►
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
Good
afternoon
everybody
I'm
debbie
oldham,
I'm
the
clock
to
the
panel.
This
afternoon
we
have
had
apologies
from
the
from
councillor
gruen,
who
is
the
usual
chair?
Could
I
call
for
a
nomination
for
election
of
chair
for
councillor
mckenna.
C
Thank
you
for
that
debbie
and
welcome
along.
Thankfully
it's
not
too
taxing
a
meeting
today
we
only
have
one
item
and
we
did
have
a
side
visit.
A
number
of
you
were
on
that
and
it
was
interesting
to
see
mount
st
mary's
after
all
these
years,
an
application
that
we've
been
looking
for
a
resolution
to,
and
hopefully
we're
moving
in
that
direction,
although
I
think
we
have
a
way
to
travel
in
that
direction
as
yet,
as
you
know,
I'm
council
mckenna
I've
just
been
elected
by
you.
C
Good
people
has
your
chair
for
today.
So
can
I
can
I
just
remind
you
that
we're
now
live
on
youtube
and
please,
if
we
can
observe
all
the
protocol
we
have
with
that.
C
As
you
know,
the
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
relevant
information
from
applicants.
Members
of
the
public
council
officers
to
help
members
of
the
panel
make
this
decision
today.
Could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
mute
your
microphone
once
you've
introduced
yourself?
If
we
could
start
from
my
left
david.
E
I'm
brian
mcguire,
I'm
the
principal
surveyor
with
the
district
valuer.
A
F
Hi
good
afternoon
concert
goer
almost
from.
A
C
Thank
you
for
that
and
welcome
to
our
district
valuer
brian.
I
think
he's
done
a
lot
of
work
already
on
this,
but
you
may
have
questions
for
him
he's
available.
C
A
Thank
you
chair
under
gender
item
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents,
agenda
item
2.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
gender
item
3.
There
are
no
late
items
of
business
under
gender
item
4.
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interests-
and
I
see
no
hand
saw
take
that
as
none
under
gender
item?
C
Thank
you
debbie.
Can
we
then
go
on
to
agenda
item
six
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
11th
of
november?
Can
a
member
well,
shall
I
go
through
a
first
for
accuracy
and
then
you
can
stop
me
and
then
we
can
move
them
page.
Nine.
C
D
D
So
I
will
briefly
run
through
the
report
and
the
presentation
that
members
saw
last
time
and
there
are
some
just
additional
slides
from
which
are
taken
from
a
drone
footage,
so
they're,
both
external
and
internal
and
for
information.
Only
really
so
we
could
just
move
on
to
the
first
slide.
Please
toby!
So
that's
the
application
site.
We
were
obviously
visited
the
site
this
morning.
D
Could
we
move
on
to
the
next
slide?
Please?
So
that's
the
sighting
context
and
I
think
the
pertinent
points
to
pick
up.
There
are
richmond
hill
approach,
which
is
where
the
main
access
comes
from
and
we
we
drove
down
there
in
the
minibus.
Today
we
viewed
it
from
the
car
park,
which
is
towards
the
bottom
of
the
screen,
and
you
can
see
also
church
road
reference
there
and
that's
where
the
steps
are
and
so
there's
the
pedestrian
link
through
to
church
road,
and
then
that
leads
you
down
to
ellerbee
road
next
slide.
D
Please
again,
that's
just
a
wider
context.
I
think
was
reused
primarily
for
reference
to
discuss
the
access
options
last
time
around.
So
we
can.
We
can
move
on
from
that
one
please.
D
This
is
just
some
images
of
the
the
church
and
the
presbytery
and
members
will
have
seen
today
that
it's
in
both
buildings
are
in
quite
a
sorry
state
next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
just
some
internal
images.
I
think
the
thing
to
point
to
to
pick
up
on.
There
is
the
area
around
the
altars
because
there's
a
stone
roof
and
that's
why
it's
a
bit
better
protected
than
perhaps
other
parts
of
the
church
and
that's
obviously,
the
bit
proposed
to
be
retained
next
slide,
please.
