot
going
on
in
the
world
of
planning
emanating
from
government,
so
we
thought
it
was
a
timely
moment
to
bring
an
update
and
have
discussion
and
debate
on
this.
So
I
think,
without
any
further
ado,
much
I'll
just
hand
over
yourself
structure
it.
How
you
want,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
to
go
through
but
be
my
guest.
H
Okay,
thank
you
chair,
so
agenda
item,
seven,
which
really
comprises
three
updates:
one
around
the
national
model,
design
code,
one
around
biodiversity
net
gain
and
finally,
around
first
homes.
So
I've
brought
offices
in
to
talk
about
these
separate
matters
at
nada.
Can
we'll
talk
about
the
national
model,
design
code,
richard
marshall,
about
biodiversity,
nate
gain
and
I'll
I'll
finish
off
on
first
homes.
So
if
I
hand
over
to
nada
and
he'll
give
a
short
introduction
to
the
national
model
design
code,
and
then
I
think
it's
probably
easier.
H
If
members
then
ask
clarification
and
questions
after
that
introduction.
K
Good
afternoon,
as
you
you
probably
already
know
earlier
this
year,
we
were
successful
in
being
selected
amongst
13
other
authorities
to
test
specific
elements
of
the
national
design
code
and,
at
the
end,
at
the
second
of
march
dpp.
We
reported
that
in
a
diverse
urban
authority
such
as
leeds,
we
would
opt
to
look
at
testing
the
area
type
approach
of
the
program.
K
Now,
since
then,
we've
made
good
progress,
really
good
progress
in
producing
an
overview
of
gis
layers
showing
how
all
the
109
community
areas
and
leads
can
be
split
into
typologies
and
that
that
means
ie
urban
neighborhoods,
inner
suburbs
out
suburbs,
town
and
city,
centers
etc,
as
laid
out
in
the
in
the
design
code,
and
to
support
this
we've
also
drawn
down
data
to
include
housing
densities,
to
back
up
our
typology
designations
and
as
works
progressed.
The
work
streams
have
naturally
split.
B
C
On
in
paragraph
six,
where
we're
going
to
be
splitting
areas
into
whatever
the
categories
are
going
to
be,
when
we
did
that
the
last
time
for
the
site
allocations
plan
that
did
lead
to
a
degree
of
controversy.
C
For
example,
there
was
a
site
in
pudsey
that
the
council,
which
is
next
to
bradford,
actually
which
they
clanced
as
rural
and
parts
of
my
ward,
they
declared
as
being
part
of
the
urban
fringe.
Well,
both
of
them
are
wrong.
To
be
quite
frank,
so
how
are
we
going
to
be
sure
that
we
get
it
in
the
right?
We
get
the
categories
right,
because,
if
you
again
being
parochial,
if
you
look
at
my
word,
you
could
argue
that
mine
is
urban.
C
B
K
Yes,
what
we're
we're
not
actually
splitting
the
the
community
areas
into
typologies,
we're
testing
to
see
if
those
community
areas
can
be
split
into
typologies,
so
there's
a
slightly
different
methodology
that
we're
using
here
does
that
does
that
answer
the
question.
H
Yeah,
I
thought
I
think
chair
just
just
remembers
benefit
that
these
are
exactly
the
sorts
of
issues
that
we'll
be
giving
back
to
mhclg,
to
tell
them
whether
we
think
the
national
model
design
code
can
work
in
a
city
like
leeds.
So
it's
it's
those
sorts
of
nuances
that
as
we're
testing
to
see
whether
we
can
actually
compartmentalize
and
discreetly
section
up
parts
of
of
leads
into
single
typologies.
E
I'm
just
struggling
a
little
bit
with
the
philosophy
behind
the
model
that
you're
testing.
So
what
exactly
is
a
typology
and
what
kind
of
categories
might
there
be
in
terms
of
typologies
and
how
would
that
relate
to
design
exactly
I'm?
Is
there
a
built-in
factor
that
would
prevent
us
from
going
down
the
you
know,
the
leafy
lane,
posh
areas
get
very
good
standards
of
design
and
the
inner
city
areas
get
less.
So
how
do
the
typologies
relate
to
aspects
of
design.
K
Okay,
so
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
test
to
see
whether
a
design
code
could
actually
work
across
the
various
neighborhood
community
in
the
community
areas.
K
So,
for
example,
if
we're
looking
at
so
the
typologies
are
set
out
in
the
the
design,
the
national
design
code
guide,
and
I
think,
there's
nine
or
ten
ten
typologies
and
they
they
go
from
anywhere
from
a
rural
area
down
to
the
city
center
area
with
I've
got
it,
we've
got
it
written
here.
We've
got
it
as
urban
neighborhoods
inner
suburbs
outer
suburbs,
towns,
city,
centers,
rural
industrial.
So
what
we?
K
E
Well,
as
you
say,
we'll
be
picking
finer
detail
when
we
get
to
the
workshop
it,
it
doesn't
make
easy
sense
to
me.
No
I've
got
to
say.
K
K
It
may
end
up
at
the
end
of
this
in
september
after
you've
had
our
after
we've
had
our
workshop,
that
we
go
back
to
mhclg
and
say
well,
we've
looked
at
doing
it
as
area
typologies
and
it
doesn't
work
in
the
in
a
city
like
leeds,
because
it's
just
so
diverse.
B
I
Thank
you
chair.
It
was
just
to
help
clarify
for
council
crew
and
I
I
think
the
way
I'm
looking
at
this
council
grew
and
is
on
the
basis
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
at
the
moment
to
test
this
methodology
is
almost
about
establishing
a
baseline
to
understand
what
the
character
of
different
areas
are
and
then
in
representing
that
character
down
the
line.
It's
about
coming
up
with
designs,
solutions
that
are
appropriate
within
that
character.
If
that
makes
sense,
but
essentially
at
the
moment
what
we're
doing
is
road
testing.
I
If,
if
the
concept
actually
works-
and
I
think
one
of
the
issues
we
had
at
the
outset-
is
that
we
didn't
want
sort
of
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
nationally
being
imposed
upon
leads,
we
wanted
to
develop
something
from
a
bottom-up
perspective
that
works
for
us
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
so
I'm
really
pleased
that
we've
been
able
to
get
involved
with
the
pilot.
Thank
you,
chad.
If.
E
I
may
come
back
just
briefly:
yeah,
I'm
pleased
we're
involved
as
well
and
I'm
sure
it's
very
interesting
work.
But
what
you've
just
described,
I'm
thinking
about
my
own
ward
and
we
have
a
lot
of
not
terribly
attractive
council
estates
that
were
built,
60s
70s
and
a
very
unattractive
shopping
center.
That
was
built
in
the
same
era
and
I
wouldn't
be
wanting
to
develop
any
design
codes
that
that
reflected
the
character
of
those.
B
Yeah,
it's
it!
It's
we're
a
good
place
to
test,
I
think,
to
be
part
of
involved
in
pilot
city,
we're
such
a
because
we're
a
city
with
quite
a
broadly
drawn
boundary,
including
lots
of
rural
areas,
as
well
as
all
the
different
types
of
urban
areas,
we're
a
good
place
to
come
and
experiment
with
so
to
speak.
Council
mckenna,
jimmy
onyx
thanks.
