►
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).
A
Well,
good
afternoon,
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
now
familiar
remote
meeting
of
the
south
and
west
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councillor
caroline
gruen
and
I
will
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
The
south
and
west
plans
panel
deals
with
applications
from
the
south
north
west
and
west
of
the
city.
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
relevant
information
from
applicants.
A
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
remote
attendance,
while
items
today
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes
as
to
how
I
manage
this
debate.
Therefore,
can
all
attendees
mute
their
microphones
unless
I
invite
them
to
speak,
this
will
avoid
disruption
and
background
noise.
Can
all
participants
please
keep
their
cameras
on
during
the
meeting,
and
all
participants
will
be
invited
to
introduce
themselves
at
the
start
of
the
public
session
to
make
it
clear
to
public
observers
who
will
be
involved
in
the
proceedings?
A
I
ask
for
your
assistance
and
patience
while
I
go
through
this
process.
So
in
order
to
avoid
any
disruption
to
the
meeting,
should
I
lose
internet
connectivity?
I
propose
that
we
appoint
a
vice
chair
who
would
step
in
during
my
absence,
and
I
move
councillor
denise
reagan
and
invite
another
member
to
second
that
motion.
A
A
A
You
got
here,
councillor
campbell.
A
You
councillor
peter
gruen,.
A
J
A
K
Good
afternoon,
david
newbury
lead
planning
officer
for
the
panel
substituting
for
steve
butler.
N
Hello,
it's
andrew
slickett
highways
and
transportation.
A
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
moving
to
agenda
item
one
andy
you're
gonna
handle
this
for
us.
Please
right.
F
Thank
you,
chair
under
agenda
item
number
one.
There
are
no
pills
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
item
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press.
Our
public
under
item
number
three.
There
are
no
late
items
of
business
agenda.
Item
number
four:
could
I
ask
members
if
they
have
any
disclosable
pecuniary
interest
to
declare.
B
F
A
A
E
E
A
I
think
that's
a
very
fair
and
good
point
and
we
ought
to
develop
a
method
and
I'm
sure
we
could
say
council
campbell,
left
the
meeting
owing
to
losing
an
internet
connection.
Would
that
be
possible.
Andy.
A
So
we'll
adjust
that
on
this
occasion,
and
perhaps
if
we
could
just
if,
if
other
people
do
drop
out,
the
clerk
could
just
check
around
after
the
meeting,
whether
that
was
in
fact
due
to
the
internet,
and
I
think
that
does
that
pick
that
one
up
all
right,
colin.
E
A
Okay,
so
can
I
assume
that
these
minutes
are
a
true
and
accurate
record
and
I
will
take
silence
as
agreement
to
that.
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
seven
matters
are
rising
from
the
minutes.
Are
there
any
matters
arising
from
the
minutes,
please
and
I'll
pause
to
allow
people
to
come
on
come
in
if
they
would
like
to.
A
Okay,
I'll
take
that
as
an
assumption
that
no
one
wishes
to
raise
anything
from
the
minutes
at
this
point.
So
gender
item
number
eight
application
for
the
change
of
use
from
a
residential
property
to
a
four
bed
house
in
multiple
occupation,
belvedere
mount
jess
in
your
own
time.
If
you're
ready
with
our
presentation,
please-
and
could
I
ask
that
when
the
presentation
is
over,
you
return
it
you
take
it
back
off
the
screen
so
that
I
can
see
people
please
jess.
L
Thank
you
chair
just
to
say,
I
know
you
are
all
old
hands
at
sort
of
you
know
virtual
panels.
This
is
my
first
one
and
I'm
inexplicably
nervous.
So
hopefully
it's
all
going
to
work.
I've
got
multiple
laptops,
wires
and
pens
everywhere,
but
here
we
go
so
we've
all
been
through
it.
Jess.
L
This
is
the
application
site,
it's
a
through
terrace
within
beeston,
and
if
we
just
move
on
just
because
the
next
slide
should
give
us-
hopefully
that's
a
little
bit
more
context
in
terms
of
the
wider
area,
so
for
those
to
try
and
give
a
bit
of
context.
So
you
can
understand
where
we
are
the
the
highway
that's
running
roughly
north
south
is
gooseberry
road.
The
green
area
is
cross
flats
park,
leed
city
centre
lies
to
the
north
and
the
industrial
estate
that
you're,
seeing
on
the
right
hand,
side.
There
is
the
parkside
industrial
estate.
L
L
The
reports
in
paragraphs
58
and
59
talked
in
some
detail
about
the
surrounding
streets,
and
this
slide
here
just
highlights
that
search
area
which
the
report
refers
to.
So
if
you
can
just
move
on
again
cody.
Thank
you.
So,
just
going
very
briefly
through
some
of
the
photographs,
this
is
the
front
of
the
application
site.
It's
the
second
property
in
so
the
one.
That's
got
the
top
open
casement,
not
the
property
of
the
dormer,
the
one
just
in
front
of
it.
Moving
on
again,
please
just
a
wider
shot
showing
the
street
in
context
and
again.
L
So
this
is
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
again
second
housing,
showing
an
enclosed
rear
yard,
with
fencing
and
again,
please
just
giving
you
a
wider
shot
down
the
street
and
again,
the
applicant
has
provided
some
shots,
well,
some
cgi's
showing
the
changes
that
are
proposed
to
the
property.
So
the
report
does
say
that
some
improvement
is
going
to
be
made
to
the
external
areas.
So
this
is
just
on
the
top
of
the
screen.
L
The
existing
rear
yard,
as
it
is,
and
the
changes
that
will
be
made
so
you're,
seeing
that
you've
got
bin
stores.
On
the
left
hand,
side,
you've
got
cycle
storage
by
way
of
the
sheffield
stands
and
access
into
the
basement.
If
you
can
move
on
please
this
is
the
proposed
basement
area.
It's
really
critical
to
note.
There's
no
residential
accommodation
proposed
within
this
basement
area.
It's
going
to
be
utility
areas
and
storage.
L
There's
access
shown,
on
the
left
hand,
side
into
the
rear
yard,
which
can
provide
a
secondary
fire
escape
if
needed,
and
then
there's
internal
access
through
the
property
where
it's
got
the
central
staircase
and
the
hallway.
If
we
just
move
on,
we
should
have
some
shots.
So
again,
these
this
is
the
cgi's.
It's
on
the
top.
You've
got
the
basement
as
it
is
at
present
and
then
it
being
converted
into
the
communal
laundry
area
and
with
storage
space
available
as
well
and
again,
please
cody.
L
L
L
Now
these
are
slides
members
that
are
not
within
the
printed
papers,
but
one
of
the
things
that
the
report
really
highlights
and
talks
through
is
what
a
high
density
of
hmos
looks
like
for
those
of
you
that
are
very
eagle-eyed
and
aren't
working
off
laptops
you'll,
see
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
screen
there,
that's
the
brood
and
else
sort
of
area
of
the
city.
So
this
is
hyde
park
woodhouse,
where
we
have
got
80
to
90
percent
of
properties
within
areas
and
on
streets
as
hmos
and
just
to
provide
the
comparative.
L
We
could
move
on
again
cody.
This
is
the
situation
within
the
application
area.
The
property,
as
we'll
have
seen
from
the
earlier
slides,
is
the
terraces
that
are
at
the
kind
of
far
south
west.
So
there's
a
clear
difference
in
the
density
of
hmos
between
the
hyde
park,
woodhouse
area
and
the
beeston
area.
L
A
Okay,
so
we
have
no
speakers
on
this
item,
but
the
applicant
is
here:
should
we
need
any
questions
answering
at
any
point
in
the
debate?
A
So
do
members
have
any
questions
to
the
officers
and
and
if
you
do,
could
you
use
your
hand
your
electronic
hand,
to
signal
that
you
want
to?
Can
I
explain
before
we
proceed
on
this
process
that
the
hands
don't
appear
on
my
screen
in
the
order
that
you
raise
them,
so
I
may
get
the
order
wrong.
Please
forgive
me
if
I
do
that
and
colin,
I
think
we've
got
councillor
campbell
who's
raised
his
hand
first
and
then
I've
got
councillor
reagan.
E
Can
I
just
ask
a
highways
question:
chair
yeah,
because
looking
at
the
papers
there's
been
a
number
of
similar
applications
that
have
been
refused
many
under
delegated
powers
because
of
the
impact
on
parking,
etc
that
effectively
four
people
will
bring
to
a
a
street
rather
than
a
single
family.
N
Yes,
thank
you
with
this
particular
house
that
if
we
apply
our
parking
guidelines,
a
four
bedroom
house
requires
two
parking
spaces
and
hmos
will
require
one
parking
space
for
two
bedrooms.
So
in
the
case
of
this
house,
it's
a
four
bedroom
date.
You
know
so
that's
two
spaces.
N
So
in
terms
of
the
parking
demand
that
the
change
brings,
the
there
isn't
an
increase
in
parking
demand.
So
that's
why
we
haven't
objected
that
there's
a
number
of
applications
referred
to
in
the
in
the
papers.
Now
I
have
been
through
all
those
and
as
as
officers
as
highways
officers,
we
didn't
object
to
any
of
those
and
they
were
all
of
a
similar
nature
that
they
used
as
a
private
dwelling
in
the
use
as
an
hmo
had
the
same
parking
demand.
A
Do
you
want
to
come
back
on
that?
One
council
finnegan
sorry,
councillor
campbell.
A
Okay,
council
reagan:
do
you
still
want
to
speak?
No,
that
was.
G
L
Yep,
I
can
certainly
pick
those
both
up,
I'm
just
making
another
second
question,
so
I
don't
forget
it
while
I'm
answering
the
first.
Thank
you
right
evidence
of
one
bed.
The
question
of
sustainable
development.
Counselor
governs
me.
That's
that's
a
huge
one.
L
Obviously,
as
a
city,
we
recognize
that
we
need
mixed
and
balanced
and
sustainable
communities
and
that's
as
much
about
not
insurable
trying
to
avoid
high
concentrations
and
high
densities
of
say,
flats
or
hmos,
as
it
is
about
trying
to
avoid
gated
communities
of
large
houses
where
people
don't
mix
the
policy
that
we've
got
h6
sets
out
that
we
need
and
balanced
tenure
across
the
city
and
does
that
in
a
positive
way.
So
we
can't
start
from
the
assumption
that
hmo
properties
or
flats
in
and
of
themselves
cause
problems.
L
I'm
quite
happy
to
talk
through
the
evidence
base
in
terms
of
the
government
reports,
etcetera,
but
it
can
get
quite
technical,
but
the
detail
is
there
if
it
would
help
members
but
again
outlined
in
the
report
where
you've
got
high
concentrations
of
hmos,
you
can
end
up
with
problems
created,
for
instance,
that
if
you
suddenly
have
a
lack
of
family
houses,
you
might
not
have
enough
pupils
for
a
school,
for
instance.
