►
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
and
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
this
is
the
development
plans
panel
meeting.
My
name
is
councillor,
caroline
gruen
and
I
will
be
chairing
the
meeting.
Today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
city
council,
youtube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
Could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
if
we
could
start
from
my
left,
melted.
B
Thank
you
chair.
My
name
is
martin
elliott
and
I'm
the
head
of
strategic
planning.
G
A
D
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
item
number.
Two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
under
item
number.
Three.
There
was
no
formal
late
items
are
noted,
but
there
was
supplementary
information
submitted
in
relation
to
item
number.
Seven
local
plan
update
one
and
under
agenda
item
number
four.
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interest
they
may
have
said
that
was
none
and
under
agenda
item
number.
D
Five,
no
apologies
have
been
received,
but
I
think
we're
still
waiting
for
council,
finnegan
and
actor.
Thank
you.
Chet.
A
Cube
so
that
moves
us
on
now
to
item
six,
please
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting,
which
was
on
the
12th
of
july.
So
if
I
do
as
I
normally
do,
which
is
take
them
a
page
at
a
time
and
ask
for
accuracy
and
matters
arising
together,
please
so
item
six.
It's
page
five
of
your
pack,
the
first
page
of
the
minutes,
page
five.
A
I
don't
see
anybody
indicating
so
can
I
assume
that
those
are
considered
accurate
by
those
that
were
attending
the
meeting?
Thank
you
so
we're
on
to
actually
the
main
substantive
item
of
the
day,
which
is
a
really
a
one
item
agenda.
The
local
plan
update
one
and
the
publication
draft,
which
I
think,
you've
and
all
received
everybody's
read
every
page
lots
of
homework
there.
B
Thank
you
councillor
gruen,
yes,
so
just
just
to
give
a
short
introduction,
because
adam
will
take
you
through
the
detail.
B
Members
have
seen
a
lot
of
this
material
in
various
forms
before
there
was
a
workshop
earlier
in
the
year
and
another
workshop
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
when
members
had
had
the
opportunity
to
look
through
some
of
the
detailed
wording.
What
you'll
find
now
in
your
packs
is
is
more
more
background
material
to
that
wording
before
we
go
out
to
to
consultation.
B
So
members
will
recall
that
this
local
plan
update
is
a
specific
selective
update
of
the
local
plan,
which
has
been
brought
about
by
the
council's
declaration
of
a
climate
emergency
and
the
need
to
look
at
what
planning
can
do
to
look
at
zero
carbon
within
the
city,
but
also
to
look
at
better
place,
making
better
green
infrastructure.
B
Look
at
the
flood
risk
implications
of
climate
change
and
and
also
look
at
the
sustainable
infrastructure
to
link
him
with
the
connecting
leads
strategy.
So
so
quite
a
selective
but
but
overarching
group
of
topics
which
adam
will
now
take
you
through.
K
I'll
just
take
you
through
the
next
couple
of
slides
once
it
catches
up
there
we
go,
so
I
just
wanted
to
explain
the
the
format
of
today's
presentation.
So
I'm
just
going
to
take
you
through
where
we
are
now
what's
happened
to
get
us
to
this
point,
also
a
bit
of
a
some
details
of
the
the
material
that's
in
front
of
you,
but
just
just
to
stress
that
we're
not
going
to
go
through
the
policies
line
by
line
in
terms
of
the
presentation.
K
Obviously,
most
most
of
the
topic
areas
will
be
familiar.
Well,
all
the
topic
areas
will
be
familiar
to
members
and
hopefully
the
policies
too,
but
we
will
alert
members
to
further
explanations
of
revisions
since
the
summer
workshops
that
we've
had
latest
evidence
that
that's
now
in
place
also
some
further
changes
that
will
be
required
in
a
following
this
meeting,
but
in
advance
of
executive
board.
As
noted
in
the
paper,
as
well
as
in
the
main
report
to
it,
some
further
details
in
the
sustainability
appraisal.
K
I'll
just
take
you
through
those
and
finally
just
a
small
section
on
on
viability
before
a
kind
of
rounding
up
of
next
steps.
K
Sorry,
the
system's
a
little
bit
slow
to
move
forward
there
we
go
so
yeah.
Where
are
we
now?
We?
Obviously
members
were
involved
in
a
series
of
workshops
over
the
summer,
together
with
members
of
the
development
industry
as
well,
which
I
think
were
very
helpful
in
crystallizing.
A
lot
of
thoughts,
challenges,
but
also
opportunities
for
local
plan
update
one.
Following
that,
we've
been
able
to
work
up
the
detailed
policy
wording
and
the
sporting
draft
text,
which
is
now
in
front
of
you
as
appendix
one.
K
We
also
have
the
supporting
legal
documentation,
including
sustainability
appraisal,
which
has
been
drafted,
which
is
in
front
of
you
in
appendix
2.,
in
addition
to
to
other
documents
as
well,
which
I'll
take
you
through
slightly
later,
and
so
the
position
we
are
in
now
is
obviously
to
to
present
this
material
to
you
and
to
seek
the
endorsement
of
development
plans
panel
before
executive
board
approve
this
material
for
consultation.
K
So,
what's
what's
in
front
of
you
and
martin
has
helpfully
clarified
there,
that
the
effect
of
these
policies
in
supplementary
text
is
is
an
amendment
to
the
core
strategy
and
members
who've
been
on
development
plans
panel
for
some
time
will
be
kind
of
aware
of
that
process
having
been
through
the
course
strategy,
selective
review
in
regulatory
terms.
This
will
work
similarly
and
that
it
is
amendments
to
that
that
document.
K
From
a
legal
point
of
view,
the
the
development
plan
document
of
local
plan,
update,
one
is-
is
standalone
and
nicole
interrupted
from
wrong
on
that,
but
as
a
standalone
document,
what
it
does
is,
in
effect
amend
the
core
strategy.
K
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
headline
of
what
what
is
happening
and
and
in
front
of
you.
As
I
say,
appendix
one
we've
got
the
draft
policies
and
support
and
text
the
sustainability
appraisal
appendix
two,
the
habitat
for
regulation,
screening
assessment
and
just
go
through.
K
That's
that's
a
requirement
of
regulations
to
demonstrate
the
the
impact
of
the
policies
and
proposals
on
protected
sites,
particularly
european
significance,
of
which
there
are
two
key
ones
just
within
the
border
and
one
just
outside
the
border
of
leeds,
which
we
have
to
take
account
of
I'll.
Just
go
back
again.
K
Just
to
reiterate
the
purpose
of
sustainability
appraisal,
which
again
many
members
are
well
aware
of,
but
the
purpose
of
essentially
recording
and
testing
the
sustainability
of
both
options,
but
the
policies
themselves
and
it's
an
absolutely
integral
part
of
the
process
of
plan
making
and
a
legal
requirement
as
well.
K
We've
also
got
the
report
of
scoping
consultation
in
the
pack,
which
again
is
just
a
summary
of
of
some
of
the
points
that
were
raised
as
part
of
the
original
consultation
and
again
is
a
legal
requirement
in
terms
of
both
consultation,
but
also
submission.
When
we
get
to
that
point.
And
finally,
in
your
packs,
we've
got
a
duty
to
cooperate
summary
document
which
will
form
part
of
the
agenda
for
a
meeting.
K
That's
taking
place
tomorrow
with
partner
authorities
and
agencies
as
part
of
the
duty
cooperate,
which
again
is
a
legal
test
of
plan
making.
K
So
I
just
want
to
take
through
some
of
the
changes
that
have
taken
place
since
the
the
summer
workshops
just
to
highlight
some
of
the
points
I
think
of
most
importance
and
and
go
to
the
heart
of
some
of
the
policies.
K
The
first
one
is
is
in
en1
part
two,
and
this
is
about
operational
carbon.
Previously,
I
think
in
the
policy
when
we
took
it
as
a
as
a
workshop
draft.
The
wording
essentially
gave
the
effect
that
it
applied
to
world
development.
We
wanted
to
caveat
that,
so
the
version
that
you've
got
in
front
of
you
now
makes
clear
that
there
will
be
some
some
clear
caveats
where
that
isn't
appropriate.
K
So
an
example
might
be
a
change
of
use
application
where
it's
very
difficult
for,
let's
say
a
small
small
shop
changing
to
another
use,
they're,
not
changing
any
of
the
fabric
of
the
building.
It's
gonna
be
very,
very
difficult,
not
impossible
for
that
building
to
be
made
zero
carbon
as
part
of
that
process.
So
we
just
wanted
to
to
clarify
that
the
examples
such
as
that
would
be
not
expected
to
meet
the
policy.
K
It
would
be
seen
as
unreasonable
to
require
that
kind
of
development
to
be
required
to
be
zero
carbon,
but
obviously,
would
welcome
members
views
on
that
point.
Also,
we
tried
to
through
the
policy,
introduced
quite
ambitious,
but
what
we
believe
are
realistic
targets
for
what's
called
energy
use,
intensity
and
space
heating
demand,
and
what
the
purpose
there
is
is
to
ensure
that
the
real
focus,
or
at
least
the
first
focus,
is
to
make
sure
that
buildings
are
as
energy
efficient
as
they
possibly
can
be.
K
I'm
sure
we're
all
aware
of
the
cost
inflation
with
things
like
energy
and
heating
costs.
That's
why
it's
particularly
important
why
efforts
are
made
by
developers
as
part
and
architects
as
part
of
new
developments,
to
ensure
that,
first
and
foremost,
reducing
the
amount
of
energy
that's
required
by
a
new
building
is,
is
the
most
important
step,
and
one
of
the
reasons
for
that
is
because
we
were
aware
of
a
potential
loophole,
probably
going
to
go
as
far
as
that,
but
potential
loophole
that
in
theory,
any
development
could
be
made
zero
carbon.
K
If
you
either
built
enough
solar
panels
or
you
offset
it
with
a
with
a
big
enough
payment
and
that
wasn't
the
purpose
of
the
policy
to
allow
for
that
kind
of
loophole.
It
may
be
that
through
detailed
consideration,
they
are
the
avenues
that
development
will
have
to
go
through,
but
in
the
first
instance,
we
really
wanted
that
focus
on
setting
really
good
standards
for
energy
use
and
space
heating
demand.
K
The
second
element
is
about
sustainable
construction
standards
and
this
flows
from
I
think
some
concerns
that
were
raised
by
members
at
the
workshop
that
there
was
a
danger
that
some
of
the
options
that
were
raised
in
that
in
that
policy,
weren't
and
you'll
recall
that
there
was
different
standards.
So
there
was
say
a
passive
house
standards.
K
There
was
a
river
2030
standard,
all
series
of
different
standards
that
developers
could
choose
to
meet
as
part
of
their
developments,
but
I
think
the
danger,
which
was
was
pointed
out
by
a
few
members,
was
that
these
don't
necessarily
compare
very
well
against
each
other
and
it's
not
clear
what
what
standard
one
meets
and
what
standard
another
meets
and
whether
they
are
actually
comparable.
I
think
the
conclusion
was
that
they're
not
particularly
well
comparable,
and
I
think
another
danger
that
members
foresaw
was
that
well
won't
won't
it
be.
K
It
won't
be
a
case.
That's
for
some
developments.
Developers
may
choose
to
take
the
easiest
of
those
options,
rather
the
one
that
we
really
would
like
them
to
do.
So.
We've
reflected
on
that
and
felt
that
the
two
standards
of
home
quality
mark
four
for
residential
and
pre-m
outstanding
for
non-residential
would
be
the
most
appropriate
standards
to
set
for
sustainable
construction
standards.
K
Members
will
recall
that
we
already
have
brian
excellent
for
for
non-residential
at
the
moment
in
the
course
strategy,
but
we
don't
have
anything
for
residential
and
it's
felt
that
home
quality
mark
iv
sets
a
high
standard,
but
an
achievable
standard
which
is
important
to
to
set
out.
So
that's
that's
something
that
members
may
wish
to
reflect
on
as
well.