G
Chair
I'm
looking
at
paragraph
25
and
I
note
that
in
the
university
areas
only
17
percent
of
people
can
afford
a
mortgage
of
a
hundred
thousand
pounds
and
only
one
percent
can
afford
160
000
pounds.
I
know
in
the
report.
It
talks
about
leveling
up
that
a
discount
could
go
to
40
or
50
percent,
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
bear
that
in
mind.
When
we
we
actually
come
to
our
final
reports.
G
It
does
seem
to
me
that
the
buzzwords
of
the
day
is
leveling
up,
isn't
it
not
only
leveling
up
in
the
north
but
leveling
up
in
this
city?
You
know,
I
mean
the
disparities
between
some
wards
and
leeds
it's
just
as
great
as
there
is
in
the
london
area
and
the
northern
area.
So
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
firm
grip
on
that
and
keep
it
very
firmly
in
mind
as
we
move
forward.
G
My
second
question
relates
to
the
same
thing
and
it's
not
in
the
report,
but
it's
my
old
chestnut
developers
crying.
This
is
unaffordable.
We
can't
provide
any
housing
whatsoever.
Any
affordable
housing
is
the
first
home
policy
exempt
from
this,
or
can
they
still
cry
foul
and
say
sorry,
boris,
but
it's
a
no-go
because
we
simply
can't
afford
it.
B
We're
going
to
do
first
homes,
jim
in
I
agree
with
everything
you
said:
we're
going
to
do
first
homes
in
some
detail.
Once
we've
finished
off
with
the
the
the
pilot
scheme,
the
design
co-pilot
scheme.
Thank
you
catholic
agree,
the
zanco
pilot
scheme,
but
yeah.
No,
so
we'll
cover
those
questions
then,
and
they
are
very
good
questions.
Council,
collins,
you're
next
on
my
list.
E
Thank
you,
chad.
Yes,
I'm
still
on
the
model
design
codes.
I
was
just
curious.
The
officers
have
said
in
the
report.
They'll
be
one
one
to
ten
suggested
area
types,
but
how
big
are
the
areas
going
to
be
because
I
think
this
is
going
back
to
what
councilor
anderson
said.
I
think
part
of
the
problem
with
the
hmca
is
the
housing
market.
Market
characteristic
areas
was
to
be
too
big
really
and
you
could
get
a
diverse
range
of
different
house
types
within
those
areas.
So
so,
when
you're
looking
at
these
models,
how?
H
It
will
be
whatever
of
the
the
one
to
ten
design
codes
that
are
in
the
national
guidance,
how
they
fit
and
how
they
best
fit
within
different
parts
of
leads,
but
there
will
be
if,
if,
if
government
take
through
its
planning
reforms,
other
areas
that
overlay
onto
the
geography
of
leeds
that
determine
whether
you're
an
area
of
growth
or
whether
you're
an
area
of
restraint
or
whether
you're
an
area
of
renewal,
those
areas
will
not
necessarily
correlate
with
the
national
model
design
code
areas,
they'll
determine
which
places
grow,
which
places
have
a
kind
of
a
an
area
of
protection.
H
H
So
so,
for
instance,
the
lead
site
allocations
plan
under
a
design
code
might
actually
have
more
detail
as
to
what
the
design
of
each
housing
allocation
would
be
as
it
comes
forward.
H
So
at
the
moment
we
don't
know
whether
the
government's
going
to
go
with
one
approach
or
whether
it's
going
to
go
with
a
number
of
different
approaches
that
could
be
rolled
out
within
within
within
any
authority.
E
Okay,
that
sounds
a
bit
backwards
in
some
ways,
because,
if
we're
looking
at
the
sites
and
then
defining
them,
that's
not
actually
going
to
speed
the
process
up.
Is
it
because
I
thought
the
whole
point
of
this
change
was
to
try
and
speed
up
development
planning
commissions,
but
but
second
to
that,
and
so
are
we
actually
going
to
use
census
data?
Are
we
looking
at
the
areas
that
the
census
defines
as
well,
because
they
are
actually
quite
small
chunks?
H
K
Yeah,
yes,
we've
we've
looked
at
the
community
areas
as
are
laid
out
in
neighbourhoods
for
living.
You
can
find
all
the
the
the
way
that
the
areas
are
split
up
there
and
what
we've
we've
done
to
back
up
our
data
on
our
is
produce
overlays
on
gis,
which
take
the
densities
of
housing
densities.
K
So
we
can
see
where
so
you
can
differentiate
between
suburb
and
outer
suburb
on
on
the
the
actual
densities
of
the
of
the
housing,
so
we're
using
that,
but
we
can
have
a
look
at
how
census
data
can
be
used
as
well.
I.
B
Think
excellent:
okay,
council,
taylor.
E
K
K
It's
so
council
taylor,
it's
the
engagement
as
engagement
and
community
consultation.
This
is
really
high
on
the
on
the
list
of
items
in
in
the
not
in
the
design
code
and.
K
There
is
one
of
the
teams
that
one
of
the
work
students
that
we're
looking
at
is
how
to
a
methodology
is
engaging
with
neighbour
forums.
The
others
that
you
talk
about
are
neighbor
forums,
developer
groups
and
any
other
interested
parties,
including
ward
members.
So
it's
anybody,
who's
got
any
group
or
any
person.
That's
got
an
a
an
interest
in
in
any
of
the
land
that
we're
looking
at.
E
Sorry,
please
bear
with
me
I'm
new
and
planning,
I'm
not
100
familiar,
but
when
is
this
deadline?
E
K
Yeah,
so
what
we're
looking
at
is
the
methodologies
at
the
moment
we're
not
actually
going
to
be.
We
will
be
present.
We
will
be
presenting
a
a
workshop
to
be
held
with
with
with
ward
members
and
dpp
members
and
early
in
september,
but
we're
looking
at
the
way
that
we
would
engage
and
take
that
back
to
mhclg
and
say
that
this
is
how
we
would
engage
with
neighborhood
forums.
They've
already
got
neighborhood
plans.
We
would
include
informational,
neighborhood
plans.
We
would
speak
to
ward
members.
K
B
Right
folks,
thanks
for
those
questions,
look
forward
to
september's
workshop
cancer,
anderson
you're
indicating
is
it
just
on
this
one
yeah?
Yes,.
C
That
says
in
a
particular,
you
need
a
particular
type
of
housing,
the
one
that
a
lot
of
us
bring
forward,
bungalows,
for
example,
which
might
not
fit
in
with
the
design
code
that
the
area
has
been
put
into,
because
when
you
get
down
to
the
more
micro
level
or
granularity,
depending
on
what
you
want
to
call
it
so
how's
this
going
to
reflect
those
types
of
concerns.
Or
do
I
wait
until
the
september
workshop
before
we
have
that
debate.
B
Well,
that's
funny.
She
said
I
mean
we
tend
to
view
designing
in
the
broadest
terms
to
start
with
and
then
focus
on,
focusing
on
focusing
and
that's
the
approach
we'll
probably
take
but
martin
very
briefly
on
that
yeah.