So
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
you
need
that
balance.
It
isn't
about
saying.
L
L
L
A
G
I
understand
the
economic
argument
on
this
because
it's
a
balanced
economic,
social,
environmental.
I
don't
understand
the
economic
argument
because
whoever
owns
it
is
going
to
make
an
absolute
fortune
out
of
renting
out
for
bedside.
So
I
get
that
I
can't
see
the
positives
in
terms
of
the
social
element
here,
where
you've
got
a
transient
population
moving
in
and
out,
and
I
can't
see
the
environmental
benefits
so
in
terms
of
that
balance,
that
the
planning
officer
is
talking
about
what
are
the
positives?
G
A
Thank
you,
but
so
is
that
two
further
questions
that
you
wanted
answering
councillor
finnegan.
What
do
you
want
just
to
come
back?
Do
you
want
to.
G
Just
I'd
be
interested
in
knowing
that
we're
supposed
to
do
this
balance.
Aren't
we
sure
we're
supposed
to
look
at
the
economic?
I
understand
the
economic
case,
I'm
struggling
to
understand
the
positives
in
terms
of
the
social
case
for
this
development
and
I'm
struggling
to
understand
the
environmental
case.
The
positive
case
for
this
so.
A
L
I
certainly
can,
and
again
this
may
get
slightly
techy
in
terms
of
the
response
so
bear
with
me.
The
the
framework
provides
the
starting
point
for
our
decisions
and,
although
I
entirely
take
your
points
about
the
fact
that
we
should
be
delivering
positive
benefits,
where
possible,
the
planning
system
is
actually
set
out
to
broadly
do
no
harm.
L
So
the
framework
says
that,
if
development
accords
with
the
plan,
it
should
be
approved
unless
we
can
demonstrate
a
problem
now
in
terms
of
just
touching
on
the
the
matters
raised
in
terms
of
the
economic
benefits.
Yes,
I
take
your
point
about
there's
a
private
individual
who
will
presumably
be
making
a
profit
out
of
this
enterprise,
but
also
as
a
city.
L
We
recognize
that
we
need
what
are
called
receptor
communities,
so
these
are
areas
of
the
city
where
people
can
move
to
as
they
move
into
the
city
and
and
be
there,
maybe
for
six
twelve
months,
as
they
establish
themselves
figure
out
what
our
cities
like
and
work
out
where
they
might
want
to
live.
I've
certainly
been
in
that
situation.
I
moved
down
to
leeds
after
university
and
I
was
in
short-term
accommodation
for
a
while,
so
they
help
the
city
function
economically
and
organically,
they
are
there
and
they
are
needed.
L
Okay,
sorry
well,
as
I
was
going
to
say,
was,
and
that
does
therefore
partly
explain
when
why
these
are
needed
socially,
so
that
we've
got
a
range
of
people
moving
into
the
city
they're
often
occupied
by
younger
people,
which
again
we
need
people
moving
into
the
city
and
who
can
be
economically
active
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
communities
who
are
older.
L
A
Thank
you
and
I've
now
got
councillor
peter,
grew
and
followed
by
councillor
anderson,
peter.
H
Thank
you
chair.
I've
got
a
question
for
jess,
please
I
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
two
slides
you
showed
about
the
density
of
hmos
and
you
went
to
one
end
of
the
spectrum
with
hyde
park
and
said:
well,
look.
It
isn't
as
bad
as
that,
and
here
we
are
many
fewer,
but
this
is
an
article
for
a
directed
area.
Is
it
not,
which
is
what
the
report
says?
H
H
A
L
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
entirely
take
the
point
in
that
the
distinction
and
difference
between
hyde
park
and
beeston
is
is
quite
stark.
That
hasn't
been
done.
I
assure
you
councillor
in
any
way
to
kind
of
skew
the
debate.
It's
simply
that
when
we
did
the
appeals
analysis,
those
there
was
a
clear
distinction
between
two
areas
of
the
city,
so
that
was
then
brought
into
the
presentation.
L
L
It
recognizes
that
certain
areas
of
the
city
are
more
likely
to
have
hmo
properties
are
to
be
attractive
to
hmo
landlords
and
allows
us
to
assess
applications
on
a
case-by-case
basis
to
see
whether
or
not
there
is
harm
it's
akin
to
having
any
kind
of
development
control
simply
because
we've
got
control
over
people
building
a
residential
extension
doesn't
mean
that
all
residential
extensions
are
harmful.
It's
looking
at
the
balance
of
evidence.
L
L
Now,
just
to
stress
here,
this
doesn't
mean
that
people
who
occupy
hmo
properties
are
more
likely
to
commit
crime.
It's
actually
they
are
more
likely
to
be
victims
of
crime,
because
again,
this
is
going
into
where
you
get
impacts
across
a
population.
So
if
you
have
a
street
whereby
90
of
the
houses
are
hmos,
there's
a
high
turnover
nobody's
going
to
recognize
who's
coming
in
and
out,
so
that
provides
an
opportunity
for
crime,
because
people
are
not
likely
to
be
thinking.
I
don't
recognize
this
individual,
who
are
they?
There
could
be
a
problem
here.
H
Thank
you
you're
slightly
unlucky
jesse,
in
the
sense
that
I
was
the
executive
member
when
we
brought
in
the
article
for
direction
in
the
city,
including
this
particular
area.
So
I
do
remember
pretty
well
the
circumstances
and
the
main
reason
was
to
stop
the
preponderance
of
more
hmos
and
recognizing
that
there
were
some
sensitive
and
vulnerable
communities
which
did
not
want
that
multitude
of
hmos
to
get
too
excessive.
H
L
Thank
you
councillor,
I'm
very
happy
to
be
unlucky
in
terms
of
the
views
of
local
residents.
There
haven't
been
any
representations
from
local
residents.
We've
obviously
got
the
representations
from
the
local
world
members
who
are
obviously
representing
a
wider
community
and
those
are
outlined
and
acknowledged
within
the
report
now
working
through
those.
I
know
that
councillors,
iqbal
and
nash
say
that
there's
a
need
for
family
housing.
L
Now
recognizing
that
view
has
been
put
across
what
we
then
have
to
look
at
is
well.
Is
there
any
evidence
that
there's
a
need
for
family
housing,
given
that,
as
I
said,
90
of
the
houses
within
the
area
are
owner-occupied
family
housing.
We
feel
that
we'd
struggle
with
that
percentage
to
suggest
there's
a
problem.
Members
may
take
a
very
different
view.
L
Obviously
we're
only
here
to
give
advice,
and
then
again
I
mean
I
can
go
through
the
points
one
by
one,
but
for
instance,
you
know
the
concerns
about
parking
have
already
been
answered
by
highways
officers.
L
So
it
may
not
be
helpful
to
go
through
everything
in
detail,
but
certainly
we
have
taken
on
board
the
views
of
the
world
members,
but
the
views
do
need
to
be
evidenced.
This
is
it's
a
fine
balance
in
planning,
because,
obviously
the
system
is
set
up
to
allow
public
engagements
and
that's
a
really
critical
part
of
how
we
make
decisions.
L
As
with
this
now
it
isn't
the
case
to
say
that
simply
because
we've
had
a
few
overturned
appeals,
we
abandon
all
our
policies,
but
the
views
of
inspectors
are
material
and
we
have
to
take
them
on
board,
there's
something
that
we
have
to
factor
in.
So
again,
the
report
outlines
why.
Although
we
accept
the
views
of
ward
members
based
on
evidence
and
based
on
appeal
decisions,
we
think
the
balance
in
this
case
is
for
approval.
L
A
So
I've
got
councillor
anderson
and
I
believe
councillor
brooks
also
wants
to
speak
councillor
anderson
first,
please.
C
Thank
you
chair
just.
Can
you
explain
to
me
why,
on
paragraph
on
paint?
Well,
it's
actually
paragraph
15,
page
15
onwards.
You
have
highlight
and
under
the
relevant
planning
history
everything
where
it
would
give
us
reasons
to
refuse
the
application.
You
know
you've
you've
set
it
out
clearly
there.
So
what's
the
logic,
what
conclusions
am
I
meant
to
draw
from
those
because
you've
given
me
reasons
why
I
could
refuse
this
application?
C
And
I
don't
think
that
was
your
intention.
There
must
have
been
a
positive
implication
behind
it.
Then,
if
we
go
down
to
the
bottom
of
page
16,
the
word
members
make
the
assertion
that
there
are
a
number
of
unauthorized
hmos
in
the
area.
C
How
many
unauthorized
cases
are
enforcement
dealing
with
in
the
area
at
the
moment
so
before
this
was
brought
forward?
How
many
enforcement
cases
are
in
action
at
the
moment,
then,
if
we
go
to
the
final
two
bullet
points
in
the
in
paragraph
25
about
the
assertion
about
the
waste,
will
there
be
one
standard
bin
for
each
household
or
will
there
be
one
of
the
larger,
larger
liter
size
bins?
C
So
you
can
get
four,
or
is
it
going
to
be
standard,
how
sized
ones
and
then
the
final
one
is
that,
where
is
the
evidence
in
their
housing
needs
assessment
about
the
assessment,
a
certain
about
family
housing,
because
I
can't
it's
not
evidenced
within
the
policy
section
of
it
to
show
that
there
is
a
case
under
for
family
housing
in
this
area.
L
Thank
you
councillor.
I
will
try
and
take
those
in
reverse
order.
Actually
in
terms
of
the
case
for
family
housing.
That
is
well.
The
point
is
officers.
Do
not
feel
that
there
is
a
case
that
there
is
a
significant
demand
for
family
housing,
which
this
application
would
prejudice,
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
we're
saying
that
we
feel
this
application
is
acceptable.
L
L
My
understanding
is
that
waste
management
have
asked
for
two
bins
for
for
the
four
occupants,
so
one
bin
per
two
people.
I
think
my
understanding
is
they'd,
be
standard
size
bins.
The
application
provides
enough
space
for
four
bins,
ie,
two
green
and
two
black,
so
we
feel
that
that
would
meet
the
needs
and
the
sufficient
space
to
store
those
off
streets.
L
Turning
to
the
bottom
of
page
16,
and
I
apologize
as
I'm
looking
away
members,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
the
relevant
paragraph
up
on
a
separate,
laptop
well
in
terms
of
the
the
appeal
history.
L
L
The
first
application
relates
to
sorry
on
the
local
area,
so
the
2014
10
belvedere
mount
at
paragraph
17.
That
was
refused.
It
wasn't
appealed
and
that
is
within
the
context
and
which
I
referenced
in
response
to
councillor
gruen's
question,
which
is
that
as
the
policy
was
brought
in
and
as
the
core
strategy
was
new,
we
were
refusing
these
applications.
No
question
about
that.
