►
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
A
Members
of
the
public
and
Council
officers
to
help
members
of
the
panel
make
their
decision
in
accordance
with
our
protocol
for
public
speaking
at
plans
panel
members
of
the
public
may
be
in
attendance
to
speak
to
the
panel
after
this
is
not
bit
is
not
relevant
today,
so
I'll
jump
on
actually
could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
mute
your
microphones
once
you
have
done
so
I've
as
I
said
I've
already
introduced
myself.
B
E
F
A
Thank
you,
that's
and
can
I
welcome
the
students
from
Beckett
University
and,
as
I
promised
later,
when
members
have
had
their
minced
heart
on
the
bond
they're
quite
welcome
to
help
themselves.
So
please
help
yourself
and
if
you
fancy
a
cup
of
tea
or
a
glass
of
water
do
so
as
well.
L
Thank
you,
chair
under
agenda
item
number
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
a
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
number.
Two:
there's
no
exempt
information
on
the
agenda.
Today.
Item
number
three:
there
are
no
late
items
of
business.
Moving
on
to
item
number
four
could
I
ask
members
if
they've
got
any
interest
to
declare
nope
moving
on
to
agenda
item
number
five:
we've
got
apologies
for
absence
from
Council
account.
A
Okay,
moving
on
to
item
number
six,
then
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
3rd
of
November
I'll
go
through
it
in
my
usual
way
and
I'll.
Take
the
opportunity
to
thank
councilor,
Caroline,
Gruen,
who've
shared
shared
us
so
well
in
my
absence.
Well,
I
was
there
but
I
wasn't
sharing.
A
Thank
you,
starting
on
page
five.
I
It's
regarding
item
55
application
at
Whitehall.
Road,
let's
come
back
today,
there
seems
to
have
been
all
mentioned
at
debate.
We
had
about
the
housing
mix
and
we
met
quite
a
quite
a
big
thing
about
that.
It
mentions
what
the
what
the
mix
is,
but
it
doesn't
mention
the
fact
that
we
were
concerned
about
that.
Okay,.
H
It's
the
same
concern
I
think
we
had
a
very
full
and
Frank
exchange
and
we
articulated
our
unhappiness
about
the
housing
mix.
Certainly
the
lack
of
in
terms
of
it's
non-compliance
with
policy
in
terms
of
the
housing
mix,
certainly
on
two
and
three
bedrooms
at
this
particular
point,
and
that
is
not
reflected
in
the
minutes
and
certainly
not
reflected
in
the
presentation.
We're
going
to
have
later
on.
So
I
won't
be
voting
for
these
minutes.
B
There
is
actually
reference
in
the
minutes
on
page
10
in
the
in
the
set
of
bullet
points
at
the
bottom
half
of
the
page
about
halfway
down
it.
It
says,
with
regard
to
policy
H4,
which
is
the
housing
mix
policy
and
a
higher
percentage
of
one-bedroom
apartments.
It
was
reported
that
the
housing
mix
on
this
scheme
need
to
be
site-specific
and
what
was
appropriate
for
the
city
center.
B
So
I
think
that
that
was
a
reflection
of
of
the
of
the
mix
debate
and
there's
a
further
bullet
point
at
the
end
of
that
page,
which
talks
about
a
housing
needs
assessment
that
being
prepared
to
explain
the
housing
mix,
which
meant
the
demographic
of
the
area
and
the
build
to
rent
model,
and
also
there
were
three
bedroom
apartments
and
large
two-bedroom
apartments
that
will
be
suitable
for
families.
So
I
think
that
that,
if
that
reflects
that
there
was
a
debate
and
there
was
a
response
to
that.
B
But
what
was
quite
clear
at
the
end
when
we
summarized
the
issues
upon
which
the
application
was
deferred
was
that
that
was
not
one
of
the
issues.
I
think
the
point
that
was
made
in
the
meeting
was
that
members
had
raised
the
housing
mix
issue
up
pre-upstage
and
in
response
and
members
had
saw
an
increase
up
to
10
and
in
response
to
developers
had
provided
10th
Century
beds,
and
that
was
my
recollection
of
the
debate.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Chet.
H
At
that
particular
Point,
well
as
what
is
it
that
the
royal
family
say,
Recollections
vary,
and
significantly
very
at
this
particular
Point,
certainly
asking
my
colleagues
on
this
side.
That
is
not
at
all
our
Collective
recollection
of
what
was
discussed
and
that
it
was
a
freaking
deep,
a
significant
fundamental
concern
that
we
had
so
colleagues
will
be
able
to
vote
as
they
see
appropriate
on
the
minute.
So
I
don't
think
they
are
an
accurate
record
of
what
went
on.
F
A
Can
I
ask
you
to
add
those
two
items?
Please
too
members
comments.
A
A
A
A
A
A
with
those
editions
our
members
now
prepare
to
accept
them.