H
I
think
government
and
the
design
code
are
really
keen
to
see
this
as
more
than
just
what
the
building
looks
like
and
recognize
its
setting
you'll
be
aware
that
the
local
plan
update
has
an
intent
to
put
new
policies
in
about
place
making
so
and
we've
also
got
neighborhoods
for
living,
which
sets
very
detailed
criteria-based
aspirations
for
for
good
design
and
place
making
in
leads
the
way
I
see
this
is
it's
going
to
be
an
amalgam
of
all
three,
so
so
the
design
won't.
H
B
Well,
it's
a
case
of
watching
space
with
interest.
Isn't
it
really
I'm
sure
officers
and
keepers
appraise
as
we
build
towards
september's
workshop?
I
want
to
move
on
to
biodiversity
thanks
and
then
we'll
get
on
to
first
terms
and
we'll
start
off
with
council
mckenna's
questions
that
you
raised
at
that
point.
Let's
do
biodiversity.
J
Yes,
okay,
so
I'm
here
to
talk
about
biodiversity
net
gain
it's
a
phrase
you're
getting
more
familiar
with,
and
seeing
me
more
often
at
your
meetings
to
try
and
summarize
what
we're
doing
it's
in
line
with
a
piece
of
legislation
called
the
environment
bill
which
has
been
passing
through
various
stages.
It's
gone
through
the
house
of
commons.
It's
now
with
the
house
of
lords
coming
towards
the
end
of
well
be
stage
three
soon.
J
I
think
so
we're
looking
for
royal
ascent
for
the
environment
bill
round
about
autumn
this
year
it
might
be
late
autumn
this
year.
I
think
what
that
really
means
is
within
two
years
of
that
date.
So
the
back
end
of
2023,
it
will
be
mandatory
to
deliver
biodiversity
net,
gain
to
an
actual
percentage
figure
and
that's
a
minimum
of
10
percent.
J
So
the
critical
thing
we
have
to
consider
now
is
how
we're
preparing
for
that
and
how
we're
trying
to
align
our
policies.
So
we
can
meet
that
commitment
and
what
really
are
the
implications
of
that?
It's
not
just
about
achieving
a
10
percent
figure.
It's
thinking
what
does
that
really
mean
to
developers?
J
I
mean,
obviously,
you
can't
achieve
a
net
gain
of
biodiversity
within
a
development
site
very
often
anyway,
there's
a
caveat
there,
but
most
of
the
time
when
we're
talking
about
employment
schemes,
residential
schemes,
eighty
percent
of
the
land
area
has
been
changed
from
whatever
it
was
to
built
surface
sealed
surface.
So
we
have
to
acknowledge.
There's
gonna
have
to
be
an
off-site
option
for
the
biodiversity
to
be
delivered.
So
that's
something
we
need
to
start
thinking
about
quite
deeply.
J
So
in
line
with
that
myself
and
the
other
west
yorkshire
districts,
we've
we've
been
getting
together.
We've
formed
a
west
yorkshire
net
gain
partnership,
steering
group
as
it
were,
and
we're
making
sure
that,
hopefully,
all
the
districts
can
work
towards
the
same
procedures
or
governance
systems
and
we're
actually
employing
a
consultant
for
six
months
to
drill
down
into
exactly
what
we
need
to
do,
because
we
know
this
is
going
to
be
an
extra
burden
on
us
as
a
local
authority.
J
It
might
be
that
sharing
some
of
that
burden
across
west
yorkshire
may
be
beneficial
financially
and
also
for
biodiversity
as
well,
because
biodiversity
doesn't
stop
at
our
district
border.
So
there's
an
awful
lot
to
think
about.
I
don't
want
to
go
through
it
in
an
awful
lot
of
detail
now,
but
there's
a
summary
in
the
report.
You've
got
and
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions
really.
I
suppose
the
main
thing
to
just
say
before
we
do
that
is.
J
We
do
have
a
policy
at
the
moment
g9
which
actually
talks
about
achieving
a
net
gain
for
biodiversity.
We've
had
that
for
a
number
of
years,
so
to
a
degree
we're
ahead
of
the
game
there.
That
came
from
the
nppf
wording
years
ago.
We
never
stated
a
percentage
alongside
that
policy
wording.
So
that's
why
now
we
think
it's
important
we're
going
for
at
least
that
minimum
figure
that
has
been
talked
about
in
the
environment
bill.
J
B
Obviously
there
are
things
we'll
we'll
be
looking
at
this
as
it
comes
smooth
to
royal
ascent
and
we'll
be
looking
at
what
does
this
practically
mean?
Oh
sorry,
folks,
that's
me,
I
know,
that's
really
bad,
isn't
it
there's
a
chair,
I
know
well,
we
now
now
focus
easy
right
now
back
to
the
question.
Just
thinking
in
terms
of
like
a
practical
matter
for
say
members
would
be
say
on
a
plans
panel
and,
if
we're
looking
for,
say
something
a
development
coming
forward
of
say
between
100
to
300
homes,
which
is
not
unusual
right.
B
If
we're
looking
at
a
biodiversity
gain
on
that
site,
will
this
enable
us
to
say
effectively
mandate
hedgerows
rather
than
fencing
between
properties?
Just
thinking
in
practical
terms,
richard?
Would
that
be
something
that
we
could
progress,
because
that
would
be-
and
I
think
most
members
who
sit
on
plants
panels
would
agree
that
would
be
a
significant
biodiversity
gain
for
a
lot
of
housing
developments,
new
developments.
What
about
that
kind
of
thing?
Just
as
a
practical
idea,
yeah.
J
I
think
what
we
find
we've
got.
This
thing
called
the
defra
metric
now
which
measures
biodiversity
in
biodiversity
units.
Think
what
you
like
about
numerical
values
for
things.
It's
going
to
be
really
useful.
So
what
it
should
do.
The
big
picture
thing
is:
it
should
involve
the
ecologist
for
the
developer,
getting
involved
at
a
very
early
design
stage.
It
doesn't
traditionally
happen
at
the
moment.
You
tend
to
get
a
master
plan
fixed
or
a
layout.
Then
their
ecologist
comes
in
and
retrofits
the
metric
calculations
to
what's
already
been
agreed.
J
What
this
should
do
is
they've
got
a
big
incentive
now
to
reduce
the
number
of
biodiversity
units
they're
losing
in
the
first
place,
so
it
should
come
in
earlier
in
the
design
stage,
but
also
they'll
be
thinking
more
creatively.
How
can
we
get
more
positive
scores
through
the
on-site
delivery,
and
I
think
hedgerows
are
the
one
thing
that
we
will
see
more
of
provided
their
native
species-rich
hedgerows.
J
So
if
you've
got
to
achieve
a
net
gain
in
hedgerows,
if
there
weren't
any
there
in
the
first
place,
you've
got
to
put
some
in
there
and
the
last
part
of
the
metric
is:
is
rivers
so
watercourses
that
kind
of
thing?
So,
if
it's
affecting
a
watercourse,
it's
got
to
show
not
just
getting
it
back
to
the
same
state,
but
a
positive
situation
as
well.
So
I
think,
by
default
of
this
existing,
we
will
see
better
design
for
ecology
on
site
as
well.
B
Excellent
that
sounds
very
promising.
Then
council,
collins
and
council
anderson.
D
Thank
you
chair
and
to
two
issues.
I
have
that.
I
wonder
if
you
can
address
with
this.
