►
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
My
Micron
good
afternoon,
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
north
and
east
plans
panel.
My
name
is
Council,
Javed,
actor
and
I
will
be
chairing.
Today's
meeting
could
I
remind
everyone
that
today's
meeting
has
been
live
streamed
on
lead
city,
council,
YouTube
channel,
so
the
member
Republican
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
North
and
east
plans
panel
deals
with
applications
from
the
north
east
and
the
east
of
the
city.
A
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
information
from
applicant
members
of
public
Council
offices
to
help
members
of
The
Plum
panel
to
make
their
decision
could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves,
and
once
you
have
mute
your
microphone
I
could
start
from
the
left.
Thank
you.
H
Caselo
Jones
subbing
for
councilor
hesselwood.
A
J
Thank
you
chair
under
gender
item
number
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
gender
item
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
under
gender
item
three.
There
are
no
late
items
that
I'm
aware
of
under
a
gender
item.
Four
could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interest
they
may
have.
I
Sure
I
declared
this
last
time.
It
came.
It's
not
pecuniary,
but
I
am
director
of
the
multi,
a
director
or
multacademy
trust.
That's
going
to
sponsor
the
primary
school
on
the
community
Hub
parts
of
gender
of
the
second
item.
So
it's
not
pecunery,
but
I'll
restrict
comments
in
that
way.
J
A
Thank
you
item
six
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
27th
of
July
2023.
Do
member
accept
these
minutes
are
true
and
true
and
correct
record.
Thank
you
and
you
want
to
Second
comes
from
McKenna.
Thank
you.
A
B
So
this
is
an
application
at
corner
cottage
for
the
realignment
of
the
existing
stone
wall
to
facilitate
vehicle
and
pedestrian
movements
to
Brahman
Road,
the
erection
of
two
outbuildings,
the
replacement
of
an
existing
Timber
fence
with
a
new
stone
boundary
wall
and
Gates
pillars,
replacement
of
an
existing
single
story,
extension
to
Corner
Cottage,
the
change
of
use
of
land
to
parking
with
Associated,
hard
standing
and
Landscaping.
B
As
the
chair
mentioned.
This
item
was
previously
heard
at
the
February
plans
panel.
A
decision
on
the
application
was
deferred
for
further
consultation
with
Community
groups
to
see
if
outstanding
objections
could
be
resolved
through
further
discussion
and
the
ways
in
which
this
further
discussion
has
taken
place
has
set
out
at
paragraph
nine
of
the
reports,
and
this
was
also
during
this
period.
B
The
clarification
was
sought
in
relation
to
the
servicing
proposed
to
parts
of
the
proposal,
including
consultation
with
the
Leeds
access
officer
and
conservation
in
relation
to
the
use
of
cobbles,
which
has
now
been
amended
to
Stone
sets.
B
So
here
we
have
the
site
plan
for
the
application
sites,
as
outlined
in
red.
As
you
can
see,
it's
a
U-shaped
application
site
with
entrance
points
from
both
Brahm
and
raid,
which
is
to
the
left
of
the
red
line
and
from
high
streets
which
is
to
the
north
above
the
the
second
part
of
the
u-shape
onto
High
Street.
B
There
are
also
positive
structures
of
as
designated
within
the
Clifford
Conservation
Area
and
management
plan,
Conservation,
Area
appraisal
and
management
plan.
B
B
So
here
we
can
see
the
aerial
view
of
the
application
sites
and
you
see
the
proximity
to
the
edge
of
the
village
and
that
sort
of
Gateway
location
into
the
Conservation
Area,
and
you
can
also
see
that
it's
part
of
the
approach
from
the
village
of
Brahman,
which
is
to
the
South
Brahman
Road
running
past
the
application
sites
and
from
where
the
application
site
access
is
existing
and
proposed
to
continue
to
be
used.
And
you
can
also
see
some
dwellings
to
the
south
of
that
u-shaped
Red
Line
boundary.
There.
B
So
I'll
run
through
some
of
the
site
photos,
and
here
you
can
see
the
baptismal
well
and
flanking
walls
which
are
grade
2
listed
structure
on
the
right
hand,
side
on
the
left
hand
side
you
can
see
the
grade
2
listed
heads
house
at
Northway,
school
and
just
use
School
room
which
are
now
in
uses
dwellings,
and
so
you
can
see
the
boundary
Walls
Within.
The
setting
and
the
application
site
is
just
sort
of
at
the
rear
of
this
image.
On
the
left
hand,
side
with
the
the
pan
tile
Red
Roof,
there.
B
Again,
you
sort
of
continuing
the
approach
along
Brahman
Road
here,
so
you
can
see
a
bit
more
of
the
application
sites
and
the
boundary
wall
and
which
forms
part
of
the
application.