As
a
true
record,
please
show.
A
With
those
additions,
yes,
okay
against
not
satisfy
a
new
rougher,
there's
a
okay,
so
that's
carried
any
matters
are
rising
apart
from
what's
been
raised.
A
If
not,
can
we
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
seven
on
page
19.
Andrew
when
you're
ready,
please.
C
Thank
you
chair,
so
this
application
relates
to
the
construction
of
a
19-story
residential
building
to
the
south
of
Whitehall.
Road
members
would
recall
that
this
item
was
previously
considered
at
the
third
of
November
plans
panel,
in
which
this
item
was
deferred
with
members
seeking
further
information.
In
regards
to
a
number
of
points
which
are
all
listed
in
paragraph
1.2
of
the
report,
the
applicant
has
now
analyzed
the
submitted
information
further,
and
this
presentation
will
focus
on
this
today.
C
Just
before
we
move
on
and
since
the
application.
Since
the
report
was
printed,
Leeds
of
Interest
have
changed
their
position
and
are
now
objecting
to
the
proposal.
The
issues
raised
are
not
considered
new
matters,
and
these
have
already
been
addressed
within
the
appraisal
section
of
the
original
report
and
also
they
will
be
addressed
through
this
presentation.
J
C
C
C
This
slide
just
highlights
the
various
views
around
the
sites
and,
as
part
of
the
proposals
there
are
enhancements
to
these
areas
as
well.
C
So
in
terms
of
the
first
reason
for
deferral,
this
was
to
look
at
possible
changes
in
the
mass
in
and
to
reduce
the
potential
of
dominance.
Since
the
application
was
presented
to
members,
the
applicant
has
now
analyzed
the
scale
of
development
which
highlights
this
has
been
based
on
a
wider
context.
C
C
C
C
The
slide
below
again
shows
a
relationship,
the
master
plan,
which
is
the
hotel
block
the
multi-store
car
park
and
the
proposed
development
in
Orange,
and
also
the
proposed
office
block.
These
are
the
mass
that's
part
of
the
wider
master
plan
and
obviously,
and
just
demonstrates
the
gaps
which
would
be
retained
once
the
site
has
been
built
built
out
fully
foreign.
C
C
This
is
an
image
showing
a
CGI
showing
the
massening
context
and
again
the
master
plan
development
is
here.
This
is
the
proposed.
This
is
existing
white
or
Waterfront,
and
the
office
block
as
part
of
the
master
plan
is
behind,
which
is
a
separate
application
to
this
one.
C
This
again
highlights
the
distances
and
the
height
difference
between
Whitehall
Waterfront
and
the
proposal
of
which
there's
a
13
meters,
greater
height
to
the
proposal
than
existing
white
or
Waterfront.
C
It's
also
worth
noting
that
the
relationship
is
greater
than
the
distances
which
were
previously
established
in
the
earlier
developments
of
Riverside
West
Whitehall
Waterfront,
which
feature
balconies
facing
each
other,
and
this
slide
is
based
on
a
wider
context
of
the
city
center
of
developments
that
have
already
been
consented.
So
the
first
one
is
18
meters.
This
is
West
Point
Apartments
to
Central
Square.
This
is
Apartments
to
office.
C
The
next
one
is
City
Island
Building,
Santorini
and
Faro,
which
is
a
20
meter
distance,
and
these
are
main
facing
balconies
and
then
again
this
is
Riverside
West
Apartments
to
Whitehall
Waterfront,
and
this
is
main
facing
balconies
and
a
22
meter.
Gap
this,
the
Riverside
West
departments
to
white
or
Waterfront,
was
part
of
the
original
outline
permission
on
this
site
and
just
shows
the
gaps
which
were
envisaged
when
this
development
started
to
be
built
out.
I
C
Gone
too
far,
sorry
further
details
were
also
requested
regarding
the
impacts
on
daylight
and
sunlight
to
existing
residents
of
Whitehall
Riverside,
and
this
short
video
will
demonstrate
the
Sun
Path
and
the
shadow
and
the
shadowing
assessment.
H
C
I'll
just
move
on
to
the
Stills
because
the
video
won't
be
played
so
it's
hard
to
see,
but
it's
in
the
packs
already.
So
this,
oh,
is
the.
M
M
C
So
this
is
the
stills
from
the
video
which
we
were
trying
to
play,
so
the
top
image
shows
the
summer
solstice
and
so
at
9am
to
midday,
the
side
of
whitetail
Waterfront
benefits
from
Sun
penetration
and
the
orientation
because
it
when
it
moves
westwards,
it
becomes
shadowed,
but
that's
not
affected
by
the
the
development
and
as
I
say,
this
pack
is
also
a
new
report.
C
There's
no
impact
on
the
hours
of
sunlight
enjoyed
by
residents
of
Whitehall,
Waterfront
and
all
apartments
benefit
from
direct
sunlight
by
9
A.M.