First
of
all
is
again
in
practical
terms.
When
this
comes
to
planning
applications,
how
do
we
make
sure
it's
not
the
developers
that
are
telling
us
how
what
the
net
gain
is
and
they're
not
marking
their
own
homework,
and
we
don't
have
a
new
volkswagen
situation
with
emissions
and
things
like
that,
and
the
second
aspect
is
really
a
concern
about.
I
can
understand
that
you
need
to
have
the
ability
to
to
deliver
off-site
net
gain.
J
Yes,
they're
very
good
points
there
I
mean
the
guidance
that
comes
along
with
the
metric
and
within
the
environment
bill
as
well.
It's
quite
clear
in
saying
the
mitigation
hierarchy
does
not
change
to
what
it
is
now.
You
should
always
first
of
all
avoid
damaging
impacts.
Then
you're
mitigating
damage,
then,
as
a
last
resort,
it's
compensation,
which
is
the
off-site
scenario,
so
we
still
have
to
make
a
judgment
call
on
what's
coming
forward
through
every
planning
application.
J
So
this
there's
an
incentive
built
into
the
metric
to
retain
such
kinds
of
habitats.
But
yes,
I
totally
agree
with
what
you're
saying
it's
something
I
have
to
keep
a
very
careful
eye
on
one
solution
to
that
would
be
if
you've
got
to
go
off
site
to
deliver.
Instead,
then,
if
it's
going
to
cost
you
a
lot
more
money,
that's
a
disincentive,
isn't
it
and
that's
something
we
do
have
to
think
about,
because
the
way
this
system
is
probably
going
to
work
is
if
an
application
comes
in
and
they've
got
to
deliver
something
off-site.
J
The
developer
can
first
of
all
look
for
any
other
land,
they
hold
they
own
nearby
and
they
can
choose
to
deliver
those
biodiversity
units
on
that
land.
Just
that
one
factor
alone.
We
have
to
think
about
and
think
is
it
in
a
location
we'd
be
happy
with.
Do
we
want
public
access
to
that
piece
of
land?
So
there's
an
element
we'd
have
to
think
about.
J
We
may
go
into
partnership
with
the
wildlife,
trust
or
other
community
groups
and
say
if
you're
purchasing
land
you
know,
provided
it
hits
a
certain
number
of
criteria
that
we
would
have
to
specify
that
may
be
okay,
so
you
can
see
there's
an
awful
lot
of
background
work
in
this.
This
is
why
the
policy
wording
alone
will
not
enable
us
to
do
probably
what
we
want
to
do.
We'll
have
to
have
some
form
of
spd.
J
That
goes
into
more
detail
of
the
actual.
What
we
really
are
going
to
do,
because
I
think
what
you're
alluding
to
there
is
have
we
got
a
vision
for
what
we
want
to
do
for
biodiversity
in
leeds.
If
somebody
wants
to
deliver
biodiversity
off
site,
what
is
our
vision?
Where
do
we
want
it
to
be?
Are
we
happy
with
it
being
just
on
private
land?
Do
we
want
it
to
be
on
our
own
land
that
we
already
own?
Do
we
want
to
purchase
new
land
to
create
new
nature
reserves?
J
B
B
Addendum,
for
that
is,
there
are
resource
implications
for
local
authorities.
In
all
of
these,
these
issues,
things
that
can
sound,
very
laudable
in
a
piece
of
legislation,
means
that
the
chief
planner
officers
got
to
find
more
warm
bodies
to
do
more
work
and
if
local
authorities
are
stretched,
does
that?
What?
What
are
the
implications
there?
I
think
they're
real
concerns
for
us.
J
J
And
so
we
need
that
guidance,
and
what
that
means
is
we're
acknowledging
there's
more
complicated
ecological
reports
coming
in
now,
they're
using
excel
spreadsheets,
quite
rightly,
that
the
metric
of
yeah
the
metric
is
an
excel
spreadsheet,
which
is
quite
a
complicated
piece
of
work.
I
mean,
I
understand
it,
but
you'd
expect
me
to
some
the
ecologist
for
the
council.
J
We've
got
the
gis
teams
that
need
to
be
involved
as
well,
because
monitoring
and
reporting
of
all
these
biodiversity
units
is
very
important.
The
environment
bill
is
saying
those
biodiversity
units,
wherever
they're
being
delivered
on-site
or
off-site
they've,
got
to
be
monitored
and
reported
back
to
natural
england
for
a
minimum
30-year
period.
J
Can
you
imagine
that
we've
got
to
go
and
visit
these
sites
to
see
if
the
biodiversity
units
are
still
there?
What
condition
they're
in
then
log
all
that,
through
a
gis
system
that
links
back
to
the
planning
application,
so
defra
acknowledged
there
is
going
to
be
an
extra
burden
on
all
local
authorities
and
at
some
point
there
will
be
some
money
available.
We
don't
know
yet
how
we
would
bid
for
that.
But
the
piece
of
work
we're
doing
with
the
consultancy
at
the
moment
is
trying
to
work
out.
J
What
are
the
burdens
going
to
be
on
us
as
an
individual
district
and
for
what
different
parts
of
our
council
and
also
across
west
yorkshire
as
well?
It
might
be?
We
can
share
some
of
those
resources
so
before
defra
open
up
the
doors
to
applying
for
this
extra
burden.
We
need
to
know
where
do
we
need
those
resources
to
be
put,
so
does
that
answer
your
question
to
a
degree.
D
So
the
concern
is:
will
the
expectation
be
for
the
developers
to
provide
the
data
yeah,
in
which
case,
what
confidence
would
we
have
in
it.
J
Yes,
so
yeah
just
to
come
back
on
that.
What
I
was
going
to
say
was
at
the
moment
the
ecological
reports
land
on
my
desk,
and
I
read
those
spreadsheets
it.
J
It
takes
time
for
me
to
do
that
and
more
often
than
not
I'm
having
to
challenge
the
consultants
that
are
working
for
the
developers,
because,
maybe
I
don't
think
they've
done
it
properly,
so
there
will
definitely
be
an
incentive
for
ecological
consultants
to
decrease
the
biodiversity
unit
value
at
the
outset
and
show
the
providing
something
really
good
afterwards,
and
it's
only
down
to
people
like
me
that
can
pick
apart.
What
they're
saying
in
the
spreadsheet
to
think.
J
Is
it
realistic
what
you're
saying
you're
going
to
achieve
you
know
some
people
are
saying
you're
going
to
create
a
you.
You
know
a
really
good
quality,
lowland
meadow
and
it's
going
to
be
really
high
quality.
But
what
is
the
reality
of
all
that?
That's
where
I've
got
to
put
my
reality,
glasses
on
and
think.
Actually
that's
not
you
know
achievable
is.
B
That,
okay,
I
think
yeah
that
that
does
answer
council
labs
question
I
just
need
to
move
things
on
on
is
all,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
need
more
richards.
Basically,
so,
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
implications
on
the
council,
I've
got
I've
got
council
college
and
council
anderson
and
then
council
hayden
now
have
these
new
things
that
haven't
been
touched
on.
Yet
I
am
slightly
conscious
of
time,
so
members
and
officers
could
be
relatively
brief.
That
would
be
great.