D
So
this
is
the
scheme,
and
this
is
the
the
overall
layout.
So
you
can,
you
can
see
that
the
the
church
is
is
essentially
replicated
in
terms
of
its
form,
but
you
can
see
the
new
flats
proposed
there
and
then
obviously
where
the
presbytery
is
to
be
demolished,
there's
quite
a
substantial
block
of
new
apartments
there
and
that's
the
enabling
development
that
you'll
see
referenced
in
appendix
a
sorry
appendix
one
of
the
of
the
covering
reports,
and
you
can
see
the
parking
numbers
etc.
D
The
access
off
of
richmond
hill
approach
and
the
steps
are
towards
the
bottom
next
slide.
Please
so
just
some
images
really
so,
like
I
say
it's
proposed
to
replicate
the
existing
church
former
and
that's
a
replacement
window
in
the
the
west
elevation
which
looks
over
towards
the
city
center.
So
that
would
be
something
that's
very
apparent
on
the
skyline
and
you
can
just
see
the
the
new
block
in
the
background
there
as
well.
D
Next
slide,
please.
This
is
just
an
image
from
the
other
side,
that's
where
we
were
really
this
morning
and
within
the
school
grounds.
Next
slide,
please,
these
are
just
the
elevations.
So
that's,
obviously
the
the
new
block
of
apartments
with
the
church
in
the
background
next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
some
images
of
the
extended
church,
so
you
can
see
very
much
that
it
it
does
continue
the
form
of
the
the
current
church
next
slide.
Please
and
again,
those
are
just
the
end.
Elevations.
D
D
So
these
are
just
some
images
of
of
the
materials
that
they're
proposing,
and
I
think
members
discuss
these
in
a
bit
of
detail
last
time
next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
just
really
the
slides
that
were
focused
on
the
section
106,
and
so
this
is
what
is
to
be
delivered
regardless
of
the
viability
position.
So
there's
the
car
club
spaces
and
a
reference
on
the
on
the
bus
and
the
need
to
actually
introduce
traffic
regulation,
orders
to
control
off
street
parking
and
then
there's
the
travel
plan
review
fee,
so
they're
all
secured
already
next
slide.
D
D
That
was
just
the
summary
of
the
appraisal
that
members
considered
in
the
round
previously,
and
and
like
I
say
today,
really
is
just
to
focus
on
that
small
introduction
to
the
viability
review
clauses
next
slide.
Please
and
again,
please.
D
So
I
think
we
now
just
move
on
to
toby's.
Just
gonna
quickly
run
through
some
of
the
photographs
from
the
drone
footage
which,
like
I
say,
is
more
more
for
members
information,
because
it
provides
a
more
up-to-date
position
regarding
the
condition
of
the
church.
D
D
D
So
you
can
see
some
of
the
scaffolding.
That's
that's
up.
These
are
emergency
temporary
repairs
and
some
of
that
scaffolding
has
been
up
for
a
good
number
of
years.
D
D
So
it's
a
crying
shame
really
what's
what's
happened,
but
going
back
to
the
the
fundamental
principles
behind
the
proposal
that
the
the
better
quality
area,
the
bit
that
was
done
by
edmund
pugin,
that's
the
bit.
That
would
be
retained
and
he's
the
son
of
augustus,
who
did
the
palace
of
westminster.
D
So
I
think
that's
it
so,
as
I
say
in
in
summary,
it
is
only
really
brought
back
on
the
technicality,
because
those
particular
issue
wasn't
included
in
the
original
report
that
members
considered
and
just
as
a
as
a
slight
update
to
the
report
and
the
ward
members
have
been
consulted
about
the
proposal.
I've
I've
not
had
any
formal
response
back
to
the
the
content
of
the
report,
and
the
only
thing
that
did
come
back
was
councillor
graham
asked
for
some
information
regarding
potential
sales
values
for
the
flats.