K
The
next
section
was
about
renewable
energy
mapping,
which
was
explained
previously,
and
it's
obviously
been
a
kind
of
a
long-running
part
of
this
local
plan
update
in
terms
of
having
detail
on
opportunity
areas
for
for
particular,
solar
and
wind,
but
it
was
felt
that
at
the
time
that
we
had
previous
meetings,
we
hadn't
got
the
results
of
that
work
back.
We
now
have
the
acom
study
goes
into
that
renewable
energy
mapping
and
that's
included
in
your
packs
as
the
new
policies
for
particular
solar
and
wind.
K
So
it
includes
constraints
such
as
flood
risk
heritage,
landscape
character,
green
and
blue
infrastructure
and
future
development.
Amongst
many
others.
I
think
it's
important
to
just
to
stress
as
well
that
by
identifying
an
area
of
land
within
an
opportunity
area
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
automatically
gets
supported
at
the
planning
application
stage.
There
are
an
awful
lot
of
caveats
within
the
policy,
including
probably
the
most
important
requirement
to
meet
greenbelt
policy
and
meeting
very
special
circumstances.
K
So
it's
not
a
green
light
necessarily
for
renewable
energy
in
those
locations.
But
it
is
a
positive
step
forward
to
say
where
the
council
considers
there
could
be
potential
in
those
locations
that
could
be
explored
further
through
the
policies.
K
So
we've
got
this
map
for
you
here,
which
again
is
in
your
packs
and
that's
the
the
opportunity
areas
for
solar.
I
think-
and
this
is
perhaps
me
thinking
out
loud-
but
I
think
probably
for
the
the
consultation
draft-
it
may
be
better
for
us
to
flip
the
colours
around
a
little
bit
just
to
show
that
showing
where
the
positive
is
in
terms
of
at
the
moment.
The
where
we're
saying
is
the
opportunity
area
is
the
white
area.
K
K
On
flood
risk,
obviously
members
have
got
lots
of.
You
know
new
and
amended
policies
in
front
of
them,
but
I
particularly
wanted
to
highlight
policy
water,
four,
which
has
been
revised
to
incorporate
essentially
climate
change
scenarios,
which
has
come
out
of
the
work
as
part
of
the
strategic
flood
risk
assessment,
work
which
has
been
done
in
partnership
with
aecom,
and
the
purpose
of
that
policy
is
to
make
sure
that
the
future
flood
risk
is
being
accounted
for,
not
just
today's
flood
risk.
K
It's
as
you'll
see
it's
not
a
dramatic
change,
there's
small
parcels
of
land
that
are
affected
in
a
future
scenario
that
aren't
affected
right
now,
but
it
is
an
important
change
because
it
it
does
show
that
the
areas
that
previously
might
not
have
to
consider
this
should
be
considering
in
future.
It's
also
worth
stressing
as
well
that
this
is
still
still
in
draft.
K
In
terms
of
this
material,
as
the
the
environment
agency
are
reviewing
the
data
and
the
report
I
should
stress-
that's-
the
sfra
is
still
in
draft
because
the
environment
agencies
are
reviewing
it.
So,
if
I
just
show
is
an
exterior
airline,
so
this
is
an
area
of
the
city
that
many
will
be
familiar
with,
and
it's
taken
relatively
at
random.
But
it's
it's
it's
for
mob
gate
and
it's.
This
is
present
day
flood
risk
as
a
result
of
the
updated
sfra
and
that's
the
future
scenario.
K
So
as
you
can
see
that
if
we
play
the
game
and
spot
the
difference,
it'd
be
quite
difficult
to
to
do
that.
If
I
keep
sort
of
going
backwards
and
forwards,
you
can
see,
particularly
in
the
center
of
the
map.
There
are
areas
that
do
change,
and
so
that's
the
kind
of
implications
we're
talking
about
by
this
by
this
policy
is
that
those
areas
that,
in
the
previous,
as
in
present
day
situation,
wouldn't
need
to
address
some
of
the
elements
of
that
through
their
flood
risk
assessments.
K
K
The
next
section
was
just
to
alert
members
to
a
change
from
sort
of
previous
versions
about
a
removal
of
a
policy
that
was
previously,
I
think,
titled
additional
planting
and
I
think,
on
reflection,
it
was
felt
that
many
other
policies
are
both
existing,
but
particularly
new
policies
are
providing
for
additional
planting.
K
I've
listed
what
we've
listed
those
on
the
table.
Sorry
on
the
slide
there
and
I
think
a
particular
note.
We've
we've
got
a
policy
f1
which
requires
tree
planting
as
part
of
private
gardens,
including
fruit
trees.
We've
got
policy
p10
6,
which
again
is
requiring
additional
planting
hedges
street
trees.
K
Biodiversity
net
gain
g9
is
likely
to
have
increases
in
things
of
certainly
planting,
not
necessarily
tree
planting.
It
will
depend
on
the
site
specifics,
but
also
the
quality
of
new
green
spaces,
which
is
g4b
again
is
is
setting
out
that
it
must
include
nutrient
planting
unless
justified
otherwise.
K
K
Captain
holloway
is
just
circulating
a
revised
policy
which
she'll
come
on
to
in
pa
as
part
of
her
presentation.
But
it's
a
slight
amendment
to
the
policy
that
you
got
in
front
of
you,
which
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
members
have
got
a
copy
of.
As
I
say,
catherine
will
take
you
through
the
purpose
of
that
as
part
of
her
section
of
this
presentation.
So
I
will
just
hand
over
to
you,
catherine,
and
just
let
me
know
when
you
want
me
to
move
a
slide.
H
Thanks
adam
so
yeah,
I've
just
circulated
an
amendment
to
appendix
one
policy
sp1a
and
that's
the
new
policy
on
achieving
20
minute
neighbourhoods
in
leeds
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
since
we've
last
presented
the
map,
that's
on
the
screen
that
mcdonald's
prepared
back
in
2020.
H
Subsequently
to
that
presentation
that
they've
given
to
the
council,
we
commissioned
mcdonald's
to
further
that
work,
because
there
are
a
number
of
assumptions
that
we
were
questioning
about,
how
they
were
mapping
the
accessibility
to
come
out
with
that
heap
map.
H
So
we
commissioned
them
and
they
started
working
in
may
this
year
and
we've
had
that
work
back
and
it's
useful
just
to
run
through.
I
think
methodology
of
what
they've
been
looking
at
to
understand
how
we've
looked
to
tighten
up
the
messaging
between
the
explanatory
text
and
the
policy
clearly
defining
how
we're
going
to
test
the
accessibility
to
10-minute
walking
distances
for
windfall
applications.
H
It's
the
next
slide.
Please
probably
can't
read
that,
but
mcdonald's
they've
created
an
analytical
approach,
looking
at
walkable
access
to
a
range
of
services
and
core
amenities
that
are
considered
essential
for
sustainable
and
local
neighborhoods,
and
such
amenities
include
local
shops.
Early
years,
education,
doctors,
green
spaces,
playgrounds
and
public
transport
stops
in
reviewing
the
work
undertaken
back
in
2020.
H
So
internally
we
had
an
agreed
officer
list
of
amenities.
However,
we
wanted
this
to
be
verified
by
by
local
community
groups.
So
what
we
did
was
a
online
smart
survey
inviting
feedback
from
the
community
group
network
what
they
considered
importance
and
willingness
to
travel
to
immunities
under
the
consideration.
So
we
provided
this
long
list
of
services
and
amenities
and
asked
them
to
rank
or
select
what
they
considered
to
be
essential
and
those
that
would
be
desirable,
so
it
slightly
simplified
the
the
sort
of
categorization
of
weighting.
H
Through
that
survey,
we
received
730
complete
responses
and
comparing
the
responses
to
understand
how
closely
community
aligned
to
our
weight
weightings,
the
results
demonstrated
a
really
close
alignment,
so
those
amenities
that
we'd
already
categorized
as
sort
of
high
weightings.
Those
are
important,
were
also
agreed
by
community
groups,
so
we
had
the
confidence
and
that
the
waiting
that
we're
applying
was
was
right.
H
H
The
number
of
overlapping
isotrons
within
each
cell
is
counted,
and
the
weightings
for
each
of
the
amenities
are
then
applied
and
added
together
to
provide
a
weighted
accessibility
score
for
each
cell
and
for
the
purposes
of
the
calculations.
Weightings
were
assigned
on
a
scale
of
naught
to
one
next
slide.
Please
so
there
you
can
see
how
we've
applied
the
categories
of
services
and
amenities
into
those
weighting
brackets,
where
you,
where
they're
five
they're
considered
the
most
important
and
for
the
weighting
they
get
a
point.
H
H
But
we've
also
got
the
associated
gsa
output
files,
which
includes
the
information
on
the
weighted
score
of
each
cell
and
the
mean
and
the
immunity
is
detected
in
the
isochrone
analysis
and
that
can
enable
us
more
detailed
interrogation
of
the
output
layer
and
other
interested
parties.
Should
they
wish
following
the
conclusion
of
the
study
so
based
on
the
assigned
weightings,
the
total
achievable
score
for
any
hex
on
the
map
is
18
and
the
outputs
are
presented
by
their
total
weighting
scores.
H
Hexes
shaded,
darker
red
in
this
map
are
those
with
the
higher
overall
accessibility
scores,
meaning
that
a
greater
range
of
services
are
accessible
within
a
20-minute
return
trip
on
foot
the
scale
graduates
through
orange
and
yellow
shades
for
lower
accessibility
scores
through
to
dark
blue
for
areas
with
the
least
number
of
accessible
amenities
based
on
the
scale
of
nought
to
18
emerging
from
the
accessibility
analysis.
Simple
classifications
have
also
been
defined
and
that's
been
put
into
the
policy
explanation,
and
that
enables
us
to
divide
the
scores
into
quarters
next
slide.
Please.
H
We've
taken
those
classifications
and
provided
these
in
both
the
explanatory
tracks
to
the
policy
as
an
approach
to
enable
us
to
score
windfall
applications.
It
also
has
monitoring
capabilities
for
both
sa
scoring
and
monitoring
indicators
along
the
lines
of
number
or
percentage
of
properties
within
walkable,
neighborhoods
and
or
good
accessibility.
H
For
example,
primary
schools
with
a
weighting
of
five
is
important,
can
be
found
in
ninety
five
percent
of
walkable
neighborhoods,
eighty
percent
in
good
accessibility
areas,
forty
nine
percent
in
limited
accessibility
areas
and
17,
poor
accessibility
areas.
Analyzing.
These
changes
within
these
percentages
for
services
and
facilities
across
the
classifications
can
help
us
to
identify
where
key
amenities
are
commonly
lacking
from
one
classification
to
the
next.
H
The
biggest
differences
between
walkable,
neighborhoods
and
good
amenity,
accessible
neighborhoods
were
observed
in
the
reduction
in
gp
practices,
pharmacies,
libraries
and
nursery
schools
and,
at
the
other
end,
the
biggest
differences
between
limited
and
poor
accessibility.
Neighborhoods
were
in
post
boxes,
parks,
playgrounds
and
restaurants.
H
Lastly,
the
importance
of
having
this
as
gis
maps
and
not
a
static
map
means
that
the
information
can
be
interrogated
and
updated,
recognizing
that
amenities
maps
will
change
over
time.
It
also
has
huge
benefits
and
administration
for
other
council
departments
in
the
partnership.
Work,
that's
required
to
really
make
20
minute
neighbourhoods
work.
Hopefully
that
explains
the
circulation.
The
policy
changes
that
the
addendum
circulated,
particularly
at
criteria
2.2
and
3b.
K
I
think
I
think
catherine
has
covered
these
elements,
but
just
to
say,
I
think
some
some
shifting
around
has
been
required
in
terms
of
policies
en9,
which
I
think
previously
was
listed
within
a
separate
section.
We've
we.
This
is
the
drive
through
development
policy.
We've
we've
now
brought
through
to
ian
nine,
because
I
think
the
real
focus
there
is
on
air
quality
and
that
that
flows
a
lot
better.
K
We
just
wanted
to
as
well
clarify
some
wording
points
in
in
p10
in
terms
of
definitions
of
the
things
like
permanent
and
physical
have
been
added.