E
Mine's
fairly
quick
when
it
comes
to
developers
having
to
make
a
financial
contribution
because
they
can't
meet
the
biodiversity
on
site.
Is
defra
going
to
set
that
how
much
they
pay
or
is
that
a
local
authority.
J
The
environment
builds
fairly
quiet
on
setting
it
yourselves
locally
at
a
local
authority
level,
but
what
natural
england
are
working
on
is
a
national
biodiversity
credits.
So,
like
I
was
saying
earlier,
this
is
some
options
available.
Has
a
developer
got
land
they
own
and
can
deliver
on
that
land?
If
not,
can
the
local
authority
offer
the
option
to
take
on
the
responsibility
at
a
set
amount?
If
that
is
not
available,
the
other
option,
the
last
one
is
they
go
to
natural
england
nationally
and
they
buy
some
biodiversity
credits
that
just
get
delivered
nationally
somewhere?
C
Good
dude
bullet
bomb
form.
Is
there
a
definition
as
to
what
off-site
actually
means,
because
in
some
wards,
they're
they're
quite
tightly
fitting
so
it'd
be
quite
easy?
That
off-site
is
somewhere
within
the
ward,
but
there
are
some
wards
that
stretch
for
miles
and
miles
and
miles.
So
is
there
a
definition?
The
second
one
is:
how
are
we
going
to
deal
with
small
builders
because
right
now
longer
the
government
are
trying
to
make
it
easier
for
smaller
builders
to
build
houses?
C
C
C
I
agree
with
what
we're
doing,
but
if
you
look
at
the
grass
verge
cutting
we've
got
in
the
city
at
the
moment,
it's
splitting
the
communities,
something
it's
absolutely
fantastic.
Others
are
very
critical
of
what's
happening
so
that
we're
going
to
have
to
sell
a
bit
more
as
to
what
biodiversity
means
in
those
local
fields
and
then
the
final
thing
is-
and
this
is
probably
more
towards
the
chief
planning
officer-
is
this
not
an
opportunity
for
income
earning
that?
J
Okay,
I'll
try
and
get
through
those
fairly
quickly
yeah.
Where
is
offsite?
Is
it
in
the
same
ward
or
is
it
in
neighbouring
wards
or
somewhere
else
in
the
district?
What
I
would
say
at
the
moment
is
we
haven't
really
bottomed
that
one
out,
I
think,
we'd
be
looking
for
guidance
to
say
that
really
yeah
second
one
is
small
buildings
I
mean
10
percent
is
10
of
whatever
it
is
in
the
first
place.
J
J
Cumulative
impact
doesn't
really
come
into
it
in
it's,
just
each
site
would
be
assessed
on
its
own
merits.
The
visual
thing
that's
a
key
thing
if
we
start
providing
more
biodiversity
across
the
whole
of
leeds.
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
good
thing.
I
love
scrub,
not
everyone
likes
the
look
of
scrub
or
or
longer
grass
than
that's
not
regularly
cut.
So
I
think
there
is
an
education
element
to
this
awareness.
J
Raising
I'd
like
to
think
part
of
a
scheme
we
can
deliver
is
looking
at
high
quality
nature
reserves
created
across
leeds
and
by
nature
reserves.
I
don't
mean
to
have
to
be
the
400
hectares
of
saint
hayden's,
although
that
is
great,
but
maybe
small,
nature,
reserves
and
part
of
being
a
nature
reserve
is,
to
a
degree
interpretation
whether
it's
online
or
interpretation
panels
or
people
helping
like
social
screen
prescribing
those
kind
of
things.
So,
yes,
you
have
to
think
about
it.
Definitely,
and
the
last
question
I
think,
would
be
for
david.
I
Thank
you,
council
yeah,
a
couple
of
things
on
that.
I
mean
there's
a
few
strands
to
this.
First
of
all,
we
want
to
see
the
provisions
of
the
environment
bill
read
across
into
the
reforms
to
the
planning
system,
as
well,
rather
than
being
seen
as
a
self-contained
set
of
propositions
in
different
legislation.
We
have
to
be
able
to
deliver
this
through
mainstream
planning
as
well
and
in
doing
that
as
richard
has
described.
This
is
an
additional
burden.
I
It
is
bringing
high
levels
of
new
technical
work
and
resource
pressures
to
local
authorities,
as
well
as
other
partners
within
the
biodiversity
world.
I
think
in
terms
of
income,
it's
a
very
valid
point.
You've
made.
The
challenge
we
have
is
that,
first
of
all,
we
need
to
see
what
additional
resources
we
get
from
central
government,
given
that
this
is
an
additional
burden.
If
we
did
have
local
expertise
within
leeds.
Yes,
we
could
drive
income
from
that
subject
to
the
capacity
of
that
team
to
service
leeds's.
Biodiversity
needs
as
well
as
anybody
else's.
I
B
Excellent
okay,
council
hayden.
F
I'm
just
we,
we
will
have
brownfield
developments,
we're
looking
at
them
all
the
time
where
the
biodiversity
will
go
from
practically
zero
to
whatever
it
becomes.
Is
there
any
offsetting
to
be
done
for
developers
so
say
if
they
increase
the
biodiversity
by
50,
and
is
there
any
offsetting
that
can
be
done
across
developments
as
well?.
J
I
think
the
main
thing
is
if
you've
got
a
brownfield
site
and
it's
got
very
low
value,
we
probably
wouldn't
even
ask
for
the
metric
to
be
used
if
it's
virtually
all
sealed
surfaced
before.
There's
no
point
running
the
metric
through,
because
it'll
just
come
up
with
probably
zero
and
ten
percent
of
zero
is
still
zero.
J
So
we'd
have
to
look
at
just
wider
biodiversity,
enhancements
and
good
design,
which
is
what
we
would
try
and
encourage
anyway,
because
what
I
would
say
is
biodiversity
net
gain
and
the
metric
is
only
one
element
of
biodiversity
enhancements.
There's
other
things
that
can
be
done
as
well.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
F
It
it
does
what
I'm
trying
to
is
that
if
we
can
promote,
find
some
way
of
using
this
legislation
to
promote
the
you
know,
big
increases
in
biodiversity
for
developers
so
that
you
know
they
find
it
easy
to
say.
You
know:
we've
gone
from
zero
to
look
how
much
how
diverse
it
is
now
biologically.
F
I'm
just
wondering
whether
this
will
help
us
to
you
know
really.
I
know
developers
are
keen
on
it
anyway,
because
people
want
to
live
in
a
green.
They
don't
want
to
live
in
a
concrete
jungle
anymore,
and
but
I'm
just
wondering
whether
the
central
station
can
help
to
not
just
the
10
percent,
because,
as
you
say,
10
nothing
is
it's.
Nothing
isn't
it,
but
you
know
that
we
can
really
use
this
legislation
to
go
way
beyond
that.
10
percent
just.
J
Two
quick
things
I
would
respond
to
that,
and
one
of
them
is
the
10
is
a
minimum.
The
environment
bill
is
stating
that's
a
minimum
10
percent
and
really
it's
up
to
us
to
decide
what
we're
aiming
for,
but
we
have
to
be
aware
of
viability
as
well
on
a
developer
just
to
make
you
aware,
I
know
of
one
local
authority
across
the
country,
that's
gone
above
10
and
that's
litchfield.