The
evidence
is
there
that
wasn't
appealed.
So
we've
got
no
other
sort
of
balance
to
that
refusal
that
simply
stands
as
a
fact.
L
Now
these
decisions
are
very,
very
nuanced,
as
I've
mentioned
what
the
wickham
street
inspector
found,
because
that
appeal
was
dismissed,
was
that
there
was
not
any
evidence
of
harm
from
a
high
concentration
of
hmos
within
the
area,
and
this
is
just
north
of
this-
probably
about
half
a
mile
north.
So
it's
within
the
same
kind
of
neighborhood
area.
What
that
inspector
did
say,
though,
and
did
find,
was
that
there
was
a
high
cluster
of
hmos
within
a
very,
very
top
and
localized
area.
L
The
property
was
close
to
a
corner,
and
when
you
looked
at
the
immediate
adjoining
streets,
there
was
a
real
cluster
and
they
felt
that
that
cluster
in
and
of
itself
was
sufficient
to
suggest
that,
for
instance,
different
patterns
of
coming
and
going
and
so
on
and
so
forth
would
cause
harm
to
immediate
neighbours.
So
it
wasn't
refused
on
the
principle
that
an
additional
hmo
caused
harm
on
a
neighborhood
level.
It
was
about
very
particular
localized
impact
in
that
immediate
area.
L
Enforcements,
sorry,
yes,
what
I
was
trying
to
do,
as
I
was
talking,
was
just
double
check
our
maps,
because
my
understanding
is
that
there
aren't
active
enforcement
cases
now.
That
is
only
my
understanding
and
I
don't
want
to
obviously
give
incorrect
advice
to
members.
A
Just
shall
we
leave
you
to
look
through
that
while
we
take
another
question
and
you
can
come
back
to
us
when
you've
got
the
information
councillor
brooks,
would
you
like
to
speak.
D
Thank
you
chair,
so
unlocking
I'm
looking
at
the
papers,
paragraph
25
so.
D
Into
my,
I
suppose
I
suppose
it
kind
of
ties
in
with
the
enforcement
question,
but
I
suppose
like
how
would
you
know
that
there's
unlicensed
hmos
in
the
area
like
because
like
if,
if
the
ward
members
are
aware
that
there's
unlicensed
hmos,
as
as
the
as
the
saying
here
like
surely
surely
that
there
are
like?
Because
you
know,
like
the
p,
the
people
who
live
in
these
areas
might
be
worried
about
reporting
directly
to
the
council
for
enforcement.
So
I'm
not.
D
L
Try
right
I've
done
a
quick
search,
aided
ably
by
my
administration
colleagues,
in
the
background
and
who
tell
me
that
there's
one
active
enforcement
case
at
present
on
a
property
approximately
three
or
four
streets
away,
collin
terrace,
but
other
than
that
there
aren't
active
enforcement
cases
and
just
looking
at
my
map
and
there's
not
significant
evidence
of
any
historic
enforcement
cases
at
all
and
without
drilling
into
the
detail.
I
don't
even
know
what
those
enforcement
cases
were
about.
They
could
be
entirely
unrelated
to
to
occupation
and
I'm
trying
to
take
the
point.
L
Councillor
brooks.
How
do
we
know
what
we
don't
know
essentially,
which
is
that
if
there
are
properties
that
aren't
licensed,
will
we
know
about
them?
L
Obviously,
the
council
has
brought
in
the
matter
of
selective
licensing
recently,
because,
obviously
previously
it
was
only
very
large
hmos
that
had
to
be
licensed.
So
we
were
aware
that
there
were
hmos
across
the
city
that
we
didn't
know
about,
but
that
database
of
is
now
hopefully
significantly
more
sorry
significantly
improved,
and
it
is
that
database.
That's
been
interrogated
for
this
report
in
terms
of
how
members
weigh
up
the
possibility
of
unauthorized
hmos
within
their
decision.
L
I
think
you
can
assume
that
there
may
be
some
in
the
same
ways
which
we
can
assume
across
the
city.
There
will
be
breaches
of
planning
control
that
we
don't
know
about,
but
decisions
have
to
be
made
on
evidence
and
we
again
the
report
goes
through
the
evidence
that
we've
got
and
I
don't
think
on
that
basis.
There
is
a
sufficient
justification
to
say,
there's
a
significant
problem.
L
L
What
you'd
start
to
see,
as
I
say,
is
impact
upon
local
services.
Local
schools
would
see
different
intake
patterns,
shops
and
services
would
gradually
respond
to
relate
to
a
different
demographic,
etc,
and
there
isn't
evidence
of
that
happening.
So
I
think
overall,
my
advice
is
that
we
haven't
got
evidence
of
the
significant
problem
caused
by
high
density,
whether
they
are
licensed
or
the
occasional
unlicensed
property.
A
Thanks
jessica
councillor
brooks:
do
you
have
an
anything
more
on
the
question,
or
are
you
happy
to
move
to
the
debate
on
this
issue.
C
What
I
was
going
to
then,
depending
on
the
answer
that
I
got,
we've
designated
beeston
as
a
selective
licensing
area,
and
this
appears
from
what
I
can
read
in
the
report
that
this
area
is
covered
within
the
selective
licensing
area.
So
that's
done
for
a
reason.
We've
come
up
with
the
idea
of
selective
licensing.
For
a
reason,
it
was
very
controversial
when
it
was
brought
in,
so
the
council
had
to
be
sure
of
its
evidence
to
justify
it.
C
So
what
was
the
evidence
to
include
this
area
in
the
selective
licensing
because
it
was
either
it's
either
due
to
some
form
of
deprivation
issues
with
the
quality
of
housing
or
anti-social
behavior,
there's
a
range
of
reasons
why
selective
licensing
has
been
brought
in?
Do
we
know
why
this
this
particular
area
is
included
in
the
beeston
selective
licensing
area,
because
what
I'm
getting
at
is
if
they
feel
that
there's
selective
need
for
selective
license
in
the
area.
It
would
suggest
to
me
that
there
are
private
landlords
in
the
area.
L
Thank
you,
I
mean
first
off
councillor.
I
do
not
know
the
exact
reason
that
this
particular
area
was
included
within
selective
licensing,
because
that
detail
and
data
held
by
the
private
rented
team
that,
unfortunately,
I
don't
have
access
to
my
knowing
the
area
and
having
worked
across
leeds
for
a
number
of
years.
My
suspicion
and
his
only
suspicion
would
be
that
our
main
concern
related
to
the
quality
of
accommodation
being
provided.
A
Okay,
thank
you
is
does
that
is
that
satisfactory,
councilor
anderson?
It
will
do.
Thank
you,
okay.
I
don't
see
any
more
hands
and
andy's
briefed
to
oh
jackie
councillor
shermelt.
Do
you
wish
to
speak?
Yes,.
J
D
J
J
I
I
I'm
intrigued
by
the
difference
as
to
whether
we've,
whether
we're
trying
to
ring
fence
this
this
area,
as
a
for
as
available
housing
for
families,
which
is
which
was
what
the
directive
I
assume
was
meant
to
do,
or
whether
this
is
this
is
going
to
potentially
open
up
the
floodgates
to
having
more
hmos
as
being
the
the
southern
gateway
to
the
city,
because
you
know,
having
cycles
and
being
within
walking.
J
Distance
of
the
city
centre
doesn't
mean
to
say
that
it's
necessarily
going
to
achieve
it
so,
and
I
would
just
want
to
ponder
on
that
one,
if
I'm
honest
as
to
as
to
I
mean
it,
there
is
a
huge
difference
between
headingley
and
hyde
park
and
beeston,
and
it's
about
and
and
the
the
division
is
about,
the
availability
of
education
and
employment.
L
Well,
I
can
to
a
point.
I
entirely
take
your
point
counsellor.
L
L
L
So
this
is
why
we
want
balanced
and
mixed
communities
so
that
as
people
move
into
leads
and
move
into
an
area
they're
moving
into
so
there's
available
property
for
that
to
happen,
but
it's
within
an
established
community
whereby
they
then
learn
what
it
is
to
be
a
resident
in
leeds
and
then
move
on
and
grow
in
the
city.
So
it
isn't
about
saying:
is
there
a
demand
for
this
type
of
property,
particularly
or
is
there
a
demand
for
another
type
of
property?
L
A
Thank
you.
Would
you
like
to
come
back
on
that
one?
No
okay,
thank
you.
So
we
now
move
on
to
comments
and
the
same.
The
same
will
apply
I'll
invite
you
now
to
make
any
comments,
and
if
you
could
indicate
with
your
electronic
hand,
I
would
be
grateful
and
I
can
see
councillor
ray
is
indicating
paul
go
ahead.
B
Thank
you
chair.
My
comments
are
are
going
to
be
more.
I
don't
want
to
try
to
sway
people
in
every
direction,
because
I
appreciate
my
world
members
which
actually
give
some
context
to
the
area,
because
actually
the
report
is
willfully
or
unintentionally.
However,
how
we
want
to
look
at
it
lacking
in
detail
of
the
area.
There
are
thousands
of
properties
that
are
part
of
the
private
rented
sector
in
the
beeston
hill
and
the
wider
beast
in
area.
This
is
why
I
was
brought
into
selective
licensing
due
to
density
due
to
economic
deprivation.
B
Most
of
the
area
is
in
the
bottom,
ten
percent,
several
parts
of
the
area
in
the
bottom,
one
percent
and
speaking
to
selective
licensing
colleagues.
They
have
readily
admitted
that
they
are
finding
a
significant
number
of
unlicensed
hmos
as
they
go
about
and
do
the
licenses,
because
people
were
registering
them
as
single
flatted
properties
for
council
tax
purposes
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden,
a
lot
of
people
having
to
pay
council
facts
that
weren't
having
to
pay
council
tax
before
this
area
was
never
designed
for
the
density
of
population.
It
has.
B
We
have
significant
waste
issues
to
which
we're
having
to
have
experimental
traffic
regulation
orders
added
to
the
area
to
deal
with
waste
issues.
We
have
significant
parking
issues.
This
area
was
considered
for
an
active
travel
neighborhood
to
stop
traffic
and
parking
related
issues,
and
I
go
back
to
what
the
inspector
said.
Ten
percent
is
deemed
to
be
harmful,
there's
eleven
percent
that
they
found.
B
They
know
there
is
more
selective
licensing
knows
there
is
more
the
fact
that
this
has
a
core
group
with
multi-agency
support
covering
a
large
swathe
of
this
area
says
there
are
significant
problems
in
the
area.
So
all
I
would
like
to
do
is
point
out
to
colleagues
when
you're,
making
your
your
deliberations
and
I'm
not
going
to
try
and
see
you
in
ever
in
either
direction.
B
This
is
an
area
that
is
receiving
intense
council
support
due
to
its
highly
dense
population,
highly
transient
population,
low
levels
of
of
economic
well-being,
social
issues,
anti-social
behavior
issues
and
a
whole
variety
of
other
things.