We've
also
added,
as
you
can
see
in
the
in
the
draft
in
front
of
you,
avoiding
areas
of
high
flood
risk,
just
to
ensure
that
thank
you,
david
just
to
ensure
that
that
that's
that's
properly
considered
as
part
of
the
20-minute
neighborhoods
assessment
and
the
changes
above
I
think
catherine,
has
already
alluded
to.
K
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
go
through
some
small
changes
that
have
taken
place
or
will
be
required
to
take
place
before
executive
board
and,
as
as
my
introduction,
I
hope
made
clear,
as
with
the
with
the
core
strategy
selected
review,
we're
going
to
need
to
introduce
some
introductory
text
to
the
course
strategy,
just
to
explain
how
this
development
plan
document
changes
the
course
strategy
that
isn't
in
your
packs
at
the
moment,
but
it
will
read
very
simple
well
very
similar
to
the
existing
core
strategy
does,
which
already
incorporates
the
course
strategy
selective
review,
but
we'll
just
make
clear
how
the
local
plan
update
one
is
amending
the
course
strategy.
K
So
that's
just
some
clarification
word
in
there.
Also
on
that
point,
I
think
slightly
erroneously.
We
refer
to
the
planned
period
within
the
sort
of
explanatory
text
to
policy
sp
0
as
being
2024
to
2040.
That's
an
error.
It
should
be
2022
to
2040.,
so
we'll
make
that
change
before
we
should
members
endorse
the
documentation
for
executive
board,
the
the
final
changes
to
alert
members
too
in
terms
of
the
policies.
K
Well,
we
just
we
need
to
ensure
consistency
of
language
in
the
schedule
of
deleted
policies,
occasionally
we'll
refer
to
deletion,
sometimes
we'll
refer
to
superseded.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
fully
up-to-date
and
accurate
okay,
so
that's
kind
of
policy
changes.
I
just
wanted
to
take
you
through
some
elements
of
the
sustainability
appraisal
that
have
been
amended
to,
since
the
reports
were
publicized-
and
this
is
alluded
to
in
the
report.
K
But
there
are
some
minor
changes.
It's
just
be
worth
taking
members
through
through
there.
So
there's
a
fuller
explanation
of
of
unreasonable
alternatives
and
just
as
as
an
example
of
that,
an
unreasonable
alternative
might
be
something
that
the
planning
system
has
no
control
over.
K
So
whilst
it
might
be
a
very
useful
thing
to
do
in
terms
of
climate
change,
I'll
pick
it
I'll
pick
an
extreme
example,
someone
might
say
well
ban
all
cars,
that's
not
necessarily
something
that
planning
system
can
can
deal
with.
K
So
that
would
be
an
example
of
an
unreasonable
alternative
and
the
point
there
is
that
it
is
for
the
sa
process
to
determine
reasonable
and
reasonable
alternatives
that
we
can
understand
what
our
best
options
are,
what
what
are
the
most
sustainable
options
and
that
informs
which
policies
we
we
arrive
at
so
further
to
that
point,
we're
just
going
to
clarify
as
well
how
reasonable
alternatives
have
been
assessed
in
the
main
report.
K
Again,
as
said
in
the
report,
we
just
needed
to
finalize
the
scoring
of
the
flood
risk,
demonstrating
that
the
options
selected,
which
do
demonstrate
the
options
selected,
are
still
a
more
sustainable
approach
than
do
nothing.
So
there's
nothing
in
the
changes
which
change
the
direction
that
we're
taking.
It's
just
a
clarification
of
some
of
those
points.
Similarly
mitigation.
K
We
just
wanted
to
provide
additional
detail
on
some
of
the
negative
effects
of
the
policies,
and
it
really
is
worth
stressing
that
the
there
aren't
that
many
negative
effects
of
the
policies,
but
inevitably
there
will
be
some,
which
is
what
the
sa
process
records
and
we
wanted
to
expand
a
little
bit
further
on
how
that
will
be
mitigated.
K
Some
minor
scoring
changes
as
well
and
commentary,
but
again
just
stressing
that
has
no
overall
impact
on
the
option.
That's
selected
again
in
appendix
10
you'll
see
at
the
moment
the
version
in
your
reports
fairly,
perhaps
a
little
bit
too
light
into
the
monitoring
framework,
that's
being
been
finalized
in
terms
of
further
detail.
K
I
think
it's
worth
noting
a
bit
of
a
challenge
that
we
have
there
in
terms
of
monitoring
frameworks
in
terms
of
how
you
monitor
quality
policies,
particularly
things
like
design
and
green
space
policies,
which
we've
got
in
the
in
the
plan.
That
is
a
challenge
that
we're
still
grappling
with,
and
hopefully
through
the
consultation.
It
may
be
that
we
receive
further
details
on
how
best
that
might
be
addressed,
because
at
the
moment
it
is
quite
difficult
to
to
record
in
a
kind
of
metric
how
you've
achieved
a
quality
policy.
K
So
if
members
have
any
further
thoughts
on
that
very
much
welcome
them
and
then
again,
slightly
wrote:
well
not
slightly
wrong.
It's
erroneously
in
your
in
your
report
back
it
refers
to
that
being
a
non-technical
summary,
the
more
eagle
eyed
amongst
you
will
notice
that
there
isn't
a
non-technical
summary
in
the
reports
back
and
I
apologize
for
that
that
will
be
included
in
in
the
executive
board
agenda,
but
just
to
stress,
there's
nothing
in
the
non-technical
summary.
K
That's
reaches
any
different
conclusions
from
the
full
report
of
the
sustainability
appraisal,
as
it
suggests
it
is
just
a
summary.
So
there's
there's
no
difference
in
terms
of
scoring
or
anything
like
that
and
just
a
final
point
on
viability
just
because
it
is
really
important
part
of
this
plan.
I
think
an
aspect
of
the
plan
that
we
anticipate
to
receive,
perhaps
quite
a
lot
of
scrutiny.
K
Perhaps
quite
a
lot
of
objection
is,
is,
is
its
viability
and
we've
we've
commissioned,
as
I
think,
we've
updated
members
previously
work
from
aberdeen
in
terms
of
the
strategic
viability
of
the
plan
and
that
that
work
is
has
now
been
finalized
and
shows
that
the
suite
of
of
policies
is
strategically
viable.
But
I
think
it
is
worth
just
pointing
out
as
well
that
there
are
a
small
number
of
development
scenarios
which
do
show
sort
of
pressures
on
viability.
K
I
think
it's
important
to
note
as
well
that
that
isn't
the
the
test
of
strategic
viability,
whether
in
every
single
scenario,
in
every
single
type
of
development
in
every
single
location,
that
it
has
to
be
demonstrated
to
be
viable,
it's
inevitable.
With
any
plan,
you
will
get
elements
that
may
have
defiability
pressures.
The
point
is
that
across
a
strategic
level
across
the
suite,
is
it
broadly
viable
and
we're
confident
that
the
evidence
that
we
have
demonstrates
that
point
but
again
happy
to
take
any
questions
on
on
that
element.
K
So
I
just
wanted
to
go
through
the
next
stops
before
steps
before
wrapping
up
and
inviting
comments
and
questions
from
from
members.
So
you
know
subject
obviously
to
your
endorsement.
The
next
step
would
be
to
go
to
executive
board
on
the
21st
of
december
for
a
consultation
in
mid-october,
we're
currently
sort
of
working
up
the
engagement
or
consultation
strategy
at
the
moment,
and
obviously
that
will
be
finalized
in
the
coming
weeks
and
then
we'll
hopefully
go
out
to
consultation
for
for
eight
weeks
from
october.
K
Oh,
no,
I
don't
mean
december
sorry
so
yeah
that
should
I
should
say
september
yeah,
so
apologies
from
the
yeah
apologies
for
that.
Yes,
that
should
be
the
21st
of
september.
There's
always
one
that
gets
through.
Isn't
it
so
sorry
for
that.
K
Yes,
don't
cancel
your
don't,
cancel
your
christmas
plans
for
that
one
say
21st
of
september
and
then
consultation
to
be
in
mid-october,
with,
as
I
said,
finalizing
the
consultation
strategy,
and
I
know,
as
with
every
consultation
that
we
do,
we
would
obviously
review
and
analyze
the
comments
that
we
receive
before
you
know.
K
Hopefully,
progress
into
a
submission
of
of
this
plan
in
2023,
so
yeah
just
like
to
yeah
open
up
to
throw
to
questions
and
comments,
but
also,
let's
take
the
opportunity
to
to
thank
both
members
and
colleagues
at
the
other
end
of
the
table,
but
also
in
the
in
the
department
for
a
lot
of
hard
work
to
bring
these
policies
together.
A
Thank
you
very
much
adam,
and
can
we
also
thank
colleagues
at
the
far
end
of
the
table
for
the
work
they've
put
in
on
these
policies?
They
are
incredibly
detailed
and
the
amount
of
research
and
calculation,
and
so
on
that
you
put
into
those,
is
really
amazing,
first
class.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
and
I
do
think
today's
presentation,
adam
has
been
absolutely
superb.
Thank
you.
It's
been
really
well
sequenced
and
easy
to
understand
and
well
presented.
So
that's
given
us
a
good
basis
for
our
discussion
today.
A
C
Can
I
cure
your
comments
in
in
relation
to
the
detail?
You
know
I'm
sure.
As
you
said,
I'm
we've
all
read
it
through.
You
know
some
of
us
might
be
able
to
say
it
was
so
good.
We
read
it
twice,
but
I
don't
think.
C
Of
us-
and
I
think
actually
it's
a
really
from
my
point
of
view-
it's
a
really
good
document,
because
I
think
we're
about
to
do
something
fairly
radical,
and
for
that
I'm
I'm
happy.
C
C
H
Yeah,
this
is
a
criteria,
that's
currently
in
our
existing
core
strategy
under
policy
h2.
H
So
this
is
our
existing
windfall
for
housing
policy
and
it
allows
the
consideration
for
highways,
colleagues,
for
children's
services
and
for
colleagues
in
health
to
consider
the
capacity
of
the
infrastructure,
the
physical
built
infrastructure,
the
buses,
the
schools,
the
gps.
H
C
I'm
just
thinking
chair
that,
given
that
this
is
a
fairly
nebulous
concept
with
the
best
will
in
the
world,
and
I
understand
what
we're
trying
to
I
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
there
some
way
we
could
perhaps
firm
it
up
slightly
to
actually
give.
C
I
think,
particularly
members
of
the
public,
some
sort
of
understanding
as
to
what
you
might
regard
as
capacity
in
transport
etc.
Because,
as
you
know,
people
often
come
to
us
and
say
you
shouldn't-
allow
this
development
to
take
place
because
there's
no
doctor's
surgery,
there's
no,
no,
especially
the
primary
schools
etc.
C
And
if
we
have
a
line
in
it
assumes
that
we
will
take
that
into
account.
So
I
think
we
need.
I
think
it
will
be
useful
for
members
of
the
public
to
understand
what
that
those
criteria
will
be
for
us.
I'm
not
asking
you
to
tell
me
now,
but
I
think
that
might
be
a
useful
one.
A
All
right,
that's
a
really
useful
point,
and
you
know
I'm
sure
you
didn't
use
the
word
nebulous
in
in
a
critical
sense.
You
were
describing
how
how
the
phrase
comes
across
and.
A
But
yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
and
I
can
see
colleagues
at
the
other
end
nodding.
Is
that
something
either
of
you
would
want
to
comment
on.
K
No,
I
think,
I
think,
that's
absolutely
fine.
I
think
the
first
port
of
call
cancer
campbell
would
be
to
probably
go
go
through
the
the
course
strategy
to
see
how
it's
currently
referred
to
and
to
kind
of
use
some
of
that
wording,
which
is
obviously
already
past
examination,
but
if
we
feel
that
that's
not
quite
scratching
the
edge
so
to
speak,
we'll
we
can
obviously
draft
something
additional,
but
nothing.