They've
gone
for
20
and
they've
been
doing
that
for
the
last
three
or
four
years.
J
I
think
the
other
thing
I
would
say
is
it's
not
just
about
this
legislation.
There's
other
things
coming
through
from
government
there's
an
awful
lot
of
guidance.
There's
the
25-year
environment
plan,
which
I
would
suggest
everyone
does
have
a
look
through
it's
difficult
to
keep
up
to
date
with
all
these
things,
but
in
the
25-year
environment
plan
it
talks
about
everyone
having
high
quality
natural
green
space
near
to
where
people
live
and
work,
and
I
think
that's
something.
J
We
should
really
try
and
work
towards,
and
try
and
align
biodiversity
net
gain
with
natural
green
space
near
where
people
live,
especially
people
in
the
communities
that
don't
have
very
much
and
they
have
big
mental
health
problems
and
physical
health
problems
as
well.
That's
the
big
challenge,
but
that's
where
I'd
like
to
think
we
can
move
in
that
direction.
B
D
Thank
you
chase
for
mr
feeney,
and,
following
on
from
what
you
said,
I
agree
with
you
about
the
importance
of
getting
the
environment
bill
on
the
planning
bill
to
work
together.
It's
real!
Where
do
you
see
this
sitting
in
the
planning
balance,
because
I
think
all
of
us
around
this
table
would
like
it
to
have
significant
weight?
The
fear
is
it's
another
one
of
those
things
that
ultimately
will
fall
down
the
pecking
order
and
I
think
it's
where
we've
got
to
make
sure
it
really
is
punitive.
I
Thank
you,
council
lambs,
it's
a
good,
it's
a
good
question,
but
will
it
it
has
weight?
Now
we
have
a
policy
framework
in
leeds
g9
that
richard
referred
to,
and
I
think
we
were
sort
of
pioneering
in
having
that
policy.
I
think
what
we
haven't
had
are
the
detailed
metrics
and
the
the
mapping
information
that
richard
has
described.
I
If
we've
got
a
comprehensive
policy
framework
around
this
issue,
then
we
can
give
that
full
weight
as
part
of
that
planning
application
as
part
of
that
planning
balance.
But
there
will
be
other
factors
to
consider
as
part
of
that
planning
balance,
affordable,
housing
or
whatever
it
might
be,
but
certainly
having
the
evidence
behind
the
policy
and
that
detail
local
evidence
in
terms
of
the
application
of
the
policy
will
give
it.
You
know
the
strongest
weight
we
can
give
it.
B
Locally
right
on
that
folks,
I
want
to
move
on
to
first
time
so
martin
swiftly
yeah.
Thank
you.
H
Chair
so
the
final
part
of
this
first
paper,
then
from
power
19
onwards,
sets
out
government's
proposed
approach
to
first
homes,
which
is
its
affordable
home
ownership
policy,
which
was
firmed
up
by
a
ministerial
statement
in
may
and
changes
to
the
planning
practice
guidance
shortly
after
and
what
that
does
is
sets
an
expectation
that
first
homes
will
become
part
of
a
local
authority's,
affordable
housing
provision.
H
It
will
be
homes
for
sale
with
a
30
discount
on
market
value
and
25
of
the
homes
that
would
otherwise
be
affordable
should
be
first
homes,
so
any
affordable
housing
contribution
that
the
council
would
currently
collect
from
a
developer
will
have
25
of
it
go
towards
first
homes.
The
remaining
75
of
those
homes
will
be
split
between
the
social
rented,
which
the
council
currently
has
in
policy
h5
and
intermediate,
which
is
for
rented
products
for
to
meet
those
on
lower
quartile,
so
lower
25
incomes.
H
So,
in
terms
of
implications
for
leads
the
it
will
change
what
that
affordable
housing
mix
of
tenure
currently
looks
like
so,
instead
of
being
40
intermediate
60
social
rented.
H
We
think
it
will
look
something
like
25,
first
homes,
15
intermediate
and
then
60
percent
social,
rented,
the
social
60
social
rented
does
remain
kind
of
ring
fenced,
and
this
was
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
expressed
to
government
through
the
consultation
was
the
impact
on
on
social.
Rented
provision.
H
It's
still
very
early
days
for
us
to
be
considering
this,
and
we
will
start
to
look
at
the
implications
of
this
alongside
our
current
and
any
need
for
future.
Evidence-Based
updates.
H
So
really
just
bringing
this
today
to
alert
members
to
the
fact
that
it's
that
it's
now
live,
but
what
we
will
do
is
we're
bringing
an
affordable
housing
delivery
plan
paper
to
this
meeting
in
september
by
then.
Hopefully,
we'll
have
a
bit
more
detail
about
that
for
members,
but
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
now.
B
Yeah
thanks
ryan
yeah.
There's
I
mean
there
are
a
lot
of
serious
and
structural
problems
with
us
as
a
policy
approach.
This
is
not
how
we
should
be
spending
public
power,
housing
pounds.
B
This
is
just
extremely
inappropriate
and
it's
building
on
the
disaster
of
the
starter
homes
policy,
where
no
starter
homes
are
actually
built,
and
this
is
another
triad.
It's
a
bit
like
going
over
the
top
very
slowly
towards
the
german
heavy
machine
guns
again
in
housing
policy
terms.
I
think
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
that
council
brooks
has
raised
and
she
can't
be
she's
talked
about.
Is
there
any
way
of
going
for
higher
levels
of
discount?
I
mean
whatever
look
folks
keeping
the
politics
out
of
this
this
planet
this
panel.
B
You
know
at
all
and
the
50
discount
might
slightly
bring
it
down
towards
that
level,
but
it's
still
an
incredibly
large
amount
of
money
when
you
see
what's
up
for
for
market
sale
in
this
city.
So
that's
that's
my
opening
starter
and
then
I've
got
council
campbell's
indicated
he
wanted
to
speak
so,
but
let
martin
answer
this
colin.
If
you
don't
mind,
let
me
answer
that
one
and
then
you
can
come
in
yeah.
Thank
you.
H
So
thanks
chet,
yes,
the
the
there
was
an
opportunity.
The
government
allows
you
to
go
for
30,
discount,
40,
discount
or
50
discount,
40
and
50
discount
must
be
driven
through
a
plan
review
with
evidence
to
support
that.
D
Can
I
apologize
for
arriving
a
little
late?
Whips
got
a
bit
hairy,
just
a
couple
of
points
on
page
17,
a
couple
of
questions
on
on
20
on
bullet
point
20..
It
talks
about
a
price
cap
of
250
000..
D
There
are
I'd
say,
but
there
are
parts
of
the
city
where
you
wouldn't
get
anything
for
anything
like
250
000,
and
I
just
wonder
if,
in
effect,
are
we
simply
saying
or
are
they
simply
saying
that
you
end
up
with
one
bedroom
or
at
best,
two
bedroom
pokey
little
develop
developments
on
certain
sites
to
to
meet
this
request
and
on
22
it
talks
about.
H
Thanks
councillor
campbell,
so
in
answer
to
your
first
question,
there
is
local
discretion
to
set
different
caps
again.
That
would
have
to
be
done
through
an
update
through
a
plan
review
and
accompanied
by
by
evidence
and
in
terms
of
first
home
led
development.