It
is
also
worth
mentioning
that
this
site
was
highlighted
for
development
in
the
previous
outline
permission
and
that
this
was
factored
into
the
design
of
Whitehall
Waterfront.
The
daylight
to
these
rooms
has
always
been
temporary
and
a
reduction
would
have
been
expected
with
any
development
that
came
forward
on
this
key
City
Center
site.
C
Another
of
the
reasons
for
deferral
related
to
the
materials
and
the
request
for
lighter
brickwork
of
the
building,
which
has
now
been
amended
to
reflect
this.
There
is
also
a
sample
panel
here
today,
so
members
can
have
an
idea
of
what
the
end
result
would
look
like
the
areas
highlighted
in
yellow
on
this
image
reflect
the
blocks
in
red,
brick
and
the
gray
would
be
clad
in
rape
in
Gray,
big
brick.
C
So
the
use
of
red
brick
would
take
influence
from
the
historical
character
of
leads,
and
this
slide
demonstrates
the
previous
submission
against
the
revised.
So
that's
the
revised
proposal
and
that's
what
originally
was
proposed.
So
it's
just
to
give
a
bit
more
definition
of
the
buildings
and
then
the
next
one
is
the
use
of
gray.
Brick
would
take
influence
from
the
more
modern
character
of
leads,
and
this
slide
again
demonstrates
the
previous
submission
against
the
revised.
C
These
images
are
just
showing
the
materials
of
the
buildings
in
the
context
and
how
those
would
be
viewed.
The
next
is
a
CGI
taken
from
the
Riverside,
showing
the
materials
in
relation
to
Whitehall
Waterfront
and
also
the
enhancements
along
the
Riverside,
including
the
development
proposed
under
the
separate
application.
So
the
master
plan,
which
is
this
building.
C
C
And
then,
in
terms
of
the
off-site
Green
Space
contribution
due
to
the
dense
density
of
the
development
policy,
G5
relates
to
Green
Space
provision
in
a
city
center
in
the
city
center.
This
allows
20
Green
Space
on
site,
with
the
rest
provided
as
a
commuted
sum.
The
site
generates
a
requirement
of
4
100
square
meters
of
green
space
with
20
of
this
equate
into
2060
square
meters.
C
The
Proposal
provides
2085
square
meters
on
of
green
space
on
site
in
the
form
of
the
Riverside
Park
and
enhance
connections
from
Whitehall
Road
to
the
Waterfront
and
also
along
the
Waterfront
itself.
In
addition,
they
commuted
some
secured
by
this
development
could
be
used
towards
other
public
realm
schemes
which
are
in
this
area.
An
example
of
this
is
the
proposed
pedestrian
Footbridge
over
the
Leeds
Liverpool
Canal,
which
would
link
this
site
into
hallbeck
and
officers.
Consider
that
the
proposal
is
fully
compliant
with
policy
G5.
C
In
terms
of
the
questions
in
regards
to,
if
any
previous
applications
related
to
the
existing
half
moon
Area
to
the
front
of
Whitehall
Waterfront,
a
search
has
been
carried
out
with
the
various
applications
for
this
site,
and
this
concluded
that
none
of
these
applications
included
any
improvements
to
this
area.
The
Proposal
now
put
forward
would
improve
this
area
and
involve
creation
of
a
Riverside
Park,
which
will
be
predominantly
grasped
for
play
and
governance,
and
this
area
would
also
now
feature
play
equipment
in
response
to
discussions
at
the
previous
plans.
C
And
then,
since
the
previous
meeting,
discussions
have
also
been
ongoing
with
the
applicant
and
the
EA
and
the
EA,
and
have
now
removed
their
holding
objection
to
this
application
subject
to
specific
conditions
relating
to
the
development
to
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
flood
risk
assessment,
the
application
was
originally
accompanied
with
a
viability
assessment
of
which
policy
H5
of
the
cost
strategy
identifies
that
applicants
may
choose
to
submit
individual
viability
appraisals
to
verify
that
the
affordable
housing
Target
cannot
be
met.
C
This
was
independently
reviewed
by
the
district
valuer
and
it
was
the
dv's
view
that
the
scheme
could
not
support
any
delivery
of
affordable
housing
or
the
106
contributions.
Despite
the
viability
position,
the
applicant
committed
to
provide
all
required
106
contributions
and
six
since
the
comments
from
the
previous
plans
panel
meeting,
the
applicant
will
also
now
commit
to
provide
25,
affordable
homes
on
site.
This
equates
to
five
percent
foreign.
C
This
provision
has
been
facilitated
by
a
review
of
the
overall
developer
returns
and
a
reduction
in
risk
and
contingency
allowances.
The
returns
and
allowances
are
below
what
would
not
normally
be
considered
accessible
to
institutional
funders.
However,
the
applicant
will
commit
to
deliver
the
scheme
on
the
basis
that
a
funding
partner
has
been
secured
and
works.