D
D
C
Thank
you
for
that
report
david
and
thank
you
toby
for
showing
those
slides,
particularly
inside
which
we
didn't
actually
get
to
see.
I
think
they
were
very
helpful
to
see
the
condition
of
the
building
as
it
currently
is.
C
There
are
no
speakers
today,
so
we
can
go
straight
to
questions
from
members
questions
to
officers
from
from
members
any
questions,
counselor
nash,.
B
Yes,
I
I
was
at
the
pre-application
meeting,
excuse
me
and
I
have
visited
the
site
previously.
That
was
why
I
wasn't
there
this
morning,
but
my
colleagues
tell
me
that
the
steps
leading
up
to
this
site
are
in
a
very
dangerous
condition,
and
I
I've
I've
just
thought
on
page
14,
there's
offsite
cumulative
impact
contribution
toward
improvements
to
the
local
highway
network.
B
D
And
I
I
think
in
terms
of
the
I
I
guess
ultimately,
the
the
money's
not
necessarily
earmarked
for
that
type
of
work
initially
and
that's
not
to
say
it
couldn't
be
directed
in
towards
such
improvements.
Just
from
the
visit
this
morning,
it
did
have
a
central
handrail
and
there
was
a
handrail,
certainly
on
one
side,
and
I
don't
think
it
went
all
the
way
down
though-
and
it's
probably
part
of
the
issue,
so
I
mean,
as
it's
not
used
at
the
moment
and
hasn't
been
obviously
for
30
plus
years.
It's
it's
in.
D
B
Could
I
say
because
the
the
church
was
unoccupied,
it
probably
wouldn't
have
been
in
any
owner's
interest
to
have
a
thoroughfare
going
up
to
the
church
site,
but
now
that
it's
been
brought
back
into
use,
I
think
it
is
pretty
essential.
C
Thank
you,
council
nash.
Yes,
we
actually
looked
at
the
steps
and
to
say
this:
all
they
were
in
surprisingly,
good
condition,
apart
from
overgrow
weeding.
What
have
you
and
as
council
sharp
says,
there
are
some
rails
there.
It
wouldn't
take
a
lot
of
money
to
improve
it
and
that's
perfectly
usable
council
stevenson.
Please.
G
G
What's
that
space
to
be
used,
for
it
doesn't
say
on
the
map,
is
it
going
to
be
an
apartment
with
that
retained,
or
is
it
a
communal
space?
I
don't
think
I
saw
that
and
in
terms
of
ownership,
is
this
still
owned
by
diocese
or
is
it
already
transferred
over
into
private
hands
and
now
they're
seeking
planning.
D
Okay,
I'm
just
I'm
just
mindful
of
how
many
images
are
on
the
presentation.
So
if,
if
you
just
look
at,
could
I
direct
you
to
page
nine
of
the
presentation?
D
That's
got
the
layout
plan,
so
essentially
the
proposal
is
that
the
whole
of
the
the
chancel
area
and
the
the
altars,
etcetera
and
and
the
transepts
that
that's
all
proposed
to
be
renovated
and
they'll
also
be
it'll,
be
primarily
it's
the
it's
the
entrance
to
the
the
flats,
and
so
it
will
mostly
stay
as
an
open
space
as
it
is
now.
You
haven't,
got
the
floor
plans
in
this
presentation,
but,
as
you
go
up
within
part
of
the
transepts,
there
is
proposals
to
include
a
couple
of
fights.
D
If,
if
you
look
now
at
page
11,
and
if
you,
if
you
can
see
the
the
obviously
the
stone
building,
is
the
bit
that's
original,
and
so
where
there's
the
the
circular
window,
that's
a
road
called
the
rose
window.
There
would
be
flats
within
that
space,
but
for
the
majority
of
the
the
the
sort
of
area
would
stay
as
as
open
and
existing.
So
it
would
be
probably
be
a
very,
very
magnificent
space
really
and
as
part
of
the
proposals
is
also
to
allow
some
sort
of
public
access.