That's
not
clear!
Yet
this
is
still
within
the
planning
practice
guidance,
not
in
the
national
planning
policy
framework.
Yet
some
clues
to
what
that
might
mean
are
around
the
wording
for
entry-level
exception
sites
that
currently
exist
within
the
mppf.
H
So
if
a
local
authority
has
a
rural
exceptions
policy,
for
example,
to
limit
that
to
of
affordable
home
ownership
or
or
rental
for
people
that
have
got
a
connection
to
to
to
rural
places,
but
can't
otherwise
afford
to
live
there,
that's
currently
in
the
mppf
at
the
moment,
but
it
doesn't
overtake
greenbelt
so
if
they
were
to
keep
the
first
homes
exception
sites
in
line
with
that,
it's
likely
that
this
wouldn't
trump
greenbelt,
but
that
hasn't
had
any
clarity
yet,
and
we
await
for
the
mppf
to
see
what
happens
on
that.
E
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
just
curious.
How
do
you
think
this
is
going
to
go?
I
mean
if
these
homes
are
made
available?
Is
it
first
come
first
serve
or
are
people
who
want
these
homes?
Are
they
going
to
be
means
tested
in
some
way?
I
mean
obviously
they're
going
to
have
to
have
the
criteria
they
don't
currently
own
a
home,
but
but
who?
Who
is
going
to
get
these
homes.
H
So
there
is
an
administrative
burden
from
this
change
of
policy
as
well,
and
I
think
that
largely
is
going
to
rest
with
the
council
in
order
to
be
the
gatekeepers
in
terms
of
looking
at
how
these
homes
are
are
provided.
H
At
this
stage,
I
we
can
only
say
it's
going
to
be
similar
to
the
way
that
we
manage
waiting,
lists
and
and
housing
associations
manage
rental
properties
through
some
demonstration
of
need
and
through
some
demonstration
of
of
income.
So
there's
there's
some
rules
and
regulations
that
will
need
to
be
applied
to
people
being
able
to
purchase
the
first
homes,
but
that's
another
side
of
this
other
other
than
the
planning
that
still
needs
to
be
worked
out.
B
Yes,
it's
almost
like
it's
not
being
hugely
well
thought
through.
To
put
it
bluntly,
just
I
I
like
I
said
we
will,
we
will
try
to
game
any
government
policy
to
maximize
the
advantage
of
the
people
of
leeds,
but
every
first
homes
discount.
That
goes.
B
That's
a
genuinely
affordable
home,
that's
not
being
built,
and
you
know
and
that's-
and
this
will
eat
into
the
the
amounts
of
affordable,
rented
homes
that
are
provided
in
the
city
through
the
current
system,
and
it
will
do
nothing
to
affect
the
structural
problems
that
we
have
in
the
housing
market
or
housing
system
in
this
city.
So
I'm
I'm
I'm
cars
on
the
table,
guys,
I'm
not
a
fan
of
this
policy,
but
there
you
go.
Do
you
have
any
more
questions
on
it?
B
G
I
I
did
share,
but
I
did
jump
to
gun
a
bit,
but
I'm
leaving
soon
I've
got
a
bubble
collapse.
G
I've
got
to
pick
a
child
up,
but
my
main
question
was
probably
to
martin
that
first
holmes
is
exempt
from
developers
ability
to
try
to
cry
that
this
is
not
viable,
get
the
district
value
valuer
in
and
not
produce
any
affordable
and
the
other
one
I
I
did
ask
was-
and
I
used
paragraph
25
to
say
that
any
inner
city
city
areas,
my
ward
and
many
around
the
tables,
ward,
the
affordability
of
property,
only
goes
to
a
hundred
thousand
pounds.
G
Seventeen
percent
of
my
award
could
only
afford
a
hundred
thousand
pounds.
I'm
surprised
it's
that
high
actually
and
one
percent
could
only
afford
1500.
We
do
have
the
ability,
obviously
to
vary
the
discounts
and,
as
I
said
at
the
time,
we
talk
about
leveling
up.
G
We
hear
very
little
from
the
government,
particularly
at
the
badly
by
election
on
the
doorstep,
and
there
was
comments
made
by
somebody
who
we
know
very
well
in
that
election
and
I
think
in
leeds
there's
a
certain
amount
of
leveling
up
needs
needs
doing
the
the
difference
between
some
of
the
out
here
areas
and
the
inner
city
areas
is
almost
as
great,
if
not
greater
than
the
difference
between
the
london
area
and
the
north
west
and
the
northeast,
and
I
just
wonder,
is
it
addressing
any
of
those
things?
H
So
an
answer
to
the
first
part
of
your
question:
council
mckenna
it
it
would
be
25
of
of
the
agreed,
affordable,
housing
provision.
So
if
that
affordable
housing
provision
were
to
shrink
in
line
with
a
viability
argument,
it
would
be
25
of
that
shrunken
provision
that
makes
sense
so
so
you'd
still
ring
fence
25
of
whatever
provision
for
affordable
housing
was
viably,
delivered
on
the
site
and
then
the
15
intermediate
and
60
social
rented
would
would
also
be
shrunk
as
well
and
and
in
answer
to
the
second
part
of
the
question.
H
H
That
would
have
to
be
done
through
a
policy
review
which
would
have
to
be
done
through
a
plan
making
process
that
would
be
subject
to
independent
examination
and
consultation.
B
Not
only
is
it
difficult
and
lengthy,
it's
not
a
serious
policy
for
affordable
housing.
It's
it's
trying
to
address
systemic
market
failure
by
pushing
more
public,
precious
public
housing,
pounds
into
volume,
house
builders,
profit
margins,
and
that's
all
it's
going
to
do
and
on
that
happy
note,
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
agenda
item
eight.
Oh
yeah.
Sorry,
sorry,
councilman,.
D
And
just
to
clarify
they're
your
personal
experience,
opinions,
you're
expressing
you've
said
we
several
times,
but
it's
your
view.
Personally,
I
keep
an
open
mind
until
I've
got
all
of
the
facts
and
information
before
I
come
to
a
political
judgment,
but
that's
for
you.
So
my
question
is
how
in
effect,
does
the
local
discretion
work?
Is
it
city-wide?
H
So
so
it
it
would
be
for
the
local
authority,
through
its
plan,
making
review
through
its
evidence,
base
and
its
update
of
its
schma
strategic
housing
market
assessment,
which
looks
at
the
the
need
versus
income
within
within
different
parts
of
leeds.
So
it
would
be
any
of
the
above.
Potentially
we
could.
We
could
have
it
on
a
similar
way
so
that
we
currently
have
it
in
terms
of
affordable
housing
zones
or
or
it
could
be
different
to
that.
So.
D
C
We
charge
a
differential
rate
in
an
area
if
they're
using
greenfield
rather
than
brownfield
sites,
because
a
lot
of
the
major
housing
developers
love
building
on
greenfield
and
fight
against
brownfield.
Can
we
incentivize
it
by
saying
if
you
want
to
build
on
greenfield,
you've
got
to
give
a
bigger
discount.