Will
progress
within
the
first
quarter
of
2023
officers?
C
The
scheme
represents
a
key
opportunity
to
regenerate
a
highly
prominent
Brownfield
site
on
the
southern
side
of
Whitehall
Road.
The
proposals
provide
large
areas
of
of
open
space,
as
well
as
improved
connectivity
to
the
Waterfront
and
a
new
section
of
Riverside
walkway.
As
decision
makers,
members
are
advised
to
attach
significant
way
to
both
the
financial
viability
position
and
the
overall
regeneration
generation
benefits
of
The
Proposal
when
coming
to
their
decision.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
K
Well,
on
the
on
the
current
position,
with
the
offer
of
25
units,
I
I've
not
reviewed
how
they've
got
to
that.
That's
an
offer
that
they've
put
forward
and
I.
Imagine
as
the
sort
of
alluded
to
in
the
report.
It
must
be
related
to
taking
money
from
one
putting
it
into
another
that
they
may
think
they
can
build
it
slightly
cheaper
or
they
may.
You
know
they
might
basically
I've
had
no
narrative
as
to
how
they've
managed
to
get
to
where
they
are
so
I
can't
really
add
a
lot
of
my
Freight
share.
A
It
does
seem
that
the
revised
offer
is
predicated
on
the
fact
that
they'll
be
able
to,
or
they
hope
to
start
early
in
2023.
Would
that
make
a
difference
in
your
in
your
in
your
experience.
K
Inevitably
in
Practical
terms,
the
sooner
they
get
on
with
it,
the
the
less
the
impact
on
inflation
would
would
impact
the
the
scheme
itself,
but
when
it
comes
to
inflation
for
my
calculations,
I
I
have
to
ignore
that
and
assess
it
on
a
day,
one
value
and
cost
basis.
So
to
answer
your
question,
starting
it
sooner
in
Practical
terms,
will
probably
make
things
arguably
more
viable.
A
Ryan
I
understand:
we
have
some
sample
panels
that
are
at
the
back
of
the
room.
So
can
we
have
a
couple
of
minutes,
so
members
can
go
and
have
a
look
at
it
and
then
we
we
will
resume.
A
That
was
very
interesting.
Thank
you
for
that.
The
video
that
we
couldn't
show
is
now
working.
So
can
we
go
back
to
that?
Please
Andrew.
C
You're
working
yeah
so,
as
you
can
see
the
sun
analysis,
this
is
the
side
of
white
or
Waterfront,
which
is
in
full
sun
until
around
midday,
and
then
it
moves
into
shade.
But
that's
because
of
the
Sun
moving
westwards
and
the
orientation
of
the
building
and
again
this
is
just
the
winter
solstice
showing
again
so.
The
side.
C
Full
sun
until
around
11AM
and
then
it
moves
into
shade.
A
F
Thanks
chair
so
I'm,
not
comparing
us
to
New
York,
but
in
New
York
the
step
the
buildings
down
like
that
to
make
sure
that
there's
good
light
penetration
at
Graham
level,
I'm
just
wondering
because,
because
we're
talking
about
in
in
the
papers,
especially
we're
talking
about
being
reflective
of
the
surrounding
buildings
and
whatnot,
why
is
it
that
the
developers
haven't
stepped
the
buildings
down
like
buildings
near
to
them?.
B
B
The
approach
has
been
that
the
development
here
reflects
the
form
of
development
elsewhere.
I,
don't
I'm,
not
convinced
that
other
buildings
step
down
to
the
Riverside.
This
is
a
cleared
site,
other
buildings
to
the
Whitehall
Riverside
Apartments,
don't
step
down
to
the
Riverside,
the
white
or
waterfront
apartments
on
the
same
wider
site,
don't
step
down
and
the
buildings
to
the
other
side
of
the
wider
site
towards
the
city
center.
They
don't
step
down
and
there
is
a
generous
Gap
being
left
to
the
Riverside.
B
Not
only
is
it
a
five
meter
wide
Riverside
route,
but
there'll
be
a
Terrace,
probably
three
or
four
meters
wide.
In
addition
to
that,
so
there's
a
generous
Gap
to
the
river
and,
in
addition,
there's
that
Park
area
which
widens
out
even
further
so
I
think
the
short
answer
is
that
we
don't
feel
there's
a
need
to
step
the
buildings
down
in
this
case.
J
H
Policy,
H4
and
I'm,
specifically
looking
at
Pages,
90
and
page
105..
So
in
terms
of
policy
H4,
we
missed
the
maximum
policy
Target
on
one
beds.
C
H
I
just
have
a
very
different
view
of
what
a
chord
with
anything
actually
means
at
this
particular
boy.
At
the
point,
you're
missing
three
four
five
targets
out
of
the
I,
don't
know
ten
targets
at
that
point,
fifty
percent
failure
rate
I,
don't
think
that
does
a
chord.