That's
a
fair
suggestion
happy
to
take
that
on
board.
A
C
Yes,
a
couple
of
extra
ones
partially,
as
you
said,
the
presentation
was
very
good,
so
a
couple
of
these
have
actually
already
been
answered.
I
fought
on
page
13.
C
I
think
we've
we
all
expressed
concerns
about
green
infrastructure,
in
particular
page
13,
on
the
first
bit,
not
being
appendices.
C
I
think
I
I
think
I
I'm
concerned
I've
slowly.
I've
just
lost
my
thread
there.
Sorry,
I
think
we
really
do
need
to
emphasize
the
fact
that
if
you're
providing
green
space,
we
should
be
providing
it
on
site
and
it
is
only
as
a
very
very
last
resort.
C
We
accept
one
site
and
two
buying
out
of
the
the
responsibility,
because
I
think
we've
all
seen
occasions
where
developers
the
the
default
position
is
to
buy
out
of
your
requirements
under
green
space
because
it
shifts
the
responsibility,
maximizes
your
profits,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
ensure
the
word
in
it
ensures
that
that's
a
very
clear
priority.
C
Can
we
just
turn
to
page
14?
We
talk
about
new
policy,
g2b,
ancient
woodland,
long
established
woodland,
ancient
trees
and
veteran
trees,
and
I
think
it
will
be
useful
to
define
what
a
long
established
woodland
is
because
we
often
get
again
at
plans
panels,
members
of
the
public
coming
along
and
saying
to
us.
This
is
an
ancient
woodland.
We've
all
heard
it,
and
actually,
if
you
go
along
a
look
at
it,
the
trees
may
be
50
years
old.
So
I
know
for
some
of
us:
that's
right,
yeah.
C
C
C
So
I
asked
that
question
and
the
subject
dear,
I
think,
to
all
our
hearts
is
viability,
and
I
it's
mentioned
on
page
16,
but
there's
quite
a
big
bit
there.
C
I
think,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
would
like
us
to
feel
confident
that
we
can
resist
the
pressures
from
developers
who
come
along
to
us
and
bring
the
district
value
along
and
say
we
can't
afford
to
do
this.
We
can't
afford
to
meet
your
minimum
standards.
So
therefore,
let
us
build
a
substandard
development
and
at
the
moment
we
don't
seem
to
have
much
in
the
way
of
control
over
that,
because
if
the
district
valuer
says
to
us.
C
In
my
opinion-
and
I
need
some
confidence
that
we
will
be
able
to
resist
that,
and
we
will
have
the
ability
to
say
to
developers
look
what
you're
proposing
to
do
on
this
site
is
not
viable,
go
away
and
come
back
with
something
that
actually
is
and
meets
our
what
are,
after
all,
minimum
standards,
and
I
just
sorry
to
a
couple
more
points
when
we
got
into
a
slightly
thicker
document
on
page
12
it
it
mentions
reducing
the
need.
C
The
the
sp
is
that
sp,
0
or
sp,
o
sp,
0
and
number
nine
says,
reduce
the
need
to
travel
by
car
and
encourage
sustainable
transport
and
occurred
with
policies
again.
C
You've
raised
it
as
well
as
I
have
shared
as
well
as
many
of
us
have
in
that
it.
We
cannot
effectively
allow
developments
to
take
place
that
don't
have
facilities
for
cars.
If
we
haven't
got
in
place
a
public
transport
network
that
allows
you
to
exist
without
a
car
and
I'll
I'll
put
my
bid
in
at
this
point,
because
I
say
on
a
regular
basis
on
city
plans
it
particularly
in
the
city
centre,
where
developers
use
this
principle
that
there's
a
good
public
transport
network.
C
So
we
don't
have
to
provide
car
parking
spaces.
They
are
in
effect
being
subsidized
by
in
by
the
council
in
that
we're
allowing
them
not
to
provide
that
space.
But
in
the
outer
areas
we
would
require
you
to
provide
a
parking
space.
Now
that
parking
space
takes
up
developable
land
and
therefore
reduces,
to
some
extent
the
the
profits
that
a
developer
can
make
within
the
city
centre.
We
don't
ask
that
so.
C
C
G4A,
I
can't
know
5
5
24
green
space
will
be
sought
for
developments
of
10
or
more
dwellings.
Why
10.,
if
there
are
only
9
dwellings,
why
can't
they
have
green
space?
C
Okay
proportionally,
but
why
not-
and
I
think
I
I'll
use
the
example
that
really
irritates
me
about
again-
a
local
planning
application
and
a
developer
comes
along
and
says
to
us.
Actually,
I
want
to
delete,
develop
all
this
site
and
I'm
going
to
split
it
in
two.
C
One
has
five
units
on
one
has
four
units
on
or
one
us
six
units
on
one
last
four
units
on
so
actually
it's
only
four.
I
don't
need
to
do
this
so
use
the
system
against
us.
It
seems
to
me
that
if
we
believe
green
space
is
important,
everybody
ought
to
provide
it,
and
certainly
all
developments
ought
to
have
something
in
that
that
line
and
with
that
channel
you'd
be
pleased
to
know
I'll
stop
talking.
A
So
I'm
going
to
ask
officers
to
take
the
points
that
you've
you've
made
council
campbell
and
make
a
point
about
how
viable
each
of
those
are.
Would
you
like
to
do
that
adam.
B
Martin
wants
to
do
something.
First,
I'm
happy
with
the
green
space:
okay,
one's
counselor
counselor,
so
councillor
campbell,
just
just
come
back
to
me
if
I've
missed
any
of
these,
just
in
terms
of
the
green
space
on
site
policy,
g4
a
which
is
page
57
of
the
document,
which
is
the
one
that
you
took
us
to
last.
B
Actually
that
policy
does
say,
and
that's
an
existing
policy
unchanged
by
the
local
plan,
update
at
this
stage
that
residential
developments
of
10
dwellings
on
welcome
back
to
that
will
be
required
to
provide
on-site
green
space.
B
So
there
is
a
there
is
a
a
preference
for
on-site
there
within
the
policy,
but
then
it
goes
on
to
say
in
determining
whether
that
should
be
on-site
or
off-site
there's
a
series
of
factors
that
can
influence
that,
in
terms
of
looking
at
the
wider
deficits
in
terms
of
quality
and
quantity
of
green
space
within
the
area,
as
well
as
the
the
feasibility
of
that
site,
actually
delivering
that
green
space.
B
Secondly,
in
terms
of
the
definitions,
there
will
be
a
glossary
update,
that's
required,
so
we
will
make
sure
that
any
terms
that
we're
using
are
covered
off
in
in
a
glossary-
that's,
okay
and
and
some
of
those
glossary
definitions
are
actually
in
the
in
the
mppf
as
well.
B
On
the
self-seeding
woodland
point,
I
think
what
I
would
say
to
that
is
we'd
we'd
ensure
that
self-seeded
woodland
had
protection
and
consideration
through
the
development
process
as
part
of
green
infrastructure,
because
what
the
new
green
infrastructure
policies
seek
to
do
is
look
to
look
to
developers
to
assess
the
site
in
terms
of
its
green
infrastructure
merits
before
they
go
on,
which
is
something
very
different
to
the
way
it
is
now.
So
that
would
cover
something
like
a
self-seeded
woodland.
B
The
tree
policies
are
very
much
around
the
sort
of
the
amenity
value,
the
carbon
sequestration,
value
of
trees
that
we
have
in
the
city,
so
so
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
put
the
self-seeded
woodland
section
within
to
that
tree
policy,
but
we'll
take
that
away
and
have
a
think
about
it,
but
but
certainly
the
gi
policy.
The
green
infrastructure
policy
would
would
cover
that
and
on
the
10
dwelling
in
terms
of
triggering
on-site
green
space.
B
That's
what
the
existing
core
strategy
says.
So
the
policy
we
weren't
seeking
to
change
that
and
and
the
ten
dwellings
is
the
threshold
between
a
minor
development
and
a
major
development.
That's
at
the
threshold
at
which
lots
of
things
like
affordable
housing
contributions
and
other
contributions
kick
in,
because
it's
felt
that
at
that
scale
of
development,
the
development
can
accommodate
those
those
additional
benefits.
B
But
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
green
space,
what
our
design
policies
and
what
our
place,
making
policies
designed
to
cover
development
below
10
10
units
as
well
will
do,
is
seek
to
ensure
that
opportunities
for
better
layouts
and
better
recreation
amongst
the
units
can
be
achieved.
But
I
think
a
requirement
for
formal
layout
of
green
space
at
below
10
dwellings
is
probably
too
onerous
within
the
plan.
At
this
stage.
We
certainly
we.
I
can
say
that
I've
given.
C
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
to
me,
and
partly
I
I
could
I
can
agree,
but
there
is
no
reason
why
we
shouldn't
require
a
an
off-site
green
space
contribution
for
10
or
fewer
dwellings,
proportional
of
course,
because
if
you
can't
provide
it
on
site,
it
may
be
difficult
with
a
10.
A
10
unit
development,
but
certainly
green
space
within
the
wider
area
for
the
people
involved
is
important.
So
could
we
perhaps
think
about
a
levy.
A
Can
I
come
in
at
this
point,
I
hear
exactly
what
you're
saying
about
that
and
I
just
wonder
if
the
wording
couldn't
be
made
instead
of
saying
ten
dwellings
is
the
cut-off
point,
and
at
that
point
you
don't
need
to.
Could
we
not
have
a
slightly
more
positive,
framed
sentence
which
actually
says
we
do
expect
you
to
do
whatever
you
possibly
can
in
more
definitive
terms
than
that,
rather
than
say,
there's
no
need
to
even
try.
I
just
wonder
if
we
couldn't
manage
something
around
that.
B
I
think
the
points
well
made
a
chair
and
and
and
thanks
to
councillor
campbell
as
well,
for
that
we
will
take
that
away.
If
that's,
okay
and
we'll
have
a
look
at
what
we
can
do
to
strengthen,
strengthen
that
up
and
encourage
the
developments
of
ten
dwellings
or
fewer
to
provide
some
green
space.
K
Thank
you
sure
I
think,
as
well
as
martin
said,
we'll
obviously
take
that
away,
but
I
think
we
do
need
to
factor
in
the
viability
implications
of
that
which
would
be
different,
obviously
for
smaller
developments.
So
we
may
need
to
think
about
how
that
gets
recalculated
if
there
is
a
cost
attached
to
them
on
that
viability,
point
I'll
I'll
bring
in
nazarene,
because,
obviously
you
made
viability,
points
council,
accountable.
F
Yeah
in
terms
of
councillor
campbell's
concerns
about
developers,
submitting
viability,
appraisals,
I
think
more
than
they
should
do
on
these
sites.
The
viability
work
that
we've
just
undertaken,
carried
out
by
avis
and
young,
shows
quite
strongly
the
strategic
level
the
policies
existing
and
new
are
viable.
F
Despite
that,
I
think
developers
can
sometimes
come
back
with
individual
individual
viability,
appraisals
and
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
really
is
go
back
to
national
planning
guidance,
which
again
quite
clearly
shows
has
indicated
that
local
authorities
should
take
at
a
higher
level
and
should
take
quite
a
strategic
level.
The
work
that
we
do.
F
We
should
have
quite
a
lot
of
confidence
in
that
and
the
onus
is
very
clearly
on
developers
to
demonstrate
when
there
is
a
departure
from
the
strategic
work,
and
I
guess
that
comes
down
again
to
us
as
a
local
planning
authority
being
quite
cautious
with
developers
and
saying
that
actually,
our
work
is
quite
strong.
You
know
it's
got
a
strong
strategic
viability
basis
and
we
have
every
confidence
that
these
policies
can
be
demonstrated.
F
If
there
is
a
difference
and
a
developer
is
submitting
a
viability
appraisal,
we
need
to
be
stronger
as
a
local
planning
authority.
In
saying
that,
we
won't
accept
that
in
some
instances.
C
C
The
smaller
ones
are
into
an
issue,
and
I
think
it's
part
of
that.
Okay,
if
you're
not
doing
it
on
site,
if
you're
making
a
contribution
into
the
pot.