H
That
would
be
something
we
could
consider
through
scoping
a
plan
policy,
but
I
don't
think
so,
but
we
could
certainly
look
at
that
if
we
were
considering
this
because
I
think
we're
just
gonna
we're
gonna
have
to
bring
through
this
group
this
advisory
panel,
so
some
some
options
and
ideas
for
how
we
move
this
forward.
B
Should
this
survive
the
the
white
hall
policy
process?
I
think
we're
spending
a
lot
of
time
examining
this
council
anderson
to
get
into
the
fine
grain
in
detail
on
this,
but
there's
enough
strategic
information
there
we
already
have
to
know
it's
probably
not
gonna
work,
particularly
well
for
people
elites.
On
that
note,
let's
move
on
to
agenda
item
eight
we're
going
to
do
the
local
development
scheme
21
to
24
in
19
minutes.
H
Thanks
chair
members
will
be
familiar
with
this.
We
we
have
this
most
most
years
and
it
is
in,
in
effect,
our
work
program
in
terms
of
plan
making
in
the
development
plan
for
the
next
three
years.
So
what
it
sets
out
in
the
appendix
from
page
25,
first
of
all,
an
executive
summary
to
simplify
and
clarify
what
each
of
the
component
parts
of
the
development
plan
are.
H
H
It
then
sets
out
what
our
next
plan
making
processes
may
be,
and
it
does
that
on
page
eight
under
two
headings.
The
first
is
around
those
review
policies
that
we
already
have
in
adopted.
Plans
and
members
will
recall
it
in
the
adopted
sap.
We
have
two
policies,
one
which
looks
at
a
sap
review
and
one
which
looks
at
mechanisms
for
when
we
may
trigger
a
need
to
look
again
at
more
sites
for
gypsies
and
travelers.
H
It
then,
on
page
32
sets
out
what
the
process
for
any
future
local
plan
update
may
be
executive
board,
having
already
taken
a
decision
to
focus
the
scope
of
the
local
plan,
update
one
on
climate
change
and
health
and
well-being
and
infrastructure,
but
there
are
a
whole
series
of
other
planning
matters
and
what
this
this
local
development
scheme
does
is
clarify
when
they
will
be
considered
within
the
plan
making
process
and
and
that's
included
within
the
the
back
end
of
the
local
development
scheme
in
the
tables
that
that
accompany
the
report
and
and
the
key
table
there
really
is,
is
setting
out
what
the
scope
of
any
future
local
plan
update.
H
What
we're
calling
local
plan
update
2
might
include.
So
so
really,
this
charts
progress
of
the
plans
that
we've
we've
done
this
past
year.
It
sets
out
where
we're
going
in
terms
of
plan
making
and
in
effect
sets
out
what
the
agenda
for
this
panel
is
likely
to
look
like
over
the
coming
months
and
next
few
years.
C
We
could
be
one
step
forward,
but
then
have
to
revisit
it
again,
because
you
know
we've
heard
today
about
a
potential
lack
of
interconnectivity
between
a
lot
of
the
policies
that
the
government
are
coming
in
with
that
one
doesn't
necessarily
complement
the
other
and
one
might
supersede
one,
but
that
one
might
be
six
months
later
coming
down
the
line.
So
I
mean
I
just
think
it's
something.
B
I
This
thank
you
chair.
I
was
going
to
mention
that
issue
ken
sanderson
I
mean
clearly,
we
do
need
to
be
flexible
in
terms
of
the
changes
coming
down
the
line
in
terms
of
the
planning
reforms.
I
think
what
we
don't
know.
Yet
precisely
is
what
form
will
they
take
in
detail
and
also
depending
on
that
detail,
what
transitional
arrangements
there
might
be
for
their
introduction,
but
if
we
can
set
what
we
think
our
local
priorities
are
and
get
some
momentum.
I
It
may
be
that,
under
the
transitional
arrangements,
we
might
be
allowed
to
finish
what
we've
started
before
the
new
requirements
come
in.
So
I
think
the
more
we
can
do
now
to
try
and
set
a
direction
in
the
program.
I
think
that's
really
really
helpful,
whilst
being
mindful
to
other
changes
which
might
come
down
the
line.
C
Is
it
a
plans
panel,
the
number
of
applications
that
come
back,
that
we
can't
alter
because
they've
been
you
know
the
first
homes?
One
is
another
example.
If
it's
been
through
outlining
already
and
ups,
is
it
march
2022
or
something
you
know,
so
any
applications
that
come
in
the
next
few
months
won't
apply.
So
it's
very
difficult
when
you're
in
plans
panel,
when
you're
arguing
for
something
and
then
an
officer
says
well
good
idea,
counselor.
But
you
can't
do
that
because
you
know
it's,
I
don't
know
how
we
manage
it.
B
H
I
think
chair
what
this
does
look
quite
complicated
and,
and
it
does
result
in
quite
a
complicated
plan.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we,
we
have
a
cohesion
and
a
cohesiveness
to
the
different
parts
of
the
development
plan.
This
sets
out
not
only
what
bits
of
the
plan
that
we're
looking
at
updating
next,
but
the
review
process
that
we
go
through
and
the
last
time
we
did
that
was
in
july
last
year,
sets
out
the
fit
for
purposeness
of
policies.
H
So
I
think
it's
going
to
be
important
for
us,
as
as
we
move
forward
to
provide
that
context
of.
Whilst
we
might
need
to
review
some
of
these
or
update
some
of
these
policies,
we're
not
saying
they're
out
of
date
or
we're
not
saying
they're
not
fit
for
purpose
to
take
development
decisions
within
leads.
They
just
need
to
be
subject
to
other
councils
priorities
changed.
Is
there
different
evidence
that
we
might
need
to
reflect
in
this
policy?
H
And
how
do
we
reflect
things
like
the
housing
figure
uplift
and
the
standard
methodology,
for
example,
on
on
our
housing
numbers?
So
as
we
take
these
papers
through,
I
think
it's
important
to
have
an
element
of
that.
That
says
this
is
what
the
cohesive
plan
and
its
various
parts
looks
like,
and
this
is
the
the
program
for
change.
F
Just
very
quickly
on
the
local
plans.
I
just
want
to
express
my
thanks,
and
you
know
I'm
really
impressed
with
how
officers
have
approached
local
plan
making
and
we
do
seem
to
be
a
bit
of
an
outlier
as
an
authority
in
terms
of
our
local
plans,
and
that
list
is
really
impressive
and
there's
more
in
the
pipeline.
So
I
just
want
to
complement
the
department
and
those
officers
with
you
know.
F
They've
tackled
some
really
complex
issues,
and
you
know
and
ensure
that
you
know
there's
a
good
relationship
and
that
these
local
areas
really
get
the
kind
of
plans
that
they
want
so
just
to
pass
on.
My
thanks
for
that.
B
I
very
much
second
that
as
well
we're
we're
a
leading
edge
of
council.
I
think
when
it
comes
to
planning,
I
hope
we
are
anyway
on
that
folks.
Are
we
finished
on
this
item
yeah
or
fantastic,
and
we're
in
and
we're
in
health
and
safety
time
as
well
within
10
minutes?
That's
excellent!
Well,
folks,
in
that
case,
I'll
wrap
the
meeting
up.
Thank
you
very
much
for
all
your
contributions
and
I
hope
to
see
you
again
soon
in
person.
Perhaps.