But,
having
said
that,
chair,
that's
a
debate
for
another
day.
Perhaps.
H
Lord
here
we
go
again
all
right.
Policy
H4
is
not
complied
within.
This
particular
case.
It
fails
miserably.
It
is
in
excess
of
the
policy
suggestions,
certainly
on
one
bed.
We
all
know
that
in
terms
of
creating
cohesive
communities,
if
you
have
too
many
one
beds,
then
you
get
a
revolving
community
that
isn't
good
for
Community
cohesion.
H
You
get
turnover
that
undermines
that
sense
of
community
and
as
such,
and
that's
why
we
have
policy
H4
to
try
and
make
sure
that
we
have
minimum
maximums
and
targets
that
we
aim
at
we're
missing
the
maximum
on
one
we're
missing
a
minimum
on
three
Beds,
which
is
all
about
families
and
other
such
things,
and
we
don't
hit
the
targets
that
we're
proposing
on
one
two
or
three
beds,
so
how
we
can
build
cohesive
communities
by
accepting
this
particular
housing
mix.
It's
entirely
and
utterly
beyond
me.
H
Not
surprisingly,
I
won't
be
supporting
this
particular
application
on
the
basis
that
it
is
non-composite
non-policy,
non-policy,
complaint,
I'm,
always
told
as
I
battle
on
Morley
sites
regularly
on
H4
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
cancer
they're
all
policy
compliance
I'm
now
told
when
it's
not
policy
compliant
we're
still
recommending
approval
and
I.
Just
don't
understand
that
that
type
of
contradictory
world
that
I'm
supposed
to
live
in
so
I
won't
be
supporting
it
chair.
Thank
you.
J
I
think
we've
all
got
some
reservations
about
this.
This
development,
notwithstanding
the
house
it
makes
there
are
a
number
of
other
areas
where
I
think
we're
at
the
edge
of
policy
compliance
now,
I
think
it's
interesting
that
we
we
have
perhaps
persuaded
the
developer,
that
they
can
provide
more
affordable
units
or
less
unaffordable
units,
perhaps
will
be
a
better
description,
but
I
still
have
some
concerns
and
I
appreciate.
J
Officers
are
saying
to
us:
we
have
to
I
suppose,
look
at
viability
and
the
prospect
of
regeneration
of
this
particular
site.
I,
don't
think
regeneration
is
a
problem,
because
we've
got
Way
Beyond
the
date
when
we
would
have
accepted
development,
almost
any
development
at
any
cost
to
get
some
something
happening
down
there.
That's
not
an
issue
anymore.
J
We've
expressed
and
I've
expressed
it
at
some
length
whether
the
developer's
argument
about
viability
for
this
type
of
development
is
really
valid,
because
I
don't
believe
that
the
notwithstanding
what
what
the
district
value
says
about
how
they're
supposed
to
Value
these
things,
I'm,
not
convinced
that
that's
actually
how
developers
are
valuing
them,
because
I,
don't
think
they're
taking
into
I,
don't
think
we're
taking
into
account
I
should
say
either
the
potential
for
increased
rent
or
the
sale
cost
at
the
end
of
the
the
the
the
initial
period.
J
When
you
make
the
money
back,
I
said
last
time
that
I
I'm
not
convinced
about
the
green
space
on
this
site.
J
I
know
you
wax
lyrical
about
the
fact
that
you'll
be
able
to
walk
down
by
the
side
of
the
river
Etc,
but
it's
still
only
20
of
what
we
would
normally
ask
for
and
I
know
it
says:
it'll
the
policy
allows
20,
it
doesn't
encourage
20,
it
encourages
100
and
there
has
to
be
special
circumstances
and
it
struck
me
this
week
because
there's
a
report
isn't
there
that
Leeds
has
managed
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
the
list
of
green
cities
and
I
think
we
should
actually
be
saying:
that's
not
really
where
we
want
to
be.
J
We
don't
really
want
to
have
a
situation
where
developments
don't
meet
policy
to
provide
Green
Space.
J
Now
I
I,
like
Robert,
really
torn
on
this
one,
because
I
don't
think
it's
a
particularly
good
development
and
then
tweaking
the
brick
color
may
may
endear
it
to
some
people,
but
not
necessarily
to
me,
but
it
strikes
me
that
we
had
a
master
plan
for
this
site
and
we're
actually
being
asked
to
agree
bits
of
the
site
for
development,
so
we're
peace.
It's
it's
a
piecemeal
piece
of
work
now,
I
think
that
we
should
be
saying
from
my
point
of
view,
we
should
be
saying:
look.
J
Now,
if
we're
not
doing
it
on
this
particular
part
of
the
development
where,
in
the
rest
of
the
development
is
the
Green
Space
going
and
so
at
the
moment
I
think
we
have
to
you
know
we
have
to
stand
up
and
be
counted.