D
But
just
just
on
the
ownership,
now
the
diocese
doesn't
own
the
site
anymore.
They
have,
they
haven't
done
for
quite
a
while.
Could
we.
G
Just
go
back
to
well
on
our
presentation.
It's
page
11.
I
think
it
was
nine
yeah.
Yes,
this
one
here
so
just
transpose
across
the
two.
So
the
circular
window,
the
rose
window-
will
be
right
at
the
bottom
here
on
the
there's
our
pointer
is
that.
G
D
So
it's
difficult
to
point
the
pointer,
but
it's
just
there.
Yes,
I've.
G
D
Yeah,
it
is
yes
currently
it's
it's
it's
an
open
space,
but
the
the
proposals
don't
come
in
for
a
couple
of
floors,
so
there's
the
ground
floor
and
then
I
think,
there's
some
other
floors
where
the
space
is
still
left
retained,
because
if
you
look
at
the
the
image
you
can
see
that
the
rose
window
is
is
really
quite
high.
E
D
In
terms
of
to
be
honest,
this
particular
element
of
the
proposal
you
can
see
from
the
the
original
report
appendix
one
in
the
site.
History
there's
been
a
number
of
applications
over
the
years,
and
so,
whilst
this
application
has
refreshed
various
elements
of
schemes
that
have
been
considered
before
the
proposal
around
that
particular
retained
element
is,
is
fairly
similar.
D
So
in
working
with
conservation
officer
and
english
heritage
originally,
and
the
view
has
always
been
that
it
wasn't
necessarily
a
problem
for
that
particular
space
to
be
utilized
as
additional
accommodation,
because
the
main
value
is
is
in
terms
of
the
space
by
the
altars
and
which
is
the
bit
whether
sort
of
towards
the
very
end
of
the
building.
Whether
the
larger
more
vertical
windows
are.
C
F
Thank
you,
jeff,
just
a
quick
couple
of
points.
I
wasn't
there
in
the
previous
meeting
as
well,
so
I
might
be
repeating
myself
just
in
terms
of
aesthetics.
The
new
extension
is:
is
bronze
metallic
bronze,
so
looking
at
the
old
building,
it's
kind
of
gray,
so
was
there
a
particular
reason
why
that
was
chosen
and
how
would
it
sort
of
match
the
environment
and,
secondly,
in
terms
of
the
residential
travel
plans
fund
of
43
000
pound?
F
D
Okay
in
terms
of
materials,
there's
a
very
deliberate
intention
to
to
have
a
contrast
and
material,
and
it's
it's
often
an
approach,
that's
used
in
terms
of
so
that
you
don't
try
and
mimic
what
what
was
there
originally
and
you
you're
sort
of
quite
honest
in
the
design
saying
this
is
a
new
contemporary
addition
to
the
original
building,
and
so
the
the
contrast
is
very
deliberate
and
that's
been
through
a
number
of
proposals
in
terms
of
dialogue
with
the
conservation
officer
and
we're
content
with
the
materials
that
have
been
chosen.
D
I
think
going
back
to
the
pre-app
and
before
it
was
considered
in
february,
there
was
a
bit
of
concern
about
the
relationship
with
the
new
block
and
how
the
materials
were
possibly
competing
with
the
with
the
church.
So
the
materials
were
looked
at
quite
closely,
both
by
officers
and
members
originally,
and
the
view
was
that,
what's
what's
shown
was
was
deemed
to
be
acceptable
in
terms
of
the
residential
travel
fund.
D
Just
on
page
17
of
the
presentation,
it
gives
some
details
of
what
that
could
potentially
cover,
and
so
it's
things
like
public
transport,
ticketing
cycle,
purchase
schemes,
car
sharing,
car
walking,
car
travel,
plug
travel
club
and
personalised
travel
planning.