So
I
think
colleagues
need
to
bear
that
in
mind
when
making
their
deliberations.
A
C
Be
very,
very
quick
because
I
was
paul
has
more
eloquently
put
in
the
points
I
was
going
to
make.
Hence
my
questioning
down
those
particular
lines
because
we've
got
to
if
we're
going
for
selective
license
and
it's
being
done
for
a
reason.
So
I'm
happy
with
the
comments
that
councilor
ray
and
I
was
going
to
ask
colleagues
to
reflect
back
on
those
I've
tried
to
look
through
the
comments
from
the
local
world
members
to
find.
C
You
know
some
reasons
why
we
could
refuse
what
we're
doing,
but
not
being
able
to
find
any
in
the
evidence.
That's
been
given
to
me
back
again,
but
the
final
comment
on
a
positive
side
is:
can
I
comment
how
good
it
was
to
see
the
cgi's
because
it
does?
It
does
help
to
give
a
bit
of
context
as
to
what's
being
proposed,
and
maybe
other
developers
who
may
be
listening
in
could
learn
from
that.
C
That's
one
way
to
try
and
get
a
point
across
is
by
producing
cgi's
in
terms
of
things
in
the
future,
because
I
think
it
helps
to
us
to
visualize
what
might
the
area
might
look
at,
but
I
am
very
balanced
on
this
at
the
moment
because
of
what
I
know
about
hmos
and
what
I
know
about
selective
licensing.
C
But
the
evidence
that
I
see
in
this
report
isn't
giving
me
the
evidence
to
back
up
what
I
think
I
know
if
you
see
what
I
mean
so
I
am
betwixt
in
between
to
be
quite
honest.
A
Yes,
I
do
see
exactly
what
you
mean
counselor
anderson,
and
that
is
why
applications
such
as
this
are
so
difficult
for
for
a
panel
to
decide-
and
I
completely
agree
with
your
point
about
the
cgi's-
I
think
they're
extremely
helpful.
I've
got
councillor
finnegan
and
then
councillor
campbell
councillor
finnegan.
First,
please.
G
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
not
sustainable
development
in
any
shapewear
form
we're
supposed
to
weigh
up
the
economic,
social
and
environmental
side
of
this
particular
application.
I
can't
see
any
positives
in
terms
of
the
social
or
environmental
side,
clearly,
economically
somebody's
going
to
get
exceptionally
rich
out
of
this
particular
application.
You've
got
a
transient
population
with
all
of
the
problems
and
difficulties
that
are
associated
with
that.
There
is
no
evidence
of
the
need
for
this
sort
of
one-bedroom
bedsit
accommodation
in
this
particular
area.
G
There
are
no
positives
that
I
can
find
from
agreeing
this
particular
application
and
I
suspect
that's
the
way
that
I
will
vote.
Thank
you
chair.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
finnegan.
Before
I
bring
you
in
councillor
campbell,
I
can
see
that
council
brooks
is
holding
something
up
to
the
screen,
but
I'm
afraid
I
can't
read
it.
Oh,
you
can't
find
the
hand
mr
booth,
could
you
give
kaylee
a
ring
while
you're,
both
muted
and
just
explain
how
to
locate
the
hand.
I've
noted
that
you
want
to
speak
anyway.
Councillor
brooks
colin.
Please
go
ahead.
E
I
think
that
we
have
a
selective
licensing
policy
for
a
reason,
and
I
think,
in
effect,
what
we've
been
told
is
by
officers
is
they'd
like
us
to
set
that
aside.
E
I
I
don't
think
we
can
set
it
aside,
and
I
think
I
think
we
must
be
mindful
of
it
when
we
make
a
decision,
so
that
should
be
part
of
our
decision
making.
I
think
added
to
that.
As
robert
said,
there
is
no
it's
not
sustainable.
Really.
E
E
So
there
is
pressure
throughout
the
city,
not
just
in
this
area,
for
family
housing
and
losing
a
family
house
I
think,
is
detrimental,
and
I
also
would
raise
the
issue
about
parking
because,
notwithstanding
our
parking
policy,
which
I
I
in
many
cases
I
think
is-
is
outdated.
E
If
you
get
four
effectively
adults
moving
into
a
house
as
opposed
to
a
family,
because
this
is
a
family
house,
you
are
likely
very
likely
to
get
for
vehicles,
and
we
know
what
the
pressure
on
parking
in
that
area
is,
and
I
think
it
is
detrimental
to
the
environment,
about
putting
extra
cars
onto
that
network
and
the
pressures
that
will
bring.
So
I'm
not
convinced
I've
not
been
convinced
by
the
officers
on
this
one
and
I'm
tending
towards
the
view
that
the
world
members
have.
Thank
you
chair.
A
D
Thank
you
chair
and
apologies
for
that
I
could
not
find
ray's
hand
yeah.
I
think
so
it's
it's
interesting.
That
policy
is
10
when
it's
it's
recognized
that
the
the
balance
can
become
harmful
and
as
someone
who
lives
in
the
hyde
park
area
and
as
someone
who
represents
a
little
london
and
widows
ward,
I'm
very
very
aware
of
what
those
issues
look
like.
D
D
More
information
about
more
information
about
sort
of
unlicensed
hmos
would
have
been
really
appreciated,
like
the
the
process
by
which
that
happens
would
would
have
been
really
really
appreciated
and-
and
I
spent-
and
I
would.
D
I
would
especially
like
to
to
draw
attention
to
my
earlier
comments
about
residents
who,
who
perhaps
fear
reprisals
from
from
landlords
for
reporting
this
in,
because
we
are
talking
about
an
area
with
who
we're
talking
about
an
area
of
you
know
like
where,
where
it's
quite
quite
a
low-income
area,
basically
I'm
not
going
to
say
high
levels
of
deprivation
and
stuff
like
that,
because
it's
yeah
but
a
low-income
area
where
people
perhaps
don't
have
anywhere
else
to
go
if
they're
kicked
out
of
their
properties.
D
So
I
think
I
think,
outside
of
this
meeting,
I'd
really
like
to
have
some
discussions
as
to
how
this
can
be
tackled
in
a
way
where,
where
people
are
protected
for
whistleblowing,
definitely
because
yeah
yeah.
So
I
I
can't
say
that
I
am
convinced
of
the
case
to
vote
in
favor
of
this.
I
am
very
concerned
about
about
that
aforementioned
balance
and
the
the
amount
of
people
that
that
will
eventually
sort
of
live
there
like
the
density
of
that
population.
D
Eventually,
because,
like
again,
one
of
the
problems
in
in
the
heading
lean
high
part
warden
in
little
london
and
woodhouse
ward,
is
the
fact
that,
like
all
of
those
properties
were
designed
for
families
to
live
in
so
yeah,
I
think
I
think
I'll
probably
just
leave
it
there,
because
otherwise
I'll
just
run
about
it
forever.
Thank.
A
You
thank
you,
kaylee
peter
grew
and
please.
H
I
think
of
late
planning.
Officers
are
being
put
in
a
position
where
they
are
the
last
line
of
defense
for
the
council
and
if
I
listen
to
councils,
campbell
and
finnegan
and
in
some
extent,
anderson
and
brooks
actually
what
they're
saying
is.
We
would
turn
down
any
application
for
an
hmo
in
this
area,
not
just
this
one,
but
anyone,
and
if
that
is
the
case,
then
that
isn't
a
planning
matter.
H
Somebody
somewhere
else
in
other
departments
should
be
intervening
before
then
and
making
it
impossible
for
these
applications
to
be
considered
in
the
way
they
are
now
because,
if
I
look
at
it
just
from
a
planning
perspective,
actually
the
external
part
of
the
property
will
be
improved.
It'll
look
better
than
it
looks
now,
it'll
be
modernized
internally.
H
So
those
are
the
positives,
but
the
negatives
are
there'll,
be
four
independent
people
living
there,
not
as
a
family
unit,
but
as
for
independent
people,
and
that,
if
it
is
then
multiplied
over
and
over
and
over
again
is
what
causes
the
potential
detriment.
H
So
my
quandary
is
whether
this
application
should
be
voted
down
or
whether
it
actually
is
a
much
stronger
implementation
of
policy.
H
That's
required,
so
that
planning
officers
are
not
faced
with
trying
to
find
reasons
when
they
fully
well
know
what
the
ward
members
and
panel
might
want,
but
at
the
same
time
recognizing
that
that
might
not
be
defendable
at
an
appeal.
A
Thank
you
very
welcome
comments
from
my
point
of
view,
peter.
I
agree
with
what
you've
said.
Unusually,
I
agree
with
all
of
what
you've
said.
It
does
give
us
a
dilemma
when
we
get
to
this
point
and
we
you
know
the
the
all
the
records
show
that
that
should
we
refuse
this
there's
a
very,
very
strong
likelihood
of
an
inspector
approving
it
and
we
how.
How
often
have
we
been
in
that
situation,
colleagues
and
it
does
require
action
outside
an
actual
plant's
panel
arena.
A
Well,
if,
if
you
absolutely
can't
find
where
to
raise
your
hand,
of
course,
I'm
inviting
you
to
come
in,
but
if
you
go
into
participants
and
you
look
down
the
list
of
people
that
are
present,
there's
a
blue
hand
at
the
bottom
of
that
panel,
which
you
can
click
on
sharon.
What
would
you
like
to
say?
I.
I
Was
just
going
to
say
on
the
point
that
the
cgi
shows
the
improvement,
that's
going
to
be
done
to
the
property.
Well,
the
property
can
can
still
be
improved
for
a
family.
You
know
it's
not
just
shouldn't
be
just
because
it's
going
to
be
multi-occupancy.
I
think
that
improvement
would
be
welcome
for
a
family.
Also,
that's
what
I
was
looking
at.
You
know,
rather
than
just
improve
it
for
all
the
occupancy.
I
We
do
have
families
that
need
family
homes,
and
that
would
be
most
welcome
with
a
bathroom
upstairs
and
downstairs
as
well.
So
that's
what
I
was
looking
at
and
thinking
that
you
know
a
family
would
be
happy
to
move
into
that
property
with
the
improvement
it
don't
have
to
be
just
for
an
hmo
res
for
residents.
A
K
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
There
was
just
a
couple
of
things
really
to
pick
up
on.
Firstly,
council
brooks
mentioned
the
10
as
being
a
tipping
point.
I
should
just
explain
that:
that's
that's,
not
a
that's
not
contained
within
the
planning
policy.
There
is.
There
is
no
percentage
within
policy.
H6
we've
just
looked
at
the
10
in
in
sense
that
that's
a
figure
circa
10,
which
has
been
raised
in
the
appeal
decisions
that
we've
quoted
and
it's
those
appeals
the
inspectors.