You
can
also
see
the
single
story,
side
extension,
which
exists
to
Corner
Cottage
at
present,
which
is
sort
of
within
the
center
of
the
screen,
and
the
image
that
you
can
see
there.
B
B
You
can
also
see
the
existing
extension
again
visible
above
the
the
boundary
wall
as
existing
the
low
section
of
wall
which
is
adjacent
to
the
access
which
sort
of
does
the
dog
lane
at
a
right
angle
from
the
boundary
wall,
positioned
along
the
rear
of
the
the
back
of
the
pavement
Edge,
and
you
can
also
see
the
the
hard
standing
evidence
within
the
sites
and
the
tarmac
within
this
part
of
the
application
site.
B
And
here's
just
another
view
showing
the
relationship
to
the
dwellings
of
South
and
again
the
fencing
that
is
evident
within
that
setting.
You
see
kind
of
the
visual
break
between
the
the
more
historic
development
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
image
and
the
the
newer
development.
That's
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
image
sort
of
houses
from
around
the
80s.
B
Again,
that's
sort
of
a
continuing
view
along
the
street
scene
and
you
can
see
the
The
Rake
in
the
boundary
wall
That's
existing
as
it
step
sort
of
steps
down
in
height
like
near
the
vector
axis,
and
you
can
see
some
of
the
variation
along
the
boundary
wall
as
well,
which
occurred
along
the
lifetime
of
its
existence.
So
you
can
see
where
there's
a
gate
inserted.
You
can
see
different
ages
of
stonework
and
where
there's
been
repairs
and
the
sort
of
different
character
of
these
different
sections
of
the
boundary
wall.
B
B
B
And
this
is
the
access
as
taken
from
high
streets,
and
so
this
is
proposed
to
be
pedestrianized
as
part
of
The
Proposal,
with
stone
sets
laid
between
the
the
properties
at
one
to
six,
the
Greyhound,
and
so
this
would
be
pedestrianized
for
use
of
the
the
Greyhound
residence.
B
So
here
we
have
the
existing
site
plan,
which
shows
the
existing
visibility
space
with
the
blue
line,
as
shown
on
the
plan
there,
and
you
can
see,
the
red
line
shows
the
position
of
the
the
boundary
wall
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
image,
and
then
you
can
also
see
the
visibility
splays
from
The
High
Street
access,
which
is
proposed
to
be
pedestrianized.
As
part
of
this
proposal.
B
And
here
is
the
proposed
site
plan,
so
you
can
see.
The
position
of
the
wall
has
changed
with
a
longer
visibility
display
now
achieved
from
the
Brahman
Road
Site.
Access
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
image,
and
you
can
also
see
the
stone
sets
that
are
proposed
adjacent
as
part
of
that
access
and
stone
sets,
are
also
proposed
where
the
High
Street
access
has
been
pedestrianized.
The
Orange
shows
kind
of
limestone
hard
standing
that
would
be
within
the
sites.
B
The
parking
areas
you've
got
the
the
two
outbuildings
one
with
a
curved
link
into
the
boundary
wall,
a
sort
of
seamless
link
there,
which
is
to
serve
as
a
garage
and
out
building
for
Corner
Cottage
itself,
and
the
second
outbuilding
is
positioned
more
centrally
within
the
site,
and
this
is
to
serve
as
cycle
storage
for
the
residents
of
one
to
six,
the
Greyhound.
B
You
can
also
see
the
single
story,
side
extension,
which
is
positioned
within
the
wall
and
sort
of
runs
seamlessly
into
the
wall,
the
image
at
the
the
top
of
the
screen.
You
can
see
that
elevation
of
corner
Cottage
and
the
extension
on
the
left-hand
side,
the
boundary
wall
breaking
down
in
Heights
and
then
increasing
in
height
again
as
it
becomes
part
of
the
the
outbuilding
that
curves
into
the
application
site
itself.
B
Here
we
have
the
plan
of
the
proposed
single
story,
side
extension
replacing
the
existing
extension,
and
so
you
can
see
in
that
proposed
front
elevation
that
the
the
extension
isn't
visible
above
the
boundary
wall,
so
that
presents
as
part
of
the
boundary
wall
that
is
positioned
behind
that
with
a
flat
roof
and
stone
Walling,
as
opposed
to
the
render,
which
is
currently
evident
to
the
existing
single
story.
Side.
Extension.
B
Here
we
have
the
plans
of
the
two
outbuildings
proposed,
so
there's
the
curved
out
building,
which
is
positioned
alongside
the
or
seamlessly
integrated
into
the
boundary
wall
proposed,
which
is
to
serve
Corner
Cottage
as
a
garage
and
outdoor
storage
and
then
the
second
outbuilding
as
a
cycle
store
for
one
to
six.