So
it's
all
about
assisting
people
with
other
options
rather
than
the
car,
and
I
guess
that
links
into
the
fact
that,
relatively
speaking,
there
isn't
parking
for
every
occupier,
and
so
I
think
the
travel
plan
fund
would
be
very
helpful
if,
if
viability
allows
for
it.
D
Sorry
what
was
the
last.
There
was
another
question
as
well.
D
D
Yeah
well
in
terms
of
parking,
I
think
in
total
there's
56
spaces.
Some
of
those
are
disabled
bays
some
of
the
two
of
those
are
the
the
car
club
and
so
there's
obviously
175
flats.
So
it's
not
providing
one
for
one
by
any
means,
but
it
it's
set
out
in
the
original
report
that
it's
it's
a
city,
edger
city,
center
location,
there's,
good
connectivity
to
the
city
centre,
etc.
D
I
think
all
but
two
of
the
parking
spaces
are
to
have
electric
vehicle
charging
points
and
I
think
it's
132
cycle
spaces,
158
38
138
was
nearly
right,
so
yeah
the
the
focus
is,
is
obviously
away
from
car
parking
provision
and
but
what
provision
is
provided
does
have
primarily
electric
vehicle
charging
and
there's
a
good
provision
of
cycle
parking
as
well.
C
Did
you
want
to
make
a
comment
from
my
voice?
It's
good!
Okay!
Well
done!
I
haven't
seen
any
more
members.
Please
counseling.
B
Yes,
at
the
pre-op
meeting
and
a
lady,
a
local
resident,
came
and
said
how
disappointed
they
would
be
because
they
no
longer
saw
the
cross
on
the
top
of
the
building
and
on
page
six
of
the
presentation,
booklet.
There
is
a
cross
there.
But
I
noticed
on
the
on
the
slides
with
the
the
hover
thing,
there's
another
cross
and
I'm
not
sure
which
cross
she
meant,
but
on
on
the
presentation,
the
the
transept,
which
and
and
the
chancel,
which
is
going
to
be
preserved.
B
I
I
just
wonder
if
across
that
cross
could
be
moved
as
a
you
know,
a
nod
to
to
what
historically
has
been
there.
B
That's
the
north
entrance
where
the
cross
is,
whereas
what
has
been
retained
is
at
the
south
end.
B
But
when
you
had
the
fly
through
that,
I
thought
I
saw
another
cross.
D
I'm
I'm
just
trying
to
so,
if
the.
If,
if
I
get
this
right,
what
you're
saying
if,
if
there's
a
cross
on
the
bit,
that's
to
be
retained,
can
make
sure
that
that
is
retained.
Yeah.
B
And
if
there
isn't
a
cross
on
that,
could
that
one
on
the
north
end
be
moved
okay,
yeah,
because
she
was
quite
emotional
about
it?
Actually,
okay!
Well
that
that's
the
one
at
the
north
end,
I
think,
but
I
saw
one
of
your
slides
showed
another
crop
yeah.
What
was
that
thing
there
that
I'm
not
sure
what
that
is?
Yeah,
it's
not
quite
across
now
right.
Well,
perhaps
it
the
the
one
at
the
other
end
could
be
moved.
D
And
I
I
think
we
could
certainly
look
to
impose
a
condition
that
that
looks,
exploit
exploring
the
possibility
of
that
and
just
thinking
aloud.
Maybe
it
could
be
if
it
it
could
either
go
in
situ
on
the
new
bit
or
it
could
move
to
the
bit
where,
where
the
original
stays
possibly,
I
mean
there
might
be
structural
issues
with
that.
But
if
members
were
content
for
us
to
add
a
condition
that
at
least
looks
at
the
possibility
of
moving
and
retaining
that
okay.
C
It's
a
good
point
liz
I
mean
the
one
we
see
on
page
six,
there's
actually
a
double
cross
up
there,
there's
a
celtic
cross,
which
is
obviously
the
original
one
and
modern
one
they
put
up
I'd,
be
anxious
if
we
were
retaining
one
that
we
retained
the
original
celtic
cross
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
liz.