K
The
second
point
I
just
wanted
to
raise
was
just
in
connection
with
policy
h6,
and
I
understand
what
council
reyes
said
and
it's
very
helpful
to
have
the
ward
member
perspective
and
depth
of
knowledge
in
terms
of
unlicensed
hmos,
unregistered
hmos,
and
that's
something
if
members
come
to
the
view
that
it's
a
refusal
that
we
may
be
talking
to
councillor
to
help
him
for
him
to
help
us
on.
K
On
that
point,
as
we
potentially
move
towards
defending
an
appeal
if
one
is
submitted,
but
it
is
policy
h6
says
once
you
get
to
the
point
of
a
high
concentration
there's
a
second
test
which
comes
in
it's
not
only
there's
got
to
be
a
higher
concentration,
but
there's
got
to
be
that
there's
there's
harm
which
flows
from
that
high
concentration
and
if
members
are
going
to
move
towards
not
accepting
the
officer
recommendation
move
towards
a
refusal,
I
would
find
it
very
helpful
if
I
could
have
some
feedback
on
that
point.
K
K
It
would
be
with
some
nervousness
and
trepidation
that
I
would
go
there
just
simply
because
in
we've
heard
from
andrew
thickett
that
this
the
proposal
from
his
perspective
or
the
technical
advice,
is
that
we
would
regard
this
as
generating
the
same
parking
requirements
as
a
as
a
house,
and
there
is
no
material
difference
between
what
exists
and
the
current
use
and
what
is
and
what
is
proposed
in
the
parking
sense.
That
would
be
very
difficult
for
us
to
sustain
an
argument
at
appeal,
but
I'd
like
some.
K
If
we
do
move,
if
the
panel
will
remind
us
to
move
towards
a
refusal,
it
would
be
very
helpful
to
have
some
more
feedback
from
panel
in
terms
of
the
actual
harm
that
they
see
coming
forward,
whether
that's
harm
through
impact
on
neighbours
for
immunity
or
whatever.
It
would
be
helpful
to
have
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
david,
and
so
members
are
being
invited
to
articulate
their
views
about
what
harm
this
development
is
is
likely
to
do
in
terms
of
immunity
and
environment.
Councillor
brooks
and
then
I've
got
councillor
reagan.
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
I
think
it's
it's
it's.
This
sort
of
cumulative
harm
to
do
to
do
with
especially
things
like
fly,
tipping
and
waste
waste
recovery
and
partly
impact
on
immunity.
In
terms
of
I
mean
not,
everyone
who
lives
in
a
hmo
is
going
to
be
noisy.
D
I'm
not
saying
that,
but
it
can
be
quite
difficult
to
to
pin
down
exactly
who's
responsible
for
that
in
a
hmo
with
four
or
more
people,
so
they're
they're
my
concerns
there.
I
think,
as
well
as
a
parking
issue.
D
J
Yeah,
I
think
the
issue-
it's
not
just
about
creating
an
hmo
for
four
people.
Four
separate
people
have
four
different,
separate
visitors
coming
to
that
particular
area.
So
it's
not
just
about
possible
four
cars.
It's
the
possibility
of
maybe
eight
or
nine
cars
gonna
be
in
that
area,
and
it's
not
about
only
four
people.
J
We
all
have
relationships
and
they
extend-
and
it
may
be
that
that
hmo
then
is
not
serving
just
four
people.
It's
serving
six
seven
people
because
they
may
have
partners
that
stay
over
unbeknown,
because
we
don't
know
we've
got
licenses
of
the
hmos
in
the
area.
So
how
are
we
going
to
identify
that?
We've
got
people
where
it's
only
a
one
bedroom
for
one
person?
How
are
we
going
to
identify
that?
That
person
doesn't
bring
somebody
else
in
to
share
their
rent
and
and
extend
that
house
of
multiple
occupation?
J
So
I
think
there's
real
issues
there
and
yeah
I
mean.
I
don't
think
you
can
just
say
that,
because
it's
in
hmo
there's
going
to
be
extra
flight
tipping
because
you
you
can't
say
that
that
it's
not
going
to
happen.
But
I
think
there
is
going
to
be
more
more
issues
regarding
the
parking
and
regarding
visitors
and
regarding
extended
relationships
within
the
hmo.
J
I
thought
I'd
hit
you
before
anyway,
but
and
thank
you
we
we've
talked
about.
I
can
understand
the
policy
in
terms
of
the
parking
provision
being
being
no
more,
no
greater
in
terms
of
what
policy
dictates
at
the
moment,
with
it
being
an
hmo
or
whether
it's
a
a
family
house.
J
The
fact
is
here
that
we
don't
actually
have
a
parking
provision
at
all
because
of
the
age
of
the
properties.
So
it's
all
off
street
parking.
So
I
think
we
need
to
consider-
and
it
follows
on
from
from
councillor
reagan's
point
really
that
we
don't
we
don't
know
there
will
be
constraints
on
parking
in
that
area
because
there's
nowhere
to
go
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
mindful
of
that.
It's
all
very
well
sticking
to
the
policy,
but
if
it's
not
there,
it
don't
matter
how
many
parking
spaces
you've
got.
J
Does
it
so
I'm
not
against
hmos
at
all,
but
I
am
mindful
of
the
destruction
that
it
can
cause
and
indeed
does
cause
in
heading
lehigh
park,
all
the
student
areas
and
which
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
wish
to
inflict
on
people,
because
people
are
not
always
as
reasonable
as
they
might
be,
but
those
are
just
my
observations,
I'm
quite
happy
to
be
shot
down
in
flight
flames
anytime
this
week.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
councillor,
shermelt
david.
Could
you
advise
me
please
we.
I
have
heard
a
lot
of
views
which
are
arguing
against
the
recommendation
at
this
point
in
the
debate.
Would
you
suggest
that
there
would
be
value
in
the
applicant
coming
forward
to
be
asked
questions
at
this
point
or
not.
K
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
the
public
speaking
protocol
for
plans
panels
does
say
that
if
it
appears
to
the
chair
that
the
balance
of
views
from
the
plans
panel
members
is
to
go
against
the
officer
recommendation
for
approval
and
the
applicant
hasn't
had
the
opportunity
to
speak,
then
it's
in
the
chairs
gift
to
afford
them
the
opportunity
to
address
the
plans
panel
for
for
four
minutes
and
then
subsequent
that
they'll
be
available
to
answer
questions,
and
I
do
understand
that
the
the
applicant
is
here.
A
Yes,
I'm
seeing
thumbs
up
so
could
the
applicant
come
forward?
Please
is
it
mr
farns.
A
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
so
so
you
can
speak
for
a
period
of
four
minutes
and
then
be
asked
questions
after
that
period,
and
it's
in
your
own
time,
when
you're
ready.
O
Okay,
thank
you
so
yeah.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
councillors
for
giving
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
really
appreciate
it.
There's
been
a
number
of
objections
raised.
I've
noted
a
few
of
them
of
them.
Downs
and
I'll
just
go
through
them,
not
in
any
particular
order,
but
hopefully
it
will
be
helpful
context
for
your
decision.
O
At
least
at
one
point
in
the
debate,
there
was
mention
of
the
the
full
selective
licensing
area
for
beeston
and
I'd
first
of
all,
note
that
in
the
the
beeston
ward,
compared
to
the
the
hunslet
ward,
there's
there's
been
a
number
of
hmo
applications
for
for
this
type
of
property,
c3
to
c4
that
have
been
approved
in
the
last
six
months.
O
Only
a
small
handful,
not
not
very
many,
but
that
wasn't
considered
controversial
for
that
area
of
the
selective
licensing,
ward,
at
least
enough
to
be
raised
to
this
panel.
So
that's
the
first
thing
I
mentioned.
Second
of
all,
I
just
in
referencing
the
full
reports.
I
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
there
is
a
benefit
for
the
social,
well,
particularly
the
environmental
side
of
the
application,
not
just
things
that
can
be
done
for
well.
O
That
can
be
done
for
general
for
family
homes,
but
that
we
would
include
additionally,
for
this
hmo
application
around
soundproofing
and
a
whole
load
of
economic,
sorry,
environmental
things.
I
can't
find
the
place
in
the
report
now
sorry
but
yeah
in
terms
of
using
environmental
friendly
materials
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
there's
good
insulation
and
that
it's
kept
warm
up
to
a
good
standard.
O
It's
well
known
that
this
area
is
struggling
in
terms
of
a
proportion
of
the
the
people
who
live
here
in
terms
of
deprivation,
and
I
think
it's
really
important
to
get
developers
in
to
make
sure
that
the
the
housing
in
this
area
is
developed
to
a
good
standards,
that
there
is
an
incentive
for
that
and
again
in
terms
of
the
social
aspects.
O
The
best
information
we
have
on
the
area
suggests
that
there's
about
30
of
people
who
are
single
and
only
10
to
11
in
predominantly
flats
and
not
hmos.
O
I
think,
particularly
in
this
time
with
it,
indicates
the
importance
for
for
single
people
to
live
together
with
others,
if,
if
they
wish
to
do
that,
that
that's
helpful
and
healthy
for
for
those
individuals-
and
they
should
have
the
choice
to
do
that,
so
that
that
would
be
my
argument
on
the
social
side
of
things
in
terms
of
unlicensed
or
possibly
illegal
hmos.
In
the
area,
I
guess
my
main
point
would
be
to
ask
ask
councillors
to
consider.
O
How
it
looks
if
you,
if
you
potentially
punish
good
landlords
or
property
investors
who
wish
to
invest
in
the
area,
do
a
good
job
make
sure
that
they
meet
all
their
selective
licensing
or
their
and
other
requirements
that
are
there,
because
there
is
the
potential
that
other
people
are
getting
away
with,
not
going
through
the
the
process
of
checks
and
balances.
O
O
Thank
you.
Sorry,
four
minutes.
O
Very
briefly:
there
we
will
have
provisions
in
place,
so
so
we're
not
going
to
increase
the
number
of
bedrooms.
It
will
only
be
four
people,
we
will
be
giving
them
keys,
that
they
can't
cut
and
it
would
be
breaking
out
licensing
agreements
and-
and
in
fact,
this
application.
If
we
were
to
increase
the
number
of
people,
because
we
we
don't
have
one.
A
E
O
So
it's
we'd
like
to
improve
it
either
way,
it's
clearly
not
in
a
condition
to
to
let
out,
as
is,
however,
at
least
for
ensuring
that
there
isn't
that
harm
to
the
neighbors
and
the
rest
of
the
community.
Those
extra
provisions
in
terms
of
additional
sound
insulation
and
kind
of
space
for
individuals
is,
is
really
useful.
I
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
benefit
for
for
single
people,
there's
yeah.