If
you
wanted
a
better
word
proportionally
for
you,
you
know
that's
on
these
developments.
It's
not
really
an
issue.
C
That
developers
use
to
avoid
meeting
all
the
commitments
that
we
we
ask
for
now
and
we're
in
the
process
of
asking
for
what
developers
will
describe
as
more
onerous
requirements
to
meet
our
what
we
describe
as
our
minimum
standards,
and
so
I
can
foresee
that
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
more
with
developers
coming
along
to
us,
I'm
basically
saying
we
can't
provide
any
of
the
things
that
you
want
us
to
do
like
affordable
housing
like
green
space,
etc.
C
If
we
want
this
development
to
make
us
the
20
profit
that
that
we
were
expecting-
and
it
seems
to
me
that
in
some
ways,
if,
if
what
you're
saying
is
true,
what
we're
saying
in
relation
to
viability
is
slightly
wishful
thinking
and
it
would.
I
would
prefer
us
to
see
if
we
can
create
a
form
of
words
which
is
more
robust
and
simply
makes
it
clear
to
developers
that
we
wish
them
to
meet
our
minimum
standards.
A
I
think
the
problem
with
viability,
though,
is
that
we
have
to
believe
what
what
the
developer
says
at
a
certain
level
and
then
the
district
valuer
or
whoever's
looking
at
it
can
do
as
much
work
as
they
like.
Knowing
what
equations
to
use
you
have
to
believe
what
they
tell
you
and
they've
paid
for
it,
and
so
on
and
that's
I
was
talking
to
a
district
evaluator
informally
recently
and-
and
that
was
his
concern
that
that
he
felt
you
know
he
he
had
to
believe
what
they
said
with
no
choice.
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
it's
a
key
issue.
Councillor
campbell
you've
raised
about
viability-
and
you
know:
we've
had
this
before.
Haven't
we
plan
making
exercise
is
the
core
strategy,
the
site
allocation
plan?
I
think
it's
something.
We
need
to
really
flush
out
of
the
examination
process
so
that
we
get
a
very
clear
and
emphatic
position
from
the
inspector
in
the
report.
If
that's
going
to
be
possible
because
I
think
as
nazarene
is
saying,
the
the
work
that's
been
done
demonstrates
that
there
is
viability
at
that
strategic
level
where
we
have
the
challenge.
J
Is
that
developers
come
in?
Don't
they
and
they
say
well,
actually,
our
site?
There
are
some
abnormals
which
doesn't
appear
on
the
radar
at
that
strategic
level,
and
this
is
what's
tipping
it
over
the
edge
but
something's
going
to
have
to
change.
Isn't
it
if,
if
a
climate
emergency
is
being
declared
nationally,
as
well
as
locally,
what's
going
to
change
to
make
these
policies
work?
J
So
I
think,
in
terms
of
how
this
is
presented
through
the
examination
process,
I
think
we
need
a
very
clear
lymphatic
position
from
the
inspector
drawn
out
of
our
evidence
and
we
think
the
evidence
stands
up
and
I
would
hope
that
would
be
sufficient
to
persuade
the
inspector
to
put
it
in
no
uncertain
terms
when
when
they
come
back,
the
challenge,
though
even
with
that,
is
that
it
is
relative.
Isn't
it
I
mean
at
the
moment
the
retail
price
index
is
going
up
and
we're
told
that
the
cost
of
materials
is
going
up
as
well.
J
So
it's
it's
always
subject
to
change,
and
I
think,
if
there's
variance
from
the
strategic
position
to
those
local
positions,
it's
flushing
out
what
those
differences
are
and
whether
they
actually
stand
up
as
evidence
in
their
own
right.
So
I
think
chair.
Our
approach
really
through
the
examination
will
be
to
flush
this
out
so
that
we
are
as
robust
as
we
can
be
in
then
applying
these
policies
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
Through
the
development
management
process,
thank
you.
A
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
move
on.
That's
all
right,
councillor
campbell,
but
I
I
just
want
to
say
one
point
about
your
initial
point
that
you
made
on
green
space
about
encouraging
at
all
levels
or
insisting
even
that
the
green
space
is
on
site,
absolutely
see
the
value
in
that.
But
I
I
think
there
are
exceptions
to
that
personally.
A
For
example,
if
you
get
a
development
which
is
in
every
way
good
and
better,
except
it's
slightly
short
on
green
space,
are
you
really
going
to
say?
Don't
do
it
at
all
or
put
a
bit
in
the
central
pot,
and
the
other
side
of
it
is
that
I'm
in
a
ward,
which
is
surrounded
by
walls
that
have
got
lots
of
space
for
developments
and
the
ward
I
represent
has
virtually
no
space
for
development
at
all.
So
we
never
get
any
any
greed.
A
C
I
don't
disagree.
I
don't
disagree
with
with
what
you've
said
sharon.
It's
not
really
the
position
for
a
long
debate
on
this,
but
I
think
I
I
recognize
that
the
war
that
you
represent
is
has
perhaps
a
greater
deficit
in
green
space
than
some
of
the
other
wards
in
the
city,
and
so
actually
it
would
be
useful
to
get
some
new
green
space
in
there.
C
And
what
worries
me
about
the
the
marshall
developers
have
for
buying
out
is
that
they
simply
make
a
contribution
into
parks
and
countryside's
pot,
which
goes
to
maintain
a
park
for
another
three
or
four
years.
But
we
don't
get
any
more,
and
I
think
it's
that
that
principle,
that
we
should
we
should
be
aiming
to
get
more,
particularly
in
areas
similar
to
the
one
you
represent,
and
that's
really
why
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying.
I
I
That's
I
don't
think
the
issue
is
with
the
strategic
part
of
viability,
because
there's
an
evidence
base
for
it
and
equally
there's
an
opportunity
for
developers
to
test
that
through
the
process
with
the
inspector,
the
the
issue
is
with
the
practicality
of
delivering
and
if
there
was
an
application
reason.
I
can't
remember
the
specifics
where
we
have
the
district
valuer
and
where
it
all
unraveled
was.
They
only
had
to
tell
us
that
the
scheme
they
were
putting
before
us
wasn't
viable.
I
I
They
don't
have
to
say,
but
you
could
do
a
b
and
c
and
that
would
be
viable
and
that
would
make
the
policy
tests
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way.
We
can
capture
that
as
a
requirement
in
here
and
because
that
would
solve
the
problem.
We
will
it's
going
to
be
tested
whether
this
is
viable
as
a
strategic
document.
It's
the
practical
point.
K
I'll
make
a
start
and
that's
we
may
want
to
to
come
in,
but
I
I
think
the
difficulty
with
that
is
that
to
be
able
to
do
that,
we'd
essentially
need
to
do
a
site-by-site
viability
assessment
as
part
of
this
plan
to
prove
that
sites
were
viable,
because
otherwise
the
evidence
that
we've
got
in
front
of
us
is
the
strategic
viability
assessment
which
is
what's
required
as
part
of
plan
making.
K
But
when
it
comes
down
to
individual
application
processes,
it's
always
going
to
be
a
case
of
a
side-by-side
assessment
which
we
won't
have
done
at
this
stage
of
plan
making.
So
it's
quite
difficult
for
this
plan
to
be
able
to
show
the
individual
sites
are
viable,
and
it's
not
going
to
be
possible
for
local
plans
to
change
national
policy,
which
is
probably
more
fundamentally
perhaps.
I
I
didn't
explain
myself
very
well
because
that's
not
the
point
I
was
making
it's
the
site
allocations.
Plan
has
determined
whether
a
site
is
viable
for
development
and
set
out
the
site
requirements
and
what's
deliverable.
The
issue
is
when,
when
a
specific
planning
application
comes
forward,
if
the
developer
says
it's
not
viable,
they
only
have
to
get
the
district
valuer
to
say
if
the
scheme
they
are
proposing
is
viable.
I
They
do
not
have
to
say
whether
or
not
it's
viable
to
develop
the
site.
That's
the
point.
I'm
making
and
we're
put
in
a
position
where,
because
the
district
valuer
has
sent
the
scheme
is
not
viable
to
deliver
those
things.
Therefore,
you
need
to
improve
it.
I'd
like
us
to
be
in
a
position
where
we
can
say
well,
your
scheme
isn't,
but
another
scheme
may
very
well
be
so
go
away
and
bring
us
that
one.
B
Marty
yeah.
Thank
you,
council,
I'm
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
the
local
planning
authority
has
to
assess
the
planning
application,
that's
in
front
of
it
at
any
any
point
in
time
and
as
part
of
that
assessment
can
look
at
the
viability
of
that
scheme.
As
far
as
I'm
aware,
there's
nothing
in
the
regulations
or
in
the
guidance
that
would
suggest
or
allow
for
a
plan
b
or
a
plan
c
through.
B
Looking
at
that
viability
assessment.
The
council,
with
its
viability,
assessor
in
terms
of
the
district
valuer,
can
look
at
where
those
viability
pressures
are
so
they
can
look
at
whether
it's
around
the
affordable
housing
burden,
for
example,
or
whether
it's
around
the
the
layout
of
of
of
the
development
but
could
be
around
density.
And
I
think
the
the
council
would
be
perfectly
within
its
rights
to
say
what
would
a
higher
density
within
this
scheme.
B
Look
like
in
terms
of
viability
and
actually
ask
the
district
valuer
to
to
to
to
advise
on
that,
because
if
the
scheme
was
coming
in
you'll
see
policies
within
here,
it's
actually
looking
at
increasing
the
density
of
development,
both
in
terms
of
making
better
use
of
sites
for
the
climate
change
agenda,
but
also
in
terms
of
getting
better
housing
mixes,
which
I
know
has
been
a
particular
issue
of
by
the
panel
members
in
the
past.
So
I
think
that
there
would
be
that
opportunity
to
say
well
within
our
suite
of
policies.
B
I
I'm
happy
to
leave
that
point.
There
there's
there's
no
point
in
us:
dissecting
all
the
different
policies.
The
point
is
it's
time
to
get
this
in
front
of
the
people
of
leeds
to
let
them
have
their
say.
So
my
next
two
points
are
on
that.
This
was
a
quick
one
on
it's
on
page
four,
I'm
looking
at
electronically,
so
it
might
be
different,
but
on
the
the
nice
colored
picture,
do
you
want
me
to
have
a
surprise?
I'm
not
happy
that
there's
no
mention
of
blue
infrastructure
on
there.
K
I
I
am
now
happy
on
that
point.
Thank
you
and
my
final
one
is
this:
is
this?
Is
it's
quite
a
meaty
tome
to
consult
on,
and
it's
quite
heavy
going
for
those
of
us
that
are
quite
immersed
in
the
process
and
planning
and
development
in
general?
K
I
think
it's
a
really
good
point
constantly.
I'm
sure
many
of
you
have
thought
the
same
in
terms
of
how
we
how
we
present
this-
and
I
think,
obviously
welcome
comments
from
members
foreign
informal
comments
that
members
have
as
well
on
on
that.
We
are
very
aware
that
there
are
regulatory
requirements
of
a
regulation,
19
consultation,
things
like
the
tests
of
soundness
and
how
these
policies
meet
them
or
in
in
some
people's
views,
don't
meet
them.
K
It's
something
that's
an
important
part
of
this
consultation,
but
what
we're
really
keen
to
do
is
ensure
that
that
quite
technical,
legal
language
doesn't
put
people
off.
Who've
got
really
valid
comments
to
make
about
this,
but
might
quite
just
not
quite
be
comfortable
with
what
a
test
of
soundness
is.
It's
our
responsibility
to
in
a
plain
english
way,
explain
how
the
tests
of
soundness
work.
K
It's
our
responsibility,
I
think,
to
summarize
this
material
in
a
plain
english
way
as
part
of
the
consultation
and
we're
keen
to
do
that,
and
if
that's
supported
by
by
dpp,
we
can
we'd
be
happy
to
take
that
forward
as
part
of
the
consultation.