C
A
You
chair,
I
was
on
north
and
east
when
this
originally
came
through,
although
I'm
not
on
the
panel
anymore
and
I'm
a
guest.
But
I'm
really
pleased
to
see
that
the
developer
has
tried
his
best
to
accommodate
all
of
our
comments.
B
Yeah,
I
think
the
panel
are
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
with
this
one,
no
one
likes
to
see
listed
buildings
being
demolished,
but
we
are
where
we
are
and,
and
members
have
seen
the
deterioration
on
site,
and
I
think
that
the
best
outcome
is
to
preserve
the
grade
two
star
listed
part
of
the
church
and,
unfortunately,
the
grade
two.
It
has
to
be
demolished.
B
It's
really
really
quite
sad
because
all
my
life,
I've
spent
defending
historical
buildings,
but
I
don't
think
they
they.
The
panel
has
any
option
but
to
agree
this.
I
think
that
what
we're
asked
to
do
today
is
to
decide
how
many
are
going
to
be
for
rental
and
how
many
are
for
sale.
Is
that
not
right.
D
Yeah,
it's
it's!
It's
not
quite
that
it's
essentially
the
at
the
moment
it's
presented
or
was
presented
in
february
as
a
as
a
build
to
rent
scheme.
D
So
one
of
the
prs
schemes
what
the
applicant
wants
is
the
ability
to
also
explore
being
able
to
construct
this
as
if
it
was
a
build
for
sale,
and
so
the
viability
clauses
in
terms
of
the
review
mechanism
will
still
apply
whichever
route
they
go
down,
where
we
may
still
be
able
to
claw
back
some
affordable
housing,
for
example,
or
certainly
a
contribution,
and
but
it's
not
necessarily
agreeing
the
difference
between
is
it
is
it
for
rent
or
is
it
for
sale
and
the
developer
just
wants
both
options.
B
So
what
what
concerns
me
is
that
the
for
sale
base
will
be
the
church
part
and
the
responsibility
for
retaining
the
pugin
architecture
will
fall
on
the
owners.
So
I'm
just
a
bit
concerned
about
that.
I
mean
we've
had
all
this
nonsense
with
the
cladding
that
suddenly,
the
owners
of
the
flats
are
responsible
for
the
fabric.
G
Sorry,
I'm
going
to
flip
back
to
a
question
chair
on
the
back
of
comment
made
there
in
terms
of
affordable
units,
then,
within
this
development
itself,
how
many
will
be
affordable
from
that
I
mean
housing
association.
Have
I
missed
that
somewhere.
D
Yeah,
the
this
is
a
7
area
in
terms
of
affordable
housing
provision,
but
the
the
original
substantive
report
that
went
to
members
in
february
essentially
sets
out
the
position
that
the
developer
can't
afford
to
deliver
the
affordable
units.
D
So
this
is
why
there's
a
review
mechanism
in
in
place
so
should
that
viability,
position
change
the
council's
able
to
revisit
and
potentially
secure
some
affordable
units.
The
way
it
will
happen
realistically
is
that
it
will
be
a
contribution
off-site
towards
affordable
housing,
as
opposed
to
provision
on-site.
G
But
are
you
saying
that
on
the
previous
iteration,
when
it
was
billed
to
rent
the
argument
was
that
they
couldn't
afford
to
give
affordable
housing
on
there,
but
now
they're
trying
to
flog
them
off?
So
does
that
not
change
the
narrative
of
whether
they
can
afford
to
make
some
of
these
affordable
houses
because
effectively
it
will
be
the
housing
association?
C
It
might
be
sorry
be
good
if
we
bring
in
the
dv
at
this
stage.
Brian
mcguire,
please
brian,
and
then
we
can
continue
that
question.
If
need
be.