O
It
simply
comes
down
to
that
social
aspect
of
living
with
others
and
making
sure
that
for
each
of
their
rooms
and
their
their
personal
spaces,
that
there
is
the
capacity
to
work
from
home
and
have
additional
supply
points
and
electricity
and
other
things
that
we
wouldn't
put
in
for
us.
A
family
house,
because
it's
just
unnecessary
so
it'll
be
improved
either
way.
But
I
think
there
will
be
more
improvements
if
it's
a
hmo
simply
to
limit
any
potential
negative
effects
that
might
be
caused
by
such
an
application.
A
Thank
you,
I've
got
councillor
ray
and
that
and
then
I've
got
councillor
peter
gruen
and
councillor
hamilton,
councillor
ray.
A
Okay,
I'll
do
that.
If
that
suits
you
counselor
peter
gruen,.
H
I
was
struck
by
your
comparison
of
good
landlords
and
those
who
are
not
so
good.
So
can
you
share
with
us
whether
you
have
any
other
hmos
in
the
area
and
what
your
track
record
is
like
in
terms
of
being
a
good
landlord.
O
Sure
so,
for
the
purposes
of
this
application
and
for
the
company
that
I
represent,
that
this
is
our
first
property
for
the
company
so
that
we
we
don't
have
that
track
records
in
terms
of
the
individual
directors.
O
There
is
a
property
that
we
let
out
in
harrogate,
which
is
just
a
a
two
bed
flat,
and
I
have
lodges
in
my
own
home
as
well,
but
I
I
don't
have
a
track.
Well,
the
company
doesn't
have
a
track
record
to
show
you
how
it
can
improve.
We
can
simply
say
that
we
would
commit
to
all
the
different
licensing,
the
ico,
selective
licensing
and
in
fact
I
hope
the
application
demonstrates
that
we
gone
beyond
the
requirements
necessary
for
the
the
amenities
standards
and
other
things
that
are
recommended
everywhere.
I
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
to
ask
really
why.
I
Haven't
you
consider
refurbishing
it
for
our
families
because,
as
you
know,
we
have
very
long
waiting
lists
here
in
leeds
and
and
we're
desperate
for
family
homes?
So
why
would
have
you
considered
letting
it
for
a
family
or
do
you
have
to
go
for
a
hmo.
O
Thank
you,
council
hamilton.
Yes,
we
we've
we
considered
letting
to
our
family
there.
There
are
reasons
why
we
decided
not
to
go
for
that
there's.
I
think
it
would
be
more
suitable
for
for
adults
as
opposed
to
a
family
home.
The
main
reasons
are
that
there
is
limited
outdoor
space.
I
know
that's
typical
of
this
area,
but
there's
also
steep
steps
down
to
the
basement
outside
which
isn't
would
have
to
be
made
safe
for
children
for
sure,
because
it's
it's
a
hazard.
O
The
same
goes
for
this
sorry,
the
steepness
of
steps
throughout
the
property
and
in
general,
the
fact
that
it
is
suitable
for
an
adult
occupation,
but
in
our
view
it
isn't
really
suitable
for
a
family
with
and
particularly
with
young
children.
O
A
I
O
Sure
so
we
bought
the
house
in
january
before
that
it
had
been
unoccupied
for
approximately
a
year,
and
it
still
remains
so
before
that
from
what
we
can
tell.
It
was
generally
rented
out
to
a
couple
of
individuals
at
a
time
as
opposed
to
a
family.
However,
I
I
can't,
I
don't
have
past
landlords
records
of
what
what
went
on
there.
B
Yes,
the
the
the
doll's
been
closed.
I
can't
hear
the
washer
so
first
of
all,
I
just
welcome
the
the
some
of
the
comments
have
been
made
actually
around
potentially
discussing
the
actual
density
of
this,
which
actually
probably
means
some
move
movement
if,
if,
depending
on
the
decision
we
make,
but
I
just
want
to
ask
a
couple
of
questions-
you
you've
mentioned
the
selective
licensing
error
and
you've
mentioned.
I
take
you
referring
to
beason
and
holbeck
one.
B
The
vast
majority
of
the
collecting
license
area
is
actually
in
huntsman
river
sidewall,
with
only
a
very
small
amount
of
covering
the
private
sector
in
the
eastern
halbeck
wall.
So
would
you
be
able
to
all
could
officers?
If
not,
please
provide
those
addresses,
because
I
think
that
would
be
of
interest,
because,
if
you're
speaking
of
beeston
and
hobbic
world
proper
the
other
side
of
the
park,
it's
not
on
the
selective
licensing
in
terms
of.
B
But
my
main
question
is
in
terms
of
you
say
this
for
single
people
and
obviously
you're
going
to
regulate
that
with
keys
and
agreements.
What,
if
that
person
has
a
relationship?
How
are
you
going
to
regulate
that?
Because
that's
the
unknown
quantity,
if
someone
has
a
relationship,
are
you
going
to
say?
Okay,
that's
the
end
of
your
tendency.
I
know
you're
probably
not
going
to,
but
this
is
where
crux
of
some
of
our
comments
have
come
from
about
actual.
Is
it
actually
going
to
be
for
four
people?
A
O
Go
ahead,
thank
you.
So
it's
a
relevant
point.
Most
of
the
due
diligence
we
did
to
answer
your
first
point
on
selective
licensing.
Most
of
the
due
diligence
we
did
on
looking
for
is
this
property
suitable
for
a
hmo,
or
is
it
suitable
for
family
or
or
for
other
other
uses,
was
done
based
on
the
ls11
postcode?
O
Obviously,
we
looked
through
each
of
the
streets
on
the
planning
portal
and
other
things
like
that
to
make
sure
that
we
could,
as
far
as
we
as
best
as
we
could
identify
how
many
hmos
there
were
obviously
there's
the
mandatory
licensing
where
you
can
get
here's
a
list
of
all
the
the
hmos
with
an
ls11
postcode
that
are
five
for
five
people
and
above
so
so
that
that
was
kind
of
the
the
process
we
went
through
to
in
terms
of
at
least
the
raw
numbers
to
to
decide
whether
this
property
based
on
the
area
was
suitable
in
terms
of
not
having
too
too
big
a
popular
too
greater
density
of
hmos
in
terms
of
the
having
more
people
than
before.
O
I
would
understands
that
from
the
this
application
that
it
would
be
restricted
to
for
individuals,
so
we
would
have
a
legal
obligation
to
ensure
that
it
is
that
people
if
they
do
live
there
and
they
do
enter
a
relationship,
but
they
can't
move
into
that
property
and
and
partner
up
if
they,
if
they
wish
to
move
in
together
and
move
somewhere
else-
and
you
know
start
a
family,
then
that
we
would
more
than
encourage
that,
but
this
this
property
would
be
dedicated
to
four
individuals
living
living
there
in
terms
of
controls.
O
For
that,
as
I
said,
there's
not
only
is
the
legal
side
of
things
that,
as
there's
making
sure
that
they
have
keys,
that
they
can't
cut
and
just
give
people
any
access
they
want.
If
they
need
access
for
more
people,
we
can
we
can
let
them
in,
but
that
shouldn't
ever
happen,
because
we
can
limit
the
keys
to
four
four
sets
of
keys
and
go
that
that's
it.
You've
got
your
four
sets
again
in
terms
of
ongoing
arrangements
for
supporting
tenants
in
their
occupations.
O
Sorry
in
in
the
occupation
of
the
property,
it
would
just
be
through
the
standard
mechanisms
of
monthly
checks
and
other
things
that
we
would
do
to
maintain
the
quality
of
the
property.
Whilst
they
live
there.
That
that
would
also
just
be
a
a
check
that
no
one
is
trying
to
live
live
there,
that
we
don't
know
about,
and
if
they
were,
that
would
void
their
tenancy
agreement
and
they
would
be
asked
to
seize
that
set
up
and
that
person
won't
be
able
to
leave.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
brooks,
please
speculate.
B
Councillor,
yes,
sir,
I
think
actually
just
to
be
helpful
to
the
applicant.
It's
the
number
of
family
units
that
that
detects
the
license
and
units,
not
the
actual
number
of
people
in
his
property
per
se.
But
I
am
slightly
concerned
on
the
comment.
So
how
would
I
get
because
it
didn't
really
say
how
would
you
manage
because
you're
saying
someone
goes
into
a
relationship
and
someone
spends
half
a
week
there.
You
would
deem
that
as
avoiding
of
their
tenancy
that
I'm
slightly
confused
as
to
what
you
mean
by
that.
If
you
don't
mind
clarifying.
O
So
so
that
there
is
a
difference
between
having
visitors
over
and
someone
staying
permanently,
that
that
is
understandable
and
to
be
taken
in
it's
not
a
and
it's
not
something
that
we
we
would
find
find
out
about
if
if
there
was
an
occasional
visitor
every
now
and
again,
however,
as
I
said,
we
would
make
sure
that,
at
least
in
terms
of
the
legal
agreement,
that's
they
are
required
not
to
have
anyone
else
live
there,
no
subletting,
no
other
arrangements
like
that
and
just
to
push
back
slightly
counselor
on
the
mandatory
licensing.
O
I
I
would
assume
that
the
council
staff
can
confirm
this,
but
my
understanding
is
very
much
that
if
it's
five
or
more
individuals
who
are
from,
I
think
three
or
more
households,
then
that
is
the
requirement
needed
for
mandatory
licensing.
So
so
any
more
individuals
added
to
that
house
would
would
require
that.
That
would
be
our
understanding.
B
D
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
mean
so
right.
Affordability
is
referenced
throughout
the
report
and
I
I
was
just
wondering
what
what
the
applicant
considers
to
be
affordable.
I.
O
Suppose
so
there
is
local
housing
association
rates,
which
we
would
use
as
a
basis
for
understanding
what
is
affordable
for
the
for
for
an
average
tenant
for
for
a
single
room.
We
would
use
that
as
the
basis
for
understanding
what
an
affordable
rate
is.
However,
in
general,
compared
to
four
individuals
living
in
four
separate
flats,
it
would
it's.
Gonna
is
going
to
be
cheaper.
Generally
house
shares
are
cheaper
renting
by
the
room,
as
opposed
to
renting
a
one-bedroom
flat
or
two
people
sharing
a
two-bedroom
plan.
O
I
don't
have
the
figures
to
hand
off
the
top
yeah
I
I
it
would
start
with
the
local
housing
association
single
room
rates.
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
that
is
at
the
moment,
but
I'm
sure
council
staff
can
provide
that
if
you
wish.
A
Okay,
do
does
any
officer
wish
to
comment
at
this
point,
or
is
that
something
we'd
have
to
go
away
to
look
at
in
that
case,
councillor
finnegan.
Would
you
like
to
ask
your
question.
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
mean
it
might
just
help.