Don't
we
either
we
we
agree,
I
would
say
for
mix.
We
agree
policy
firm,
affordables
and
we
accrue
policy
for
green
space
and
I.
Think
Green
Space
is
particularly
important
in
the
city
center
because
there's
so
little
of
it,
then
we
understandably
counted,
or
we
just
simply
say
well.
A
Thank
you,
Colin
moving
on
David,
please.
I
Thank
you.
It
seemed
to
me
when
I
was
reading
through
this,
that
very
little
has
changed
from
the
last
report.
I
welcome
the
extra
affordable
housing
on
site,
but
the
fact
the
basic
facts
of
the
housing
mix,
the
Green
Space,
hasn't
changed
at
all
and
are
still
not
satisfied
with
all
my
some
of
the
diagrams
I
saw
about
about
there
about
sunlight
and
that
we're
just
you're
seeing
so
as
I
said.
As
far
as
I'm
concerned,
nothing
I've
seen
Has
Changed,
My
View
From
Last
Time.
These
development's
not
acceptable.
E
Yes,
I
was
pleased
to
see
the
change
in
the
bricks
and
I
actually
like
them.
I
think
that
would
look.
Okay,
I
accept
the
change
in
the
distance
as
well
and
I
believe
in
the
pictures
that
we've
shown
and
the
animation
of
the
sunlight
I
do
find
the
housing
mix.
A
problem,
I
must
say,
I,
think
we
discussed
it
at
length
last
time
and
My
Views
haven't
changed
on
that.
E
I
also
think
if
they
could
find
a
bit
more
viability
from
saying
there
isn't
any,
they
could
maybe
look
and
find
a
bit
more
and
yes,
I'm
in
favor
of
more
green
space
as
well
as
much
green
space
as
possible.
I
think
thank
you.
F
Sorry,
chair,
I,
weren't,
going
to
say
anything,
but
then
I
decided
to
I
think
I.
Think
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
the
density
by
I.
Don't
I
don't
think
if
this
was
a
smaller
development
that
we
would
have
as
much
of
a
problem
with
the
with
the
green
space
or
necessarily
with
the
housing
mix.
It's
it's
I
think
it's
due
to
the
density
that
that
we've
got
such
a
problem,
because
the
if
you
put
that
number
of
households
in
an
area
you're
going
to
have
an
increased
need
for
for
Green
Space.
F
If
you
put
that
number
of
properties
in
an
area,
you
need
to
make
sure
that
there's
enough
three
beds
available
for
people
to
start
families
in
or
to
Flat
share
in
and
to
ensure
is,
is
colleagues
across
the
way
have
said
that
it's
it's
a
proper
community
and
it's
not
too
transient.
So
I
I
agree
with
what's
been
said
so
far,.
A
Thank
you,
I
see,
no
more
members
so
can
I
ask
if
there's
any
officers
want
to
clarify
anything
or
sum
up.
David.
M
Just
happy
to
make
an
observation
chair
I
mean
you
know,
certainly
take
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
members.
I
mean
we
have
through
Andrew's
presentation,
sought
to
address
the
matters
raised,
and
we
have
satisfied
ourselves
as
officers
that
the
policy
areas
have
been
sufficiently
covered
and
we
are
recommending
approval
for
it.
I
mean
just
to
remind
members.
M
This
is
a
significant
Brownfield
site
in
the
Heart
of
the
City
Center,
a
short
distance
from
the
Central
Railway
Station,
and
there
are
key
connectivities
from
this
site
in
terms
of
Green
Space
to
Riverside
roots
and
Beyond.
So
it
does
need
to
be
seen
within
that
broader
strategic
context.
I
take
the
point.
M
That's
been
made
about
the
wider
Master
planning
exercise,
but
in
front
of
us
today
is
this
part
of
that
site
set
within
the
context
of
that
must
plan
that's
previously
been
considered
by
the
panel,
so
we
are
seeing
it
contextually
rather
than
as
a
standalone
as
part
of
the
city
center.
So
just
some
observations.
Sure
if
that's
helpful.
B
Thank
you
chairs,
so
I
think
the
there's
one
member
who's
clearly
said
that,
because
of
the
housing
mix
being
proposed,
that
that,
in
his
view,
is
contrary
to
policy
and
therefore
he's
not
prepared
to
support
the
proposals.
B
Other
members
have
raised
issues
reservations
about
the.
In
addition,
the
in
their
view
the
lack
of
green
space
on
the
site,
the
and
then
the
approach
to
viability,
perhaps
that
they,
the
the
developers
approach,
differs
from
that
of
the
district
value
and
and
the
dis
you
know
we
haven't
taken
into
account.
The
The
increased
potential
rent
returns
in
the
future.
B
The
there
was
also
some
acceptance
of
the
the
change
to
the
materiality
and
acceptance
of
the
the
distance
involved
between
the
proposed
development
and
existing
building
residential
Flats,
and
then
there
was
a
comment
about.