E
E
We
originally
started
looking
at
this
scheme,
as
mentioned
earlier,
when
the
applicant,
their
favored
position,
was
to
build
flats
that
would
be
rented
out,
and
at
that
time
we
looked
at
how
much
the
properties
were
going
to
be
worth
when
completed,
but
also
how
much
it
was
going
to
cost
to
refurbish
the
chancel
and
build
all
the
accommodation.
E
The
review
of
the
costs
were
undertaken
by
a
quantity
surveyor
based
in
leeds
who
did
a
a
detailed
review
of
the
cost
plan
put
forward
by
the
developer,
and
in
brief,
it
became
clear
that
the
cost
of
refurbishing
refurbishing
and
retaining
the
chancel
was
having
a
very
damaging
effect
on
the
viability.
At
the
moment.
It's
estimated
that
to
refurbish
repair
and
retain
the
chancellor.
That
alone
is
going
to
cost
three
million
pounds
and,
to
a
large
extent,
it's
not
generating
any
income
other
than
the
two
that
the
apartments
that
were
referred
to
earlier.
E
Now
the
outcome
of
that
initial
viability
was
that
the
scheme
can't
provide
any
affordable
housing
due
to
the
high
level
of
costs
involved
in
bringing
the
scheme
forward.
So
the
contribution
was
nil
and,
in
fact,
when
you
looked
at
the
viability
appraisal,
it's
losing
it's.
In
our
view,
it's
losing
a
million
pounds.
So
you
know
it's
not
it's
still
not
in
a
position
in
terms
of
the
marketplace
to
come
forward
that
may
change
in
in
the
coming
year
or
years.
E
We
then
subsequently
looked
at
a
scheme
where
the
apartments
were
going
to
be
sold
to
individual
occupiers,
as
opposed
to
being
rented
and
that's
actually
an
even
worse
position
in
terms
of
its
ability
to
contribute
towards
any
affordable
and
to
give
you
a
comparison,
when
we
looked
at
a
prs
scheme,
the
scheme
was
losing
a
million
pounds.
E
If
you
build
apartments
and
sell
them
the
schemes
losing
six
million
six
to
seven
million
pounds.
So
to
answer
the
direct
question:
the
scheme
cannot
current
currently
provide
any
affordable
housing
and
the
hope
is
with
the
review
mechanism.
Once
the
scheme's
built,
we'll
review,
what's
gone
on,
what's
actually
been
spent
and
what's
what's
actually
been
sold,
have
the
apartments
been
rented
out
or
have
they
all
been
sold
and
then
we'll
do
the
maths
again
to
see
if
there's
a
sufficient
surplus
that
can
make
a
contribution
towards
affordable
housing?
If
that
makes
sense.
C
It's
very
helpful
brian
council
seems
to
me,
for
you
continue
and
you
save
your
question-
please
it
might
be
useful
if
we
brought
in
the
developer
who's
here
to
answer
the
question
about
viability
and
why
they're
proceeding
in
the
circumstances
described
by
by
brian
mark,
would
you
be
willing
to
come
forward?
Please
thank
you.
Sit
at
the
back
where
there's
a
microphone
you'll
be
assisted,
if
need
be
too
yeah
anyway,
anywhere
at
the
back.
Thank
you
mark.
F
Thank
you.
Yes,
there's
the
exercise
that
mr
maguire
is
explaining
is
a
theoretical
exercise
of
looking
at
the
costs
and
the
projected
values
and
whether
they
are
rented
out
as
apartments
or
whether
they're
sold
or
indeed,
actually,
whether
there's
a
mix.
F
I
believe
the
kind
of
prior
the
discussion,
the
last
meeting,
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
challenges
with
this
site.
The
priority
in
terms
of
planning
objectives
was
the
the
retention
restoration
of
the
pugin
element
and
and
therefore
some
other
elements,
such
as
affordable
housing.
Other
contributions
would
be
sacrificed
in
this
case
unless,
as
it
explains,
say
that
the
surpluses
that
will
be
generated
allow
that
to
be
revisited
at
the
time.
C
Thank
you.