As
I
understand
it,
the
single
room
rate
for
under
35s
is
significantly
restricted.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
housing
associations
myself
that
our
bed
sits,
but
perhaps
I'm
mistaken
on
that
one
straightforward
question:
what's
the
difference
in
monthly
rent
take
from
this
going
as
bad
sits
as
against
this
going
for
a
four-bedroom
house?
So
how
much
would
you
get
a
month
for
all
four
bed
sits
and
how
much
would
you
get
if
you
rented
this
out
as
a
four
bedroom
house,
thanks
chair.
O
Sorry,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
local
housing
association,
sorry,
local
housing
allowance
rates.
My
apologies.
O
So
a
shared
accommodation
rate
for
a
house
in
leeds
based
on
a
local
housing
allowance
would
be
66
pounds
and
16
pence
per
week
to
ansel
castlebrook's
initial
question
in
terms
of
councillor
finnegan,
the
again,
the
local
housing
association
rates
for
a
four
bed
is
207
pounds
and
12
pence
per
week.
O
So,
roughly
speaking,
it's
the
difference
between
somewhere
between
six
and
eight
hundred
a
month
for
a
four
four
bed
house,
rented
as
a
family
and.
O
Up
to
double
that
for
a
for
a
hmo,
obviously
there's
additional
costs
and
other
arrangements
so
nets.
It's
it's
not
that
stark
at
contrast,
but
in
terms
of
rental
yeah,
pure
rental
income,
that
that
would
be
approximately
the
difference.
So
the
difference
between
about
600
pound
a
month
and
1200
a
month.
G
O
Effectively,
yes,
it
is
what
we
would
base
yeah
effectively.
Yes,.
A
Sorry,
second
time
I
was
just
inviting
any
other
officer
to
contribute
or
clarify
at
this
point
if
they
would
like
to
if
you
haven't
yet
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
and
you
you
want
to
make
a
point,
but
I
can
see
that
david
wants
to
come
in
so
david.
Can
I
invite
you
now
to
work
to
summarize,
where
you
think
we're
at.
K
Yes
right,
thank
you
chair
just
points
and
turns
the
last
line
of
questioning.
I
can
understand
why
members
will
go
in
there,
but
just
for
the
record
just
to
be
clear
that
those
aren't
really
material
planning
considerations
which
go
to
the
the
heart
of
this.
This
particular
this
particular
application.
K
I
suppose
the
issue
now
for
members
is
obviously
the
debate
before
there
was
public
speaking
was
that
there
appeared
to
be
a
shift
of
or
a
body
of
opinion
that,
and
the
proposal
was
unacceptable
and
members
were
seem
to
be
moving
towards
a
refusal.
A
Would
anyone
like
to
comment
further
in
the
debate
I
can
see
councillor
brooks
councillor
brooks.
D
Thanks
chair,
just
just
with
regards
to
the
affordability
issue,
it
was
raised
because
it
is
put
forward
as
an
argument
in
favor
of
granting
permission
and
therefore
it's
been
presented
as
a
material
consideration
within
the
papers.
K
Yes,
thank
you,
chad,
the
the
actual,
I'm
sorry
to
I'm,
I'm
not
quite
sure
which
bit
of
the
papers
council
brooks
is
referring
to,
but
in
any
event,
if,
if
the
papers
give
that
impression
on
my
apologies
for
that,
the
affordability
as
per
say
as
such
is
is
not
a
material
consideration.
G
K
All
right,
thank
you.
No,
I
don't
think
you
could
impose
a
condition
of
of
of
that
nature.
I
don't
think
that
would
me
the
condition
tests
it's
in
some
ways:
interfering
with
the
markets
and
yes,
as
a
consequence
of
that,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
enforce
it.
A
Okay,
I
can't
actually
see
any
further
people
indicating
to
speak
so
again
david
can
I
can
I
bring
you
in
to
summarize
where
we
are
at
at
the
moment
in
this
debate.
Please.
A
You
won't
yes,
you've.
Only
just
put
it
up
peter
go
on
I'll,
allow
it.
H
I
I
want
to
ask
some
clarification
from
from
david:
normally,
if
we
turn
an
application
down,
it
is
because
we
think
it
is
deficient
in
some
respects
and
sometimes
we
say,
go
away
and
see
if
you
can
overcome
this.
It
seems
to
me
in
this
case,
and
I'm
asking
you
this
question.
If
you
interpret
it,
the
same
way
seems
to
me
in
this
case.
H
The
reason
for
refusal
for
colleagues
mainly
is
that
there
shouldn't
be
any
more
hmos
in
this
particular
area
and
no
matter
what
the
applicant
does.
He
couldn't
get
around
that,
because
the
objection
is
an
in-principle
objection
to
an
hmo
is
my
interpretation
correct
of
that.
H
Now
I'm
asking
david
for
a
professional
view
on
that,
because
it
is
to
me
the
crux
of
the
matter
whether
we
are
considering
a
an
application
on
its
own
merits
or
whether
we
are
actually
tending
to
say
that
there
are
already
too
many
hmos
and
therefore
there
shouldn't
be
any
more
period.
K
Yes,
thank
you,
council,
it's
I
I
guess
from
my
perspective,
it
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
both
that's
yes,
I
agree
with
councillor
peter
grohn's
analysis.
I
think
members
are
saying,
on
the
basis
of
the
the
local
knowledge
put
forward
by
councillor
ray
that
there's
concern
that
there's
a
high
concentration
of
hmos
there's
a
significant
proportion
that
will
be
through
unregistered
hmos.
K
K
K
A
So
I
would
like
to
say
just
before
we
go
to
the
vote,
that
I
absolutely
agree
with
virtually
everything
that
all
members
of
the
panel
have
said,
but
we
do
need
to
be
mindful
as
a
panel
of
the
the,
according
to
the
track
record,
the
likelihood
of
it
being
approved
by
an
inspector,
and
you
always
have
to
have
that
at
the
back
of
your
mind.
It
not
that
it
need
colour,
your
judgment,
but
just
a
level
of
awareness
as
we're
thinking
this
one.
Through
do
I
have
a
proposal
for
the
recommendation.
E
I
think
in
the
end,
you
know
we.
We
are
clear
and
I'd
like
to
make
that
very
clear
so
that
that
cannot
be
raised.
If
this
comes
from
appeal
that
you
know
we
we
consistently
say
don't
we
that
you
deal
with
each
application
on
its
merits
and
what
happened
or
what
might
happen
down.
The
line
on
other
property
is
not
something
that
we
we
would
take
into
account.
E
Right
like,
as
I
said,
I
raised
four
points,
if
you
remember
when
I
first
spoke,
one
of
which
is
that
we,
we
must
be
mindful
of
the
selective
licensing
policy,
because,
if
not
what's
the
point
of
having
a
policy
but
in
itself,
given
what
officers
tell
me
that
is
not
in
itself
a
rationale
for
turning
down
this
application.
E
There
are,
however,
I
believe,
a
number
of
other
elements
that
mean
that
this
particular
application
in
this
particular
form
is
not
suitable.
One
is
the
environmental
harm
and
I
said
that
four
adults
put
extra
pressure
onto
the
social
and
immunity
facilities
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
number
two.
E
There
is
a
need
for
family
housing
and
I
think
the
I
I
would
be
honest
and
say
that
I
felt
that
the
the
developer,
the
points
the
developer
made
were
not
really
planning
points.
What
he
did
make
clear,
I
think
to
most
of
us,
was
that
there's
a
better
financial
return
on
a
house
in
multiple
operators,
sorry
occupation,
but
that
in
itself
is
not
a
reason
for
turning
down
an
application
simply
because
you
can
make
more
money
doing
it
in
one
way
than
another.
E
That's
not
relevant
in
my
opinion,
and
I
wouldn't
include
that,
but
I
do
believe
that
this
is
a
good
family
house
now.
The
idea
that
it
isn't
a
good
family
house
seems
somewhat
naive
to
me
because
they
were
built
as
family
houses
and
have
been
occupied
as
family
houses,
for
what
must
be
nearly
200
years
and
still
are
occupied
as
family
houses
by
the
vasquez.
The
people
who
live
in
that
area.
E
So
there
is
a
need
for
family
housing,
because
we
have
that
evidence
across
the
city,
not
just
in
this
particular
world,
and
I
would
continue
to
say
that
it
would
increase
the
pressure
on
car
parking
and
on
previous
applications
in
the
area
we
have
refused
because
of
the
impact
on
the
highway
network.
A
K
Okay,
should
I
just
do
you
want
me
to
summarize
it
in
generality
of
a
reason
for
refusal
from
the
notes
that
I've
made
from
what's
been
said
and
from
what
campbell
cons,
counselor
sorry,
councillor
campbell
has
just
said,
and
then
that
will
give
members
a
basis
on
which
to
to
form
their
vote.
Yes,.
J
K
The
the
other
question
I
would
ask
if,
if
we
get
to
a
position
where
members
are
resolving,
to
refuse
the
application
that
whether
members
are
happy
to
defer
and
delegate
the
final
wording
of
that
reason
to
to
officers.
So
we
can
just
progress
the
matter
or
whether
members
want
it
bringing
back
to
plans.
A
We'll
we'll
check
on
that
after
the
vote
david
when
we
know
the
outcome,
if
that's
okay,
so
if
you
could,
if
you
could
summarize,
please
the
the
motion
on
which
we
are
voting
now,
please,
okay,.
K
A
K
My
understanding
of
the
motion
is
that
council
campbell
is
moving
that
off
members.
Don't
resolve
to
not
accept
the
officer
recommendation
for
permission
and
resolve
to
refuse
planning
permission
on
the
basis
that
the
hmo
will.
This
particular
application
will
cumulatively
adds
the
high
concentration
of
hmos
and
locality
eroding
housing,
balance,
lots
of
a
family
home
harm
to
character
and
means
to
the
area
and
increase
in
demand
for
on
streets
parking,
contributes
policies,
h6
and
gp5.
A
Okay,
that's
fine
and
I'd
now
like
to
ask
members
to
indicate
how
they're
going
to
vote.
When
I
call
your
name,
I
will
do
so
in
alphabetical
order
and
if
you
could
indicate
you
either
for
the
recommendation
that
david
has
just
summarized
or
against
please
so.
First
of
all,
councillor
anderson.
C
C
J
A
And
I
myself
will
also
abstain.
So
could
you
top
that
up
for
us,
please
andy.
A
G
Yeah
thanks
sandy
thanks
chair.
Yes,
we
take
the
the
total,
the
abstentions
are
removed
from
the
total.
So
because
four
members
voted
in
favor,
that's
carried.
A
Okay,
so
that
motion
is
carried.
Thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
I
think
that
oh,
we
needed
to
check
david
on
your
point
about
whether
members
wish
this
now
to
be
dealt
with
under
delegation
or
whether
they
wish
to
see
it
come
back
in
terms
of
reasons
for
refusal.