Obviously,
that
wouldn't
be
ready
for
an
exec
board,
but
it
could
also
be
agreed
by
councillor
hayden
and
obviously
the
chief
planning
officer
before
we
go
out
to
consultation.
K
The
only
difficulty
we
have
with
that
is
being
very
clear
to
people
who
are
being
consulted
on
that
that
that's
not
the
plan.
So
we
just
need
to
be
very
clear
about
what
it
is:
we're
seeking
consultation
comments
on
and
and
the
status
of
those
summary
documents.
I
think
they
need
to
be
helpful
guidance
to
explain
what
the
plan
is
doing,
what
it
means
for
you
and
what
it
means
for
your
community.
K
If
you
want
more
technical
information,
please
go
to
to
see
the
actual
reports
and
the
appendices,
so
I
think
we're
keen
to
try
and
give
an
element
of
choice
to
to
people
who
are
getting
involved
in
this
consultation,
as
we
did
with
the
the
first
round
of
consultation
having
summary
documents
to
consult
on,
but
but
also
the
the
main
document
itself.
But
we
do.
I
Yeah
I
just
want
to,
if
maybe
something
like
a
short
video
might
be
the
way
to
do
it,
that
you
could
use
all
social
media
channels
and
then
sign
post
people
to
the
website,
with
perhaps
a
brief
introductory
to
each
policy
and
and
then
more
detail.
If
you
want
to
so
you're,
not
dumbing
down
but
you're,
making
it
as
accessible
to
people
as
possible
to
to
understand
what
it
is
that
they're
commenting.
A
I
actually
think
there's
a
whole
area
of
work
here,
not
just
related
to
this
consultation,
but
to
our
consultation
style
in
general.
If
you
think
about
members
of
of
the
public
who
are
interested
in
green
space,
there's
lots
of
them.
If
you
think
about
members
of
the
public
who
are
interested
in
climate
change
and
what
we
can
do
to
address
it.
A
Council
carl.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
E
That's
fine
jay!
Thank
you.
Just
thinking
about
that
point
I
mean
I
was
going
to
bring
up
the
point
you
made
around
around
young
people
all
that,
but
I
was
talking
a
strategy
and
resources
scrutiny
board
around
the
different
consultations.
We
do
in
different
departments
across
the
council
and
how
I
think
every
department
is
probably
learning
from
how
they
do
consultation,
but
not
necessarily
learning
from
each
other.
Should
I
say-
and
I
think,
having
a
a
way
to
do.
E
Consultation
house
of
the
council
is
probably
a
way
we
need
to
go
and
something
that
people
can
look
at
to
ensure
that
all
the
consultations
we
do
hit
the
right
people.
Absolutely
there
will
be
some
people
that
won't
consultate,
that
one
follow
a
consultation
on
a
local
plan
because
they
have
no
idea
that
it
may
contribute
to
their
local
park.
E
But
it's
our
job
to
make
that
relevant
to
them
going
on.
I've
got
a
couple
of
comments
and
then
a
couple
of
questions
really.
So
I
think
we
discussed
this
in
the
workshop,
but
I
was
going
to
bring
it
up
here,
just
just
to
put
it
more
in
the
public
realm,
but
it's
really
positive
on
this
and
councillor
campbell
said.
This
is
probably
something
quite
radical
in
some
ways.
E
I
think
it
is
and
gives
us
a
tool
that
we
can
use,
but
it's
really
good
in
here
to
have
that
explicit
connection
to
the
carbon
budget,
the
paris
agreement
and
the
climate
change
act
so
that
it
sets
well
to
achieve
those
national
targets.
We
must
achieve
them
at
a
local
level
and
we
really
need
all
areas
to
follow
suit
on
that,
because
there
is
the
targets
we
need
to
meet
are
ambitious
enough.
E
There
is
no
scope
for
one
area
or
one
sector
to
pick
up
on
what
another
region
or
sector
hasn't
managed
to
to
deliver
on.
So
it's
really
good
to
have
that
here,
to
put
it
into
the
bigger
context
and
show
what
we're
trying
to
do
so.
I
think
that's
really
good
to
see
and
that's
something
that
I've
made
discussions
about
before
and
always
been
hard
to
connect.
E
How
does
a
particular
development
or
a
particular
plan
fit
within
what
we
need
to
do
as
a
country
and
and
the
world
in
that
scope,
and
that's
really
interesting
to
have,
and
it's
good
to
see
that
so
obviously
trees,
that
policies
become
more
robust
and
looking
at
actually
replacing
the
value
of
the
trees
rather
than
a
number
that
might
not
necessarily
match
up
in
the
long
term.
But
it's
good
to
see
that
further
protection
of
things
like
hedgerows
ponds,
wetlands
and
another
green
and
blue
infrastructure?
E
That's
equally
as
important,
and
I
mean
we
could
go
and
have
every
site
replace
their
biodiversity
numbers
with
just
planting
the
same
type
of
tree
all
across
the
city
and
we
wouldn't
end
up
with
biodiversity.
There
we'd
end
up
with
a
monoculture.
So
it's
really
good
to
to
see
those
in
my
couple
of
questions
on
it
really
then
so
we
touched
on
those
different
standards
and-
and
that
was
an
approach.
I
know
we
had
a
conversation
around
it.
The
workshop
and
I
agree
that
reducing
that
number
of
standards
is
really
positive.
E
Certainly,
if
something
comes
that
wants
to
do
something,
innovative
and
completely
different
than
we've
done,
something
like
the
situ
development
or
something
comes
along.
Then.
Obviously,
that
can
come
in
front
of
members
of
panel
and
they
can
decide
whether
what
they
are
proposing
to
do
is
equal
to
what
another
development
would
have
to
do,
and
that's
absolutely
fine
and
that
might
work
for
somebody
that
wants
to
follow
a
passive
health
standard
of
some
kind
and
officers.
E
I'm
sure
will
be
able
to
help
us
judge
where
that
sits
up
in
terms
of
the
scale
just
around
that
home
quality
mark
home
quality
mark
4
that
we've
chosen.
I
just
wonder
if
somebody
can
give
me
the
confidence
that
what
we've
chosen
is
one
of
the
higher
requirements
that
would
have
been
there
and
we'll
get
the
development
we
want,
because
what
we're
looking
for?
Really
in
that
somebody,
like
the
climate
innovation
district,
you're,
going
to
come
along
with
something
that
is
quite
radical
and
quite
forward
thinking,
no
matter
what.
E
But
it's
the
main
main
stream
developers
and
the
large
developers
that
are
who
we're
pushing
from
behind
and
making
sure
that
comes
out.
So
that's
my
first
question
and
then
I'll
give
you
a
second
one
on
20
minute
neighborhoods.
I
mean
that's
right
in
many
and
if
you
look
at
that
map,
you
can
see
where
there
are
20
neighborhoods
in
leeds,
and
I
think
what
we've
brought
previously.
E
It's
it's
more
important
to
me
in
a
way
that
we're
trying
to
create
20-minute
neighborhoods
in
those
existing
communities
where
they
don't
have
those
facilities,
then
we're
just
tacking
a
few
more
houses
on
every
every
village
that
exists
in
every
community.
That
does
so.
In
that
point
I
mean
very
much
welcome
that
point
about
exceeding
the
capacity
because
yeah
there's
no
point
adding
houses
to
a
place
with
a
primary
school.
E
If
that's
that
capacity
and
if
you
try
and
find
a
dentist,
that's
currently
taking
on
nhs
patients-
and
you
found
one
across
the
city-
then
do
let
me
know-
and
I'm
sure,
there's
lots
of
people
that
will
be
that
value
that
so
really.
I
just
want
more
of
a
conversation
around
that
that
idea
of
how
the
policies-
and
it
may
be
something
for
local
plan
update
too,
but
the
confidence
in
what
comes
so
there's
policies
that
there
to
create
20-minute
neighborhoods
in
some
of
those
areas
where
they
aren't.
E
So
there
are
developments
like
coastal,
forge
where
they're,
bringing
a
workplace
a
cafe
and
possibly
could
be
a
primary
school
and
the
train
station
is
built
because
of
that
they've
built
their
own
20-minute
neighborhood
and
that's
absolutely
fine
and
builds
it.
But
one
of
the
dots
on
the
map,
for
instance,
is
the
village
of
broadly
that
we
share
chair
that
doesn't
have
a
primary
school,
doesn't
have
a
corner
shop,
but
doesn't
have
dentists
and
doctors
in
it.
E
But
the
policy
should
be
there
to
try
and
create
those
amenities
in
a
similar
way
to
to
public
transport.
In
here,
which
is
the
right
way,
we
are
creating
communities
where
public
transport
can
be
viable.
Are
we
trying
to
create
communities
where
this
infrastructure
will
be
viable
and
where
people
will
be
able
to
walk
actively,
rather
than
just
keep
sticking
five
houses
on
the
existing
communities?
That
are
there.
A
Thanks
councillor
carl
and
ironically,
the
village
of
rodley,
used
to
have
all
of
those
things
until
people
got
cars
and
found
that
they
could
drive
further
on
to
others.
The
quality
mark
iv
question
was
on
my
list
as
well,
and
I'd
just
like
to
add
to
the
points
that
peter's
made.
If
we
settle
on
quality
mark
iv
as
the
sort
of
indicator,
how
then
do
we
inspire
developers
or
even
require
developers
to
think
beyond
that.
K
I
think
I
think
it's
a
good
point
about
homecodesmart4.
I
think
the
important
point
I
think
is
that
or
compared
to
a
lot
of
developments
we
see
in
leeds.
I
think
this
will
be
quite
a
radical
standard.
It
includes
a
lot
of
different
elements
to
it.
So
obviously
it
includes
the
more
traditional
elements
that
we
we
already
cover
in
our
new
policies
in
terms
of
energy
use,
intensity
and
thing,
and
things
about
whole
life
cycle
carbon
things
like
that.
K
But
it
goes
into
a
lot
of
detail
about
a
whole
range
of
standards
such
as
you
know:
bicycle
storage,
waste,
storage
and
those
kind
of
elements.
So
I
think
that
kind
of
quite
itemized
approach
it
just,
but
it
does
give
some
flexibility
to
developers
as
well,
because
it's
it's
about
creating
a
score,
so
you
need
to
meet
minimum
benchmarks
across
a
range
of
standards,
but
you're
not
forced
to
meet
standards
in
everything.
So
there's
still
a
degree
of
flexibility
there,
so
there's
a
degree
of
innovation
that
individual
developers
can
approach
to
it.
K
K
There
is
there's
a
home
quality
mark,
five,
which,
which
is,
I
think,
quite
an
owner
of
standard,
which
I
think
would
be
difficult
for
development
all
development
elites
to
achieve,
which
is
why
we,
we
pulled
back
from
that
to
achieve
four,
but
we
still
think
that
is
a
very
ambitious
but
realistic
set
of
set
of
targets,
and
I
do
think
it
still
allows
for
innovation,
because
it's
it's
about
meeting
at
least
that
standard
there's
nothing
in
the
policy
that
says
they
can't
go
beyond
that
and
I
don't
think
there's
anything
about
home
quality
market
4
that
necessarily
fetters
architectural
ambition
or
place
making.
K
Should
worry
us
in
terms
of
you,
know
fettering
that
kind
of
innovation
and
you're
absolutely
right
cancer,
carl
and
in
terms
of
if
we
do
receive
something,
that's
quite
left-field
scoring
well
in
some
indicators,
then
it
will
enable
us
to-
and
I
think
we've
got
the
ability
to
be
able
to
do
some
read
across
of
how
well
that
does
score
across
home
quality
mark
iv
and
judgments
may
have
to
be
made
at
a
plans
panel
about
whether
the
innovation
that's
been
shown
for
an
individual
scheme
is
worth
perhaps
not
meeting
some
elements
of
home
quality
smart
before,
but
that's
obviously
a
discussion
for
for
another
day
but
yeah.
K
I
I
think
it
would
still
allow
for
that
for
that
innovation,
particularly
when
we're
levering
on
sorry,
including
the
the
sort
of
p,
the
new
p10,
which
is
the
policy
about
design,
quality
and
standards.