If
this
was
a
smaller
development,
then
some
of
those
issues
might
be
less
contentious.
Some
of
those
matters
that
are
raised
if
I,
if
I'm
here
can
I
just
make
make
a
couple
of
points.
I
know
you
did
ask
just
before
David
commented.
B
I
do
need
to
be
clear
about
the
Green
Space
policy.
Our
own
policies
say
for
City
Center,
high
density
schemes,
Green
Space
contribution,
Green
Space
approach
is
a
combination
of
on-site
provision
and
off-site
contribution,
because
it's
just
not
practical
for
high
density
schemes
to
deliver
all
the
green
space
that
the
metrics
generate
on
on
the
site.
So
I
would
ask
members
to
bear
that
in
mind.
B
The
the
other
thing
about
the
viability,
the
the
district
value
has
to
follow
a
standard
approach
set
by
Rex.
In
this
particular
case,
the
developer
has
got
a
funder
on
board
and
he's
ready
to
go
that
for
the
developer
reduces
their
risks
and
it
means
they
don't
have
to
set
aside
as
much
contingency
and
take
as
much
profit
as
possibly
the
district
value
would
allow
them
to
do,
and
that
accounts
in
a
big
multi-million
pound
scheme.
That
accounts
for
the
differences
which
you
see
between
what
the
district
value
is
sent
to.
B
This
came
to
panel
and
members
have
clearly
said
on
this.
I
know
the
schemes
that
actually
we
want
to
see
an
increase,
and
in
this
case
they
had
said
we
want
to
see
an
increase
of
at
least
10
three
beds.
That
was
a
point
upon
which
members
were
focusing
and
the
developers
notwithstanding
the
viability
case
have
met
that.
B
So
they
came
in
with
eight
percent
and
now
they're
meeting
10
and
that's
no
different
to
the
to
the
other
site
that
was
approved
at
the
last
panel,
which
was
also
offering
10,
which
is
a
tall
Talent
building
at
the
close
to
the
Wellington
Street
site,
Skinner
Street
site.
So
sorry,
if
I
overstepped
them
up,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
those
comments
clear
from
in
terms
of
the
officer's
position.
Thank
you,
chair.
D
Of
course,
you
are
correct,
I'm,
just
thinking
about
this
from
a
development
plans
panel
point
of
view,
as
you
might
expect
me
to
this
year,
and
we
work
really
really
hard
on
development
plans
panel
to
build
the
vision
for
leads
really
through
policy,
so
we're
constantly
pushing
the
boundaries
for
more
three
beds:
better
housing
mix,
more
green
space,
we're
fighting
the
good
fight,
if
you
like
for
for
the
future
of
leads
through
those
policies
and
when
your
whole
heart
and
mind
is
in
that
vision
and
those
policies
and
development
after
development
comes
forward
with
which
is
either
marginal
to
them
or
doesn't
meet
them
in
entirety.
D
It
is
inevitably
a
disappointment,
but
I
mean
like
councilor
garthwaite
I
I
welcome
the
improvements
that
definitely
have
been
made
and
the
issues
that
definitely
have
been
addressed
in
this
development.
I
hear
my
colleagues
across
the
way
rightly
pushing
pushing
at
those
boundaries
because
you
you're
not
you're,
not
feeling
enough
of
enough
is
being
delivered
and
as
a
development
plans.
Panel
chair
in
my
heart,
I
think
the
same
thing,
but
I
also
understand
the
need
to
move
forward
in
the
interest
of
Leeds
development
and
getting
on
with
business.
D
So
whilst
I'm
I
still
have
concerns,
certainly
about
affordability
and
housing
mix
on
this
scheme,
you
know
I
think
I
would
probably
be
prepared
on
balance,
given
the
improvements
they've
made
to
it
to
support
it,
but
we
will
not
change
the
shape
of
leads
and
the
way
that
our
planned
environment
develops.
Unless
we
keep
on
making
these
points-
and
sometimes
we
really
do
need
to
push
them
to
that
absolute
limit,
because
we
won't
change
unless
we
do
and
that's
our
job
as
a
plans
panel,
isn't
it.
A
Have
been
successful
over
the
years
of
increasing
three-bedroom
three
bedrooms
from
three
percent
to
ten
percent
on
affordable
from
five
to
seven,
so
we've
had
a
success
and
it's
been
through
pushing,
as
you
rightly
say,
Peter
you
indicated
you
wanted
to
speak
and
then
we'll
go
to.
G
Thanks
chair
I
mean
this
is
quite
a
difficult
one
really
for
well
the
point
that
Caroline's
raised.
It
puts
me
in
mind
of
when
you're
doing
your
driving
test,
because
on
a
driving
test
you
can
have
a
number
of
minor
things,
minor
faults
and
still
pass,
and
if
we
look
at
this
list,
all
of
us
will
know
one
of
these
things
will
have
been
on
a
development
we've
approved
at
some
point,
10
or
fewer
three
beds
or
20
of
the
green
space
and
then
a
contribution.