That's
helpful,
counselor
stevenson,
as
I
I
moved
on
from
you.
So
has
that
helped
you
to
frame
a
question
now
or.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
Just
how
does
the
review
mechanism
work?
Are
we
setting
now
a
percentage
of
uplift,
for
example,
or
is
it
up
to
further
negotiations
with
officers
in
terms
of
that
drawback
and
effectively,
then
we're
being
asked
to
decide
whether
we
think
that
retaining
the
architectural
merits
of
of
this
site
outweighs
the
need
for
affordable
housing?
That's
what
we've
been
asked
to
decide
is
that,
as
as
politicians.
H
H
So
we're
not
really
in
a
position
where
we
can
reasonably
revisit
that
decision,
because
there's
been
no
material
change
in
circumstance
since
that
point
in
time
in
terms
of
planning
planning
policy,
and
that
was
a
perfectly
legitimate
decision,
then,
in
terms
of
the
way
the
review
mechanism
works,
I
think
there's
somewhere
in
the
report
and
david
might
be
able
to
point
to
it.
H
C
Thank
you
david
for
those
useful
comments.
We
have
jumped
from
questions
to
comments,
but
it
was
a
very
important
question
that
was
raised
so
and
we
have
time
today
we
haven't
got
a
big
agenda,
so
I
apologize
for
moving
around
a
bit,
but
I
think
it
was
important.
Those
questions
were
answered.
C
H
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
so
members
have
resolved
to
grant
planning
permission
and
listed
building
consent
for
the
development
that's
described
on
page
13
of
the
papers,
that's
subject
to
the
section
106
prior
completion
of
section
106,
the
details
which
are
set
out
on
page
13
and
14,
and
that's
in
addition
within
that
106,
that
the
viability
cause
deals,
clauses
deal
with
bill
to
rent
and
build
to
sale
options.
H
The
conditions
are
set
out
on
pages
14
and
15.
There
is
an
additional
condition
that
we
need
to
add
in
respect
to
the
retention
and
potential
relocation
of
original
crosses
that
exist
and
we'll
also
pick
up
on
council
and
nash's
point
about
the
future
management
maintenance,
the
grade
two
listed
element
and
how
that
actually
works.
My
recollection
tells
me
we've
got
a
mechanism
for
that,
but
I
couldn't
quite
think
of
it
during
the
course
of
that
discussion.
So
that's
where
we're
at
thank
you,
chair.
B
And
I
also
asked
that
some
of
the
highway
contribution
be
used
for
the
refurbishment
of
the
steps.
C
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I'm
really
pleased
that
we're
moving
on
with
this.
I
have
to
tell
you
that
I've
had
this
before
my
desk
as
a
member
of
planning
since
19
s,
yeah
1992,
I
was
elected
in
18
1988,
and
it
was
one
of
the
first
things
I
had
when
I
was
chair
of
planning.
It
was
bought
by
somebody
from
barnsley.
I
believe
they
dealt
in
scrap
metal
and
I
was
having
heavily
vandalized
all
the
artifacts
were
stripped
out
and
planning.
C
I've
been
trying
to
restore
some
semblance
of
normality
to
it,
but
unfortunately,
a
lot
of
those
artificial
facts
have
gone
forever.
There
has
been
several
applications
that
have
failed
to
take
off
because
of
viability
and
hopefully
mark
if
we're
looking
at
you.
Hopefully
this
will
get
off
the
ground
and
we
can
move
on
and
restore
this
very,
very
important
heritage
building.
That
leads
to
something
like
its
form
of
glory.
C
I
do
recognize
a
lot
has
been
lost,
but
I
guess
there's
often
a
price
to
pay
when
you,
when
you
try
to
keep
heritage
assets
on
board.
So
thank
you
for
that.
It's
made
me
very
happy
to
cheer
this
after
all
that
time
and
thank
you
for
for
your
attendance.
I
believe
your
next
meeting
is
on
the
13th
of
january.