I
think,
when
you
read
those
across
together
to
be
able
to
meet
that
really
high
quality
standards
of
design,
I
think
we
got.
We
are
hopefully
going
to
see
a
lot
more
innovation
in
leads.
B
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
just
just
coming
back
on
the
the
other
point
you
made
councillor
carlo
about
the
20
minute,
neighborhoods
and
and
you're
absolutely
right
to
to
conclude
that
this
really
sets
a
good
framework
for
local
plan
update
too,
because
when
we
start
to
look
at
housing
numbers
new
housing,
how
we
distribute
that
housing
and
also
how
we
look
at
employment
and
and
the
role
it
plays
within
a
20-minute
neighborhood.
B
This
policy
will
really
set
a
really
good
framework
for
us
to
do
that.
So,
if,
if
we
look
at
the
sort
of
hexagonal
map
that
was
shown
on
the
screen,
it's
really
rich
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
information
and
data
that
we
have
within
it,
and
it
will
enable
us
to
have
a
much
better
conversation
with
local
people.
B
20
minute
neighborhoods,
I
think
all
of
that
would
be
really
well
served
by
having
this
in
the
local
plan
update
at
this
stage.
So
so
there's
definitely
a
lot
more.
I
think
that
we
can
do
with
the
20-minute
neighborhood
policy,
as
we
then
look
to
other
parts
of
the
local
plan
and
other
the
different
scope
around
housing,
for
example,.
E
Yeah
thanks,
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
useful,
and
I
knew
that
whole
creation
of
a
kind
of
different
way
of
allocating
sites
and
working
out
development
was
something
that
will
will
come
forward
because
I
I
guess
my
one
comment
on
there
is-
is
looking
at
then
the
the
capacity
of
transfer
so
that
point
3c
the
capacity
of
transport,
educational,
health
infrastructure
as
existing
or
provided
as
a
condition
of
development.
E
So
can
I
just
have
confidence
that
that
means
say
say
something
does
come
through
in
the
village
of
rodley
for
15
houses,
and
we
know
that
they
haven't
got
a
bus
service
that
serves
that
particular
area.
I
mean
it
could
be
any
area
of
the
city
I
didn't
add
in
wherever
you
want.
They
haven't
got
that
doctor
surgery
that
we
would
be
minded
to
refuse
that
unless
that
comes
through
as
a
condition.
E
So
unless
you
can
provide
a
frequent
enough
bus
service
for
that
village
in
order
to
serve
yourself
and
and
the
community,
that's
there,
then
that's
something
we
will
be
minded
to
avoid.
Obviously
this
is
for
windfall
sites
only.
I
will
know,
rather
than
than
the
allocated
club.
B
That's
correct
councillor,
carlin
and,
and
that's
the
right
distinction
to
make
this
is
for
windfall
sites.
So
when
the
council
is
looking
at
allocating
land
it,
it's
got
more
power
up
front
to
then
talk
to
infrastructure
providers
and
clarify
exactly
what
elements
of
that
20-minute
neighborhood
are
missing
and
might
be
needed
to
accompany
any
future
housing
growth.
D
D
I
I
suspect
that
I
suspect
that
some
areas
will
have
better
access
to
facilities,
but
still
have
very
high
levels
of
need,
and
I
wonder
how
much
of
that
will
be
about
barriers
to
access
like
financial
barriers
or
whether
it
be
time
barriers,
because
you
can
be
time
poor
as
as
well
as
cash
for
on
the
viability
concerns.
D
I
fully
agree
with
colleagues
across
the
table
and
on
this
side
my
my
concern
about
it
is
that
we
will
have
local
update
to.
If
all
of
these
policies
are
put
in
place,
how
much
wiggle
room
will
be?
Will
we
have
left
to
increase
the
amount
of
affordables?
For
example?
D
That's
that's
a
very,
very
real
concern.
I'm
sure
officers
have
heard
me
say
this
before
but
yeah.
I
suppose
it's
a
it's.
A
certain
level
of
priority,
isn't
it
it's
like
sort
of
prioritizing
different
areas.
D
There
was
a
bit
of
talk
earlier
about
increasing
density.
I
would,
I
would
have
concerns
about
increased
pressure
on
services.
The
the
dentistry
point
is
a
really
important
one
across
the
uk,
apparently
we've
we've
got
nine
out
of
ten
dentists,
refusing
nhs
patients.
D
And
I
suppose,
like
as
a
as
a
continuation
of
that
I'd
just
like
to
know
what
actual
powers
we
have
as
a
as
a
planning
authority
to
insist
upon
a
specifically
nhs
dentist
to
be
included
in
a
development,
and
I
suspect
that
we've
got
none
at
all.
D
But
that's
that's
certainly
something
that
we
should
be
kicking
and
screaming
about,
because
we
should
have
those
powers.
We've
got.
We've
got
constituents
who
are
getting
in
touch
with
us
demanding
to
know
why
they're
not
able
to
get
an
nhs
dentist
so
yeah.
That's
me:
okay,.
A
Thanks
councillor
brooks
adam,
are
you
going
to
start
us
off.
K
Yeah
I'll
start
stuffing,
maybe
the
caffeine
catherine
armata
may
want
to
come
in
for
further
detail.
I
think
on
on
the
first
point,
yeah
in
terms
of
leaving
in
things
like
the
super
output
areas
and
the
inclusive
growth
strategy.
I
think
catherine
made
the
point
in
her
in
her
presentation
about
the
great
thing
about
transfer
networks
concept
is
that
it
isn't
just
a
planning
tool.
It
can
be
used
across
a
whole
range
of
different
disciplines,
and
I
think
that's
how
we
see
this
working.
It
may
be.
K
The
the
other
sections
of
the
council
working
closely,
obviously
with
us,
can
can
show
this
in
slightly
different
ways
and
and
have
super
output
areas,
and
things
like
that.
So
I
think
that
could
work
really
really
well.
I
think
there's
lots
more.
We
can
do
with
this.
I
think
we
just
we're
just
starting
out
with
it.
I
think
it's
almost
the
tip
of
the
iceberg
of
what
this
can
do.
K
So
I
think
I
think
it's
exciting
times
for
this,
but
we
so
we're
kind
of
learning
as
we
go,
but
I
think
that's
a
really
good
example
of
something
we
can
add
in
to
make
that
work
for
across
a
range
of
different
sectors.
I'm
sure
there's
lots
of
other
layers.
We
could
layer
in
as
well.
The
beauty
of
sort
of
digital
mapping
is
that
we
can
do
that
so
much
easier
than
we
we
could
have
done
10
years
ago.
K
So
I
think
it
is
a
really
exciting
time
for
that,
in
terms
of
the
wiggle
room
for
for
affordable
housing
in
local
plan,
update,
2
yeah,
I
mean
you're
right
in
terms
of
the
prioritization
is,
is
obviously
an
issue.
I
mean
we
can't
really
comment
on
that
right
now,
because
it's
we'll
have
to
assess
the
viability
of
that
planet
at
that
time,
which
will
obviously
be
some
years
away.
K
I
think
we
have
to
be
aware
of
the
general
position,
which
obviously,
I
think
you've
already
reflected
on
that,
the
more
we
ask
of
development,
the
the
more
the
viability
pressures
do
become
pronounced,
but
at
the
same
time,
values
increase
as
well.
The
amount
that
developers
can
sell
properties
for
increases
in
some
areas,
so
there
are
there-
are
benefits
through
going
forward
in
time
as
well,
because
what
we'll
often
hear
is
that,
well
things
just
get
more
expensive
to
build.
K
Well,
they
do
to
a
degree,
although
there's
some
particular
price
pressures
at
the
moment
that
we
would
hope
might
start
to
relax
over
the
few
years,
but
also
values
increase
as
well.
So
it's
not
a
one:
it's
not
a
one-way
process,
viability.
There
are
elements
to
it
which,
which
also
enhance
viability.
So
it
may
be
the
case
in
a
number
of
years
that
that
picture
looks
different
from
it.
The
way
it
looks
at
the
moment,
but
it
is
hard
to
comment.
K
I
think,
at
this
stage,
what
the
viability
of
future
plans
may
look
like
in
terms
yeah
the
question
about
the
the
pressure
on
services
and
the
point
about
dentists.
K
Yes,
I'm
afraid
we
don't
have
the
power
to
to
require
nhs
dentists
to
be
delivered
on
site,
and
it
obviously
goes
well
beyond
planning
some
of
those
those
issues.
But
I
I
think
it's
something
that
we
could.
K
B
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
yeah.
I
think
just
following
on
from
adam's
point,
I
think
the
20-minute
neighborhood
concept
works
a
number
of
different
ways,
and
one
of
them
would
potentially
be
around
critical
mass,
so
actually
getting
the
best
out
of
new
development
to
to
to
bring
the
right
number
of
new
residents
to
an
area
where
we
know
from
our
work
with
nhs
partners
that
actually,
that
then
can
create
a
critical
mass
to
deliver
new
or
expanded
health
infrastructure
and
other
types
of
infrastructure.
B
I
think
the
point
was
made
earlier.
I
think
it
was
councillor.
Carlyle
was
saying
that
we
probably
need
to
stop
just
incrementally
expanding
places,
because
that's
where
the
pressure
comes.
I
think
this
gives
us
a
much
more
better
framework
to
to
start
looking
at
where
actually,
the
right
critical
mass
can
be
delivered
in
terms
of
new
housing,
a
new
housing
acting
as
a
proper
lever
of
investment
to
local
areas,
to
remedy
some
of
those
20-minute
gaps,
and
that
will
work
with
health
as
well
as
other
things
as
well.
D
Come
back
councillor
brooks
yes
please.
So,
when
is
when
is
local
plan
update
2
happening.
B
The
intention
is
to
have
a
workshop
with
members
in
october
and
at
the
end
of
the
formal
business
of
this
meeting
I'll,
be
asking
members
to
have
a
look
at
their
diaries
to
see
when,
when
that
might
happen,
and
then
to
bring
a
formal
paper
to
november
the
development
plan
panel
on
the
scope
of
lpu2.
G
G
Look
the
council
can
do
it.
You
can
do
it,
because
it's
a
problem
that
we're
coming
up
against,
because
we're
then
told
we'll
put
you
on
conditions
and
with
the
greatest
respect
to
enforcement.
They
are
not
the
greatest
at
enforcing
conditions
that
are
put
on
planning
applications.
So
how
can
we
build
words
into
this
document?
G
That
say
this
is
the
minimum
we
expect
of
you,
but
we,
you
know
and
giving
the
impression
that
we're
looking
for
people
to
volunteer
to
go
further,
if
they
you
know,
and
the
council
should,
in
my
view,
be
going
further
in
applications
that
they're
bringing
forward
if
the
universities
were
coming
forward.
I'd
make
exactly
the
same
argument
that
they
are
saying
that
they
are,
you
know,
going
to
be
compliant
by
2030..
Well,
if
that's
the
case,
how
about
showing
it?
G
Because
we've
got
an
aspiration
to
be
zero
by
2030,
which
means
there's
going
to
be
absolutely
a
lot
of
retrofitting
done,
so
the
the
more
we
can
get
that
done
in
planning
applications
just
now,
the
better
it's
going
to
be
for
meeting
the
2030
target
and
I'm
concerned
that
we
keep
being
fobbed
off
every
time.
It's
not
in
the
policy.
G
There's
a
review
of
policy
coming
up.
That's
our
opportunity
to
do
it,
but
we've
got
nothing
in
here.
That
says
this
is
purely
minimum
standards.
A
At
the
example
that
you
give
I'm
not
on
the
plans
panel
for
I'm
presuming
that
you
are
councillor
anderson
and
my
understanding
of
it
is
that
it
was
a
council
application
which,
in
members
views
fell
short
on
climate
change
issues
and
that
we
ourselves
as
a
council,
should
be
showing
more
initiative.
Yeah
I've
got
the
rights
yeah,
so
there
may
well
be
lessons
to
be
learned
from
that,
and
you
know
I
would
agree
with
the
sentiment
that
we
should
be
at
the
top
of
the
list
in
terms
of
good
practice.