A
So
could
I
ask
you
to
indicate
that
you
would
you're
happy
for
it
to
be
dealt
with
in
delegated
format
by
not
speaking
so
I'll
take
silence
as
agreement
that
it
should
be
dealt
with
under
delegation.
E
Okay,
I'm
sorry
to
try
to
ruin
the
system,
but
I'm
happy
to
accept
that
we
delegate
it
to
officers
but
would
ask
the
officers
have
further
discussions
with
the
ward
members
to
provide
the
evidence
base
for
the
demand
for
family
housing.
A
Right,
thank
you
so
again,
if
you
could
think
about
council
what
counselor
campbell's
just
said,
if
you
are
happy
with
that,
I
will
take
silence
as
an
agreement
to
that
action.
A
And
I
can't
hear
anybody
speaking
so
that
is
carried
and
that
can
be
dealt
with
under
delegation
with
councillor
campbell's
condition
of
it
being
dealt
with
via
the
ward
members
in
terms
of
the
need
for
for
family
housing.
Is
that
okay,
david
yeah?
Okay?
So
that
completes
our
first
item.
Hopefully
our
secretary.
H
Could
I
make,
could
I
make
another
point?
H
If
I
may,
I
think
it's
fairly
clear
that
if
six
members
abstain,
there's
a
general
unhappiness
about
the
process,
and
I
would
like
to
ask
that
officers
prepare
a
report
for
joint
plans
panel
about
the
selective
licensing
scheme
and
what
he
does
and
what
he
doesn't
do,
and
I
do
not
want
to
be
put
in
the
position
again
as
a
member
where
I
think
other
departments
are
not
doing
the
job,
I
think
they
should
be
doing
and
then
asking
plans
panels
to
make
very
difficult
decisions,
because
clearly,
other
elements
of
the
policy
haven't
been
properly
implemented.
A
Good
point:
peter
david:
can
you
take
that
one
away
for
us?
Please
was
that
a
nod.
A
K
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
peter.
So
we've
completed
the
first
item
on
our
agenda.
Dare
I
say
I
hope
the
next
one
won't
take
quite
as
long
as
that.
You'll
you'll
gather
from
my
voice
that
I
am
struggling
with
a
sore
throat.
So
if
we
could
have
a
five
minute
comfort
break,
it
would
allow
me
to
get
another
hot
drink.
A
F
A
M
So
gender
item
number
nine-
is
a
planning
application
for
a
single
story,
extension
to
the
front
of
37
kirkwood
way
in
cockroach,
and
this
application
is
brought
to
the
plants
panel.
As
the
applicant
is
councillor
john
illingworth
and
under
the
terms
of
the
officer
delegation
scheme,
it's
necessary
to
report
the
application
to
plans
panel.
M
Thank
you,
so
you
can
see
from
the
startup
plan
that
the
application
property
lies
in
the
residential
part
of
cook
ridge.
All
the
old
road
runs
to
the
east
of
the
property
over
there.
You
can
see
that
on
the
right
and
further
to
the
southeast
is
the
halt
park
district
center.
M
M
Thank
you.
So
this
is
number
37
kirkwood
way.
You
see
it's
a
detached
house
built
principally
brick
with
a
slight
roof.
It's
set
quite
well
back
from.
M
From
the
street
frontage
and
some
of
the
other
slime,
so
you
can
see
that
the
carriage
and
a
porch
at
the
front
of
the
house,
which
is
a
single
story
element
and
the
proposed
extension,
would,
if
you
like,
continue
that
single
story
element
across
the
remainder
of
the
front
of
the
property
to
create
a
an
enlarged
and
single
story
element
on
the
front
there.
If
we
could
move
to
the
next.
M
M
A
M
Yeah,
I
I
sorry
if
we
can,
I
think
we
can
stay
on
slide
number
25,
which
shows
number
20
the
application
property
and
the
house
immediately
to
the
right.
If
that's,
what
we're
all
looking
at
is
that
okay.
A
M
That's
fine
good
right,
so
we
can
see
from
this
slide
that
indeed
the
the
house
is
set
well
back
from
the
street
and
if
you
could
put
the
next
slide
up
now,
cody,
please.
M
Thank
you,
and
this
slide
shows
that
indeed,
the
the
property
set
well
back
from
either
of
its
its
neighbors
to
either
side
and
if
we
could
go
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
cody.
M
M
You
can
see
that
in
this,
the
middle
ground
is
a
large
tree
close
to
the
boundary
of
the
property
and
adjacent
to
the
driveway
of
the
adjoining
house.
That
tree
has
gone
so
not
particularly
relevant
to
the
proposal,
but
just
to
just
to
say
just
to
for
information
that
that
tree
has
has
been
removed
since
2016..
M
Thank
you
just
just
showing,
as
the
the
site,
the
location
of
the
site,
fairly
generously
sized
garden
and
again
illustrating
the
extent
to
which
the
house
is
set
back
from
the
street
and
its
neighbours
to
either
side.
So
if
you
could
go
to
the
next
slide
now,
please.
M
It
may
be
somewhat
unclear
on
depending
on
how
you
viewing
this
image
and
what
we're
looking
at
and
if
we
take
the,
admittedly
rather
small,
elevational,
drawing
to
the
right
of
the
image
and
in
the
middle.
Hopefully
it's
possible
to
discern
that.
M
The
single
story
element
which
I
alluded
to
earlier,
is
being
continued
across
the
whole
of
the
front
of
the
property
to
create
a
an
enlarged
extension
at
the
front
of
the
house,
and
so
I
will
say
first
of
all
that
the
application
this
an
identical
application
was
approved
in
2016.
It
lapsed
last
year,
so
it's
no
longer
a
valid
application.
But
this
application
is
an
exact
repeat.
It's
the
same
plans
that
were
approved
previously
equally.
M
That
application
also
was
considered
by
the
plans
panel
in
in
2016
as
involving
the
applicant
as
an
elected
member.
M
So
the
application
involves
the
removal
of
an
existing
port
to
the
front
and
it's
replacement
with
a
single
story.
Front
extension,
as
I've
said,
the
extension
in
effect
fills
in
the
gap
in
the
l-shaped
floor
plan
of
the
house
and
to
create
a
straight
across
front
elevation,
which
has
a
pitch
lean-to
pitch
through
to
match
that
existing
as
set
out
in
the
report.
The
extension
is
well
related
to
design
terms
of
the
existing
house.
M
A
That's
fine.
Does
that
complete
your
presentation,
tony.
A
Excellent,
thank
you.
So
we
don't
have
any
speakers
for
this,
but,
as
I
say,
if
anybody
needed
to
ask
councillor
illingworth
any
detail,
we
can
invite
him
forward
to
do
so.
Could
I
ask
if
anyone
has
any
questions
and
if
so,
could
you
indicate
using
the
electric
hand,
councillor
gruen
peter.
H
M
As
a
good
point,
it
isn't
actually
my
report,
but
but
obviously
yeah
I
don't
know
I
mean
he
probably
shouldn't
say
that,
because
I
don't
think
it
has
any
harmful
impact
at
all.
If
anything,
I
think
in
my
professional
view
at
least
it's
beneficial
to
the
appearance
of
the
property,
so
it
was
probably
not
necessary
to
say
it's
not
significantly
harmful.
It's
not
harmful
at
all.
A
No
comments
from
anybody
no
comments.
Well,
I
would
just
like
to
say
by
way
of
comment
that
I
I
do
believe
I
was
in
the
chair
of
this
panel
when
it
came
last
time
as
an
identical
application
and
and
was
unanimously
approved.
I
can't
see
any
circumstances
have
changed
since
then.
A
I
I
wouldn't
not
want
to
give
it
the
benefit
of
rigorous
debate,
because
that's
the
purpose
of
something
coming
to
a
panel
where
an
elected
member
is
the
applicant,
but
I
actually
feel
there's
very
little
to
add
to
the
debate
and
would
probably
propose
the
recommendation
unless
anybody
wishes
to
come
in
so.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
second,
so
we've
got
a
we've
got
a
proposer
and
a
seconder.
Can
we
now
indicate
the
way
that
we
would
like
to
vote
by
me
going
down
the
same
list
again,
please
for
or
against
councillor
anderson
or
councillor
brooks
or
councillor
campbell?
Oh
thank
you.
A
Okay,
councillor
ray
oh
and
myself,
I'm
4-2,
so
that
is
unanimously
approved
in
what's
probably
record
time.
But
thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
that
does
conclude
the
item,
but
it
doesn't
quite
conclude
business
with
tony,
because
I'm
told
tony
that
this
was
likely
to
be
your
last
appearance
at
this
panel
and
I
think,
having
seen
your
name
on
a
certain
list
earlier
on,
I
think
I
can
say
with
some
certainty
that
it
will
be
and
that
you
will
be
leaving
us.
A
I
don't
know
what
you're
going
to
do
with
all
your
newfound
time,
but
I
did
just
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
say
thank
you
so
much
for
all
of
the
work
you've
done
in
this
position
for
lead
city,
council
and
with
elected
members,
and
we
can
be
a
pretty
tough
and
difficult
bunch,
as
I'm
sure
you
know,
particularly
when
you're
dealing
with
something
that's
a
tough
sticky
application
and
you've
handled
plenty
of
those
very
professionally
in
your
career.
A
So
a
big
thank
you
from
me
and
I'm
sure
that
the
panel
will
want
to
join
me
in
wishing
you
all
the
well
all
the
best
for
your
future.
Don't
feel
you
have
to
respond,
but
we're
all
very
curious
to
know
what
your
plans
are.
M
Thank
you,
chad.
I
think
I
think,
for
once,
I'm
almost
lost
the
words
actually
yeah.
Don't
worry,
I
I
I
will
actually
miss
plans
panel
because,
bizarrely
as
it
seems
I
I
I
do
actually
quite
enjoy
it.
I
quite
enjoy
the
live
debates
and
the
cuttings
most
of
it.
M
So
it's
one
of
the
elements
that
I
will,
alongside
in
particular,
contact
with
colleagues
which
had
precious
little
love,
of
course
in
the
last
six
months,
but
don't
worry
I'll
find
I
have
which
we'll
be
seeing
more
of
my
company
more
of
yeah
expanded
local
countryside
in
this
area.
Here
I'm
keen
musician
and
appreciated.
A
Well,
I'm
thanking
you
in
the
usual
way
by
putting
my
clapping
icon
up,
so
thank
you
very
very
much.
This
is
your
very
last
panel
and
I
hope
you
take
a
positive
memory
away
about
it
and
about
us.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
david
anything
further.
You
would
like
to
add
at
this
point.
A
Okay
members,
thank
you
for
bearing
with
me
and
for
bearing
with
the
remote
type
of
meeting
again,
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
at
the
next
meeting.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
It's
just
us,
isn't
it
now,
yeah
has
jess
gone.
Did
she
go
after
her
item.