G
The
difficulty
is,
when
you
add
all
of
those
together
in
one
site
and
at
the
point
where
we
didn't
have
the
affordable
housing
either,
then,
obviously
it
becomes
a
site
where
you
see
no
benefit
whatsoever.
All
you
see
is
is
areas
where
it
is
not
meeting
the
targets,
regardless
of
the
policies
we
say
and
I
think
that's
the
real
difficulty
we
have,
because,
yes,
we
may
have
accepted
developments
with
fewer
than
10
three
words
in
the
past,
but
they
may
have
had
complete,
affordable
housing.
Provision
on
that
particular
site
may
have
had
something
else.
G
G
It's
where
then,
if
this
goes
through
to
appeal,
I
I
would
imagine
looking
at
the
policies
as
they
are
written
now,
it
would
be
seen
to
be
policy
compliant
and
to
have
come
Beyond
the
valuation
that
has
been
done
as
per
the
government's
framework,
so
I
think.
Unfortunately,
on
this,
it's
not
a
development
and
particularly
proud
to
support,
but
I
think
it
is
one
that
the
only
thing
we
probably
can
do
is
begrudgingly
support
it
and
then
work
on
the
policies
to
make
them
stronger
and
neater.
G
From
there
onwards,
I
think
we
have
made
a
long
progress
as
a
panel
I
think,
probably
if
I
think
I've
been
here
five
years
nearly
when
I
started
on
this
panel,
we'd
have
probably
just
approved
this.
In
many
ways
we
have
gradually
moved
those
forwards,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
suddenly
flip
on
one
development
at
a
time
and
make
it
different
and
I
think
that's,
maybe
where
we
would
be
going
on
this,
but
I
think
we
can't
see
too
many
come
like
this.
A
A
I
did
a
particularly
asked
Brian
the
question
regarding
we
have
an
having
funders
on
board
and
they
could
produce.
They
could
start
early
in
June.
Did
that
make
a
difference
and
clearly
it
does.
If
we,
if
we
were
to
defer
once
more,
we
might
lose
that
opportunities
all
I
have
to
say
it's
very
important
to
the
city.
We
we
we
obviously
need
housing.
We
certainly
need
houses
for
rent,
so
members
I
think
we
should
consider
this
very
very
carefully
and
with
that
can
I
ask
Peter.
A
And,
of
course,
that
accounts
for
all
voting
members
so
I
have
no
need
to
ask
for
abstentions.
It
is
past
six
five
I
make
it
is
that
correct,
Andy,
okay,
well,
we've
had
a
good
debate
on
this
one
and
I'm
sure
developers
who
are
sat
here
listening
very
carefully.
We'll
need
to
understand
that
we
will
continue
to
push
to
the
boundaries
are
there,
but
we
will
keep
pushing
at
them
to
get
a
better
deal
for
the
city
Colin
very
quickly.
J
It
is
very
quickly
thank
you,
chair
I
was
just
going
to
address
a
remark
to
the
the
people
behind
us
and
I
think
it
might
be
useful
if,
when
they
get
back
to
the
university,
if
they
ask
the
lecturer,
if
they'd
explain
affordability,
because
this
is
one
of
the
keys
to
this
discussion
and
I.
Think
if
you
don't
understand
affordability,
then
it's
very
difficult
to
get
a
picture
mostly
about
what
we
were
arguing
about.
A
Can
I
just
respond
to
Colin?
Is
this
a
big
column
for
you
becoming
a
visiting
lecturer
at
Beckett's,
University
Caroline.
D
I
was
just
going
to
respond
to
Colleen's
comment
by
saying
that
the
chair
and
I
learned
earlier
assessments.
After
these
visits
to
plants
panel
for
the
students
so
I
imagine
they
may
well
include
issues
on
viability,
sure.
A
Can
I?
Thank
you
all,
particularly
our
students,
I
hope,
you've
learned
something
today
and
if
you
have
learned
something
today,
please
drop
me
an
email
and
tell
me
what
it
is,
because
I
certainly
will
benefit
from
it.
You
can
see
how
in
planning
there
are
many
many
issues
to
consider.
They
have
to
be
carefully
balanced
up
and
weighed
up,
and
the
vote
today
was
very
narrow.
A
Yet
my
grandson
started
opening
his
Advent
calendar,
so
we
must
be
nearly
getting
there
24
days
for
24
days
to
go
so
have
a
good
time
and
I
know
for
councils.
There's
quite
a
lot
to
do.
We
have
lots
of
meetings
to
attend
before
then,
but
do
find
some
time
to
spend
with
the
family
and
relax
a
bit
and
come
back
and
we'll
do
it
all
again
on
the
5th
of
January
2023.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.