G
K
I'll
I'll
respond,
but
maybe
that
others
want
to
come
in
as
well,
but
I
think
the
point
is,
with
this
suite
of
policies
that
it's
it's
not
about
a
minimum
that
we're
just
about
okay
with
people
meeting.
These
are
really
ambitious
policies
that
we
should
be
really
keen
to
ensure
that
all
development
meets
and
when
they
meet
it,
that
should
be
more
than
enough.
Well,
not
more
than
enough.
It
should
be
enough.
You
know
this
expects
development
to
be
zero.
K
Carbon
expects
development
to
be
very
high
quality
in
terms
of
design,
placemaking,
very
high
quality
in
terms
of
new
green
space
and
all
the
gpis.
I
think
we're
setting
a
really
high
bar
that
we
should
be
really
expecting
to
be
met.
I
don't
think
we
should
necessarily
set
it
out
as
here's
the
minimum
we'd
like
you
to
do
better.
K
I
think
that's
more
of
a
challenge
in
terms
of,
and
it's
up
to,
it's
not
necessary
for
planners
to
tell
council
departments
how
they
want
to
progress
their
own
planning
applications
if
they
are
policy
compliant,
but
I
think
it's
it's
important
that
we
reflect
on
the
weights
that
we
can
give
to
these
policies.
K
So
at
this
point
in
time
we
can't
give
them
any
weight,
but
we
have
to
be
very
clear
on
what
national
policy
says
about
weight
given
to
policies.
So,
following
a
round
of
consultation,
we're
able
to
give
weight
to
policies
dependent
on
the
level
of
objection
and
consistency
with
national
policy.
So
at
that
point
onwards
we
can
start
to
give
potentially
these
policies
some
wait,
but
there
is
a
difficult
period
in
the
in
the
meantime
which
we
accept.
I
think
david
you
wanted
to
come
in
on
this
point.
Well,
it
was.
J
Just
to
make
the
point
chair
that
I
mean
the
policies
apply
to
everybody,
don't
they
the
council,
as
well
as
the
the
investors
out
there
wanting
to
invest
in
leads,
I
mean
as
a
service.
We
encourage
pre-application
discussions
with
developers
externally
and
internal
projects
as
well,
and
we
want
to
see
all
of
those
proposals
meet
the
policy
requirements
that
we
have
and
which
have
been
adopted.
J
I
mean,
as
with
external
schemes,
council
schemes
are
often
subject
to
time
constraints,
financial
pressures,
all
sorts
of
issues
in
terms
of
meeting
all
sorts
of
different
demands
and
requirements
within
a
compressed
time
scale.
But
we
are
through
the
planning
service
seeking
to
deliver
the
policies
that
we've
worked
through
with
members
and
we've
adopted
through
an
examination
process
and
we'll
continue
to
to
do
that
in
terms
of
the
pre-out
work
and
then
in
considering
individual
applications.
G
Attended
some
workshops
must
mean
about
two
years
ago,
where
we
invited
in
certain
developers
who
came
in
and
volunteered
that
they
were
going
to
be
building
almost
zero
carbon
type
properties,
and
there
was
one
section
of
the
development
community
who
either
who
were
both
not
present
and
didn't
necessarily
buy
into
what
their
colleagues
were
doing.
So
their
colleagues
are
confident
enough
that
they've
got
a
business
model
that
enables
them
to
build
almost
zero
carbon
properties,
but
the
other.
G
G
They
possibly
can
it's
a
bit
like
the
comment
that
comes
to
alarm
made
earlier
on
a
particular
application
might
not
be
viable
this
way,
but
by
tweaking
it
slightly,
it
suddenly
becomes
viable,
and
so
our
job
as
planning,
I
would
argue,
on
plans
panel,
should
be
to
get
plans
that
are
to
benefit
everybody.
If
we
possibly
can
that
our
role
should
be
to
do
that,
and
it's
just
it
frustrates
me
that
we're
not
willing
to
go
to
state
that
extra
bit
further.
B
I'm
just
just
just
really
to
clarify
counselor
anderson,
because
the
policy
that's
in
front
of
you
is
aiming
for
net
zero
operational
carbon,
which
is
goes
further
than
government
guidance
and
goes
further
than
the
majority
of
local
authorities
in
the
country,
have
policies
for
and
and
and
it
in
a
sense.
G
About
zero
cost,
so
in
other
words
it
they
are
in
terms
of
the
current
emergency.
We've
got
the
energy
just
now
people.
You
know
these.
Some
of
these
developers,
who
we
met,
can
come
up
with
almost
zero
cost
to
run
your
house
because
of
the
way
it's
been
built
because
of
the
they
they.
How
do
we
get
people
building
to
that
standard
within
these
clients?
B
So
the
scope
of
of
this
plan
was
was
very
much
about
carbon
when,
when
members
agreed,
the
local
plan
update
and
the
policies
are
very
much
written
around
that
zero
carbon
agenda.
But
the
advantage
of
having
excuse
me
a
carbon
reduction
policy
which
looks
at
the
energy
that
that
building
uses
and
goes
further
than
building
regulations
to
ensure
that
just
bear
with
me.
One
take
to
take
a
drink.
B
To
ensure
that
the
fabric
of
the
building
is
is
actually
better
than
building
megs
currently
set
out
has
an
added
benefit
in
terms
of
reducing
occupiers,
energy
costs
now
so
the
cost
of
living
crisis.
Thank
you,
which
is
emerged
part
way
through.
B
The
progression
of
these
policies
is
a
consideration
with
to
the
benefits
of
the
policy,
because
it
has
a
dual
outcome,
but
the
policies
aren't
written
specifically
around
zero
cost
energy
and
and
zero
cost
energy
developments,
because
that's
not
where
we
started
from,
but
but
but
if
we
were
to
do
that,
the
the
point
that
we've
heard
from
the
industry
and
our
evidence
base
is
that
it's
not
feasible
or
possible
to
achieve
everybody
in
leeds
having
a
passive
house,
because
simply
the
materials
don't
exist,
that
the
construction
industry
simply
isn't
geared
up
to
it
at
the
moment,
and
and
we
would
find
that
we
wouldn't
get
that
policy
through
an
inspector
because
we
simply
wouldn't
be
able
to
demonstrate
it
was
effective
for
us
to
build
three
and
a
half
thousand
passive
houses
in
leeds
each
year.
B
But
what
this
does
is
this
allows
for
the
passive
house
to
cut
to
come
forward
as
part
of
meeting
our
policy,
but
it
will
also
then
encourage
a
change
in
terms
of
the
green
economy
and
and
the
local
green
economy
in
terms
of
manufacturing,
different
technical
solutions
for
buildings,
which
are
all
going
to
be
really
important
for
leeds
to
go
further
along
the
zero
carbon
journey.
K
It
was
just
a
supplement.
Martin's
point
is
in
terms
of
costs,
the
the
energy
usage
intensity
targets
that
we
put
into
en1,
part
2,
and
the
space
heating
standards,
I
think,
are-
are
quite
radical
and
they
will
dramatically
reduce
heating
and
energy
costs
for
for
the
occupiers
of
those
new
dwellings.
So
I'm
quite
confident
about
that,
and
that's
that's
not
being
done
in
many
authorities,
so
I
think
we
can
take
some
confidence
that
we
are
pushing
that
agenda
in
terms
of
reducing
costs
down
quite
significantly.
A
Does
raise
some
issues
actually
that
we
were
discussing
on
site
adam
where
passive
house
does
a
certain
number
of
things
to
reduce
carbon
and
make
them
efficient
and
then
presumably
home
quality
mark
iv
might
do
some
of
those,
but
a
different
subset
of
or
a
different
set
off
and
then
different
ones
that
you
come
across
do
different
sets
of
things
and
what
I
was
trying
to
come
to
terms
with
is
why
aren't
we
actually
doing
everything?
Well,
I
think
we've
got
a
bit
of
an
explanation
there,
but
I
I
guess
the
direction
of
travel
is.
A
We
will
gradually
draw
in
more
of
those
techniques,
whatever
they
are
building
techniques.
Electric
techniques.
I
understand
passive
house-
aren't
particularly
worried
about
where
the
water
comes
from,
for
example,
whereas
other
other
types
of
developers
will
take
more
account
of
that.
So
it's
a
question
of
having
the
balance
across
the
range
of
strategies.
I
think
counselor
brooks.
D
Thanks
j,
just
a
quick
one,
really
it's
on
a
completely
different
topic:
it's
about
water
efficiency
on
page
33,
so
on
the
it's
on
the
first
first
chunky
pack,
so
it
says
it
says
in
this
that
the
natural
resources
flow
analysis
found
that
overall
water
consumption
within
leads
is
higher
than
average.
I
was
just
wanting
to
know
how
much
of
that
is
like
have
we
worked
out,
whether
that's
due
to
actual
consumption
or
whether
it's
due
to
leaks
really.
K
I'll
ask
him
to
come
in
here,
but
I
think
it's.
This
is
an
example
of
some
probably
slightly
out
of
date,
text
on
that
particular
reference
to
the
the
flow
analysis
which
you
may
need
to
just
clarify
helen.
I
don't
think
if
we
could
just
sort
of
capture
that
that
that
point
in
terms
of.
D
Yeah
yeah,
certainly
we
that
that
is
a
bit
out
of
date.
Now
that
fact
so
I
I
think
we
probably
need
to
take
it
out
just
because
it
was
when
we
had
that
evidence
based
back
in
about
2008.
D
D
D
We're
not
gonna
have
an
opportunity
to
do
another
natural
resource
flow
analysis,
which
was
a
very
useful
thing
to
do
at
the
time,
but
that
looked
at
overall
consumption
of
resources
across
the
district.
D
So,
rather
than
looking
at
updating
that
exercise,
we
know
we've
got
strong
evidence
that
supports
better
water
consumption
and
being
sensible
with
the
use
of
water.
So
we've
got
evidence
about
the
the
water
shortage
that
we've
currently
got.
That's
a
better
statistic
to
use
to
support
the
policy.
A
Okay,
right,
I
don't
think
I've
got
any
more
in
the
queue
I'm
very
sorry
councillor
hayden
did
I
miss
you.
No.
D
You
didn't,
I
was
just
waiting
for
an
any
other
comments
really
and
just
on
the
point
that
was
raised,
and
I
don't
know
the
particulars
of
the
the
council
planning
application
that
came
forward,
which
didn't
wasn't
very
good
when
it
came
to
carbon
just
want
to
draw
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
council
does
lead
the
way
in
a
new
market
house
between
mine
and
and
birmingham
richmond
hill
ward
is
an
example
of
use
of
recycled
materials.
D
All
the
paint
is
recycled,
that's
used
in
for
the
concrete,
the
and
it's
probably
the
greenest.
It's
definitely
the
greenest
building
that
the
council
owns,
if
not
the
one,
the
greenest
in
it's
not
painted
green
by
the
way,
but
that
we
can
and
we
do
lead
the
way
when
it
comes
to
carbon
going
carbon
neutral.
D
My
second
part
comment
is
to
just
echo
your
thanks.
It's
a
huge
amount
of
work
over
the
last
year
or
even
longer
and
really
detailed,
and
it's
I'm
really
pr.
I'm
really
proud
of
the
team
and
just
wanted
to
pass
on
my
huge
thanks
to
all
the
team.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
councillor
hayden.
If
there
are
no
more
comments
or
questions,
can
we
just
look
at
the
recommendations?
Please,
which
are
at
the
bottom
of
page
nine
of
the
committee
report?
A
A
Thank
you
yes,
and
do
you
think
council
hayden,
the
executive
board
will
benefit
from
the
non-technical
summary
which
we
could
have
done
with.
First.
D
A
Missed
one:
okay,
that's
fine!
The
only
other
item
of
business
is
the
date
of
next
meeting
which
everybody
has
in
the
papers
and
I
hope
you'll
all
be
able
to
attend,
and
can
I
thank
you
all
for
this
afternoon's
discussion
and
all
your
contributions.