B
The
Greyhound,
this
detailing
to
the
doors
windows
and
rainwater
Goods,
as
well
as
the
materials
which
specified
to
be
Stone
and
slates,
that
is
all
can
proposed
to
be
controlled
by
condition,
has
set
out
in
the
conditions
list
at
the
start
of
the
reports.
B
And
so
it's
worth
looking
at
the
the
site
history.
For
this
application.
B
There
was
a
2012
application
for
a
single
dwelling,
as
in
part
of
the
site
which
was
refused
and
the
appeal
subsequently
dismissed.
It
is
considered
as
part
of
this
application
that
the
concerns
of
the
inspector.
C
B
Were
raised
in
relation
to
the
Demolition
and
rebuilding
of
the
wall
in
a
different
position
have
been
addressed.
It
is
set
out
how
the
those
the
scheme
has
developed
as
part
of
the
reports.
B
It's
considered
that
it
has
responded
to
the
previous
concerns
identified
with
sympathetic
detailing
and
sufficient
information
having
been
provided
as
part
of
that
to
address
the
concerns.
In
relation
to
that,
it
is
acknowledged
that,
through
the
the
Demolition
and
rebuild
of
the
wall
is
does
represent
less
than
substantial
harm
to
the
wall
structure,
however,
is
considered
that
this
is
mitigated
through
the
other
aspects
of
the
scheme
and
the
appropriate
methodology
provided.
B
A
methodology
has
been
provided
from
a
stonemason
that
details
the
dismantling
of
the
wall
in
sections
labeling
of
the
stones
in
those
sections,
and
so
that
it's
known
where
the
stone
corresponds
to
in
terms
of
the
dismantling
and
the
storage
in
sections
as
well,
it
is
Con
condition,
is
also
suggested
in
relation
to
the
Secure
Storage
of
the
same
Stone,
to
make
sure
that
this
is
appropriately
controlled.
B
And
it
was
also
considered
that
the
proposals
now
presented
include
a
number
of
enhancements
to
the
conservation
area
when
balanced.
When
looking
at
the
proposal
as
a
whole,
it's
considered
that
the
increase
in
Heights
the
wall
to
obscure
the
single
story
side
extension
to
serve
as
an
enhancements.
Also,
the
introduction
of
the
the
outbuilding
building
up
the
wall
in
that
part
of
the
site
does
serve
to
introduce
the
the
sense
of
containment
that
was
referenced
in
the
inspector's
2012
permission
as
sort
of
being
lost
through
the
loss
of
the
wall.
B
However,
with
the
structures
being
introduced
and
the
new
stone
boundary
walls
being
installed
in
place
of
the
Timber
fencing
that
exists
to
the
sites
that
is
considered
to
serve
as
an
enhancement
that
does
mitigate
against
the
degree
of
less
than
substantial
harm
identified
is
also
emphasize
that,
whilst
the
boundary
wall
is
being
demolished
and
being
moved,
it
is
being
moved
and
then
rebuilt
in
that
new
location,
which
is
again
is
considered
to
retain
the
sense
of
containment
in
relation
to
the
the
site.
B
Over
time,
there
has
been
sort
of
an
opening
up
of
views
within
the
site
and
the
introduction
of
Timber
fencing,
as
was
shown
in
the
site
photos,
and
so
that
this
proposal
is
sort
of
considered
to
return
that
sense
of
containment
back
to
the
site.
B
And
the
proposal
does
include
the
creation
of
a
two
meters
by
26
meters:
visibility
display
to
the
ramen
Road
access
points.
It's
currently
two
meters
by
18.8
meters,
which
does
fall
below
the
standards
are
set
out
in
manuals
for
streets.
So
there
is
a
road
safety
benefit
to
the
existing
eight
dwellings
through
the
enhancement
to
the
visibility
act.
Visibility
displays
at
this
access.
B
So
the
the
item
was
originally
referred
for
consideration
at
the
panel
by
councilor
Lam
because
of
the
potential
significance
to
the
Clifford
Conservation
Area.
It's
key
gateways
to
Village
location
and
the
local
concern
raised
in
relation
to
the
application.
B
These
raised
concerns
about
impacts,
the
conservation
area
and
historic
setting
traffic
generation
and
highways
benefits
were
queried,
and
there
is
reference
to
the
planning
history
on
the
site
and
two
representations
have
been
received
since
the
publishing
of
the
panel
reports
and
so
I've
had
a
rejection
comment
received
from
councilor,
Lam
and
I
will
read
from
that.
The
issue
is
the
relocation
of
the
wall,
which
is
clearly
harmful
to
the
character
of
The
Wider
Conservation
Area.
Crucially,
the
development
can
go
ahead
as
planned
without
rebuilding
the
wall.
B
Leave
the
wall
where
it
is
I
have
no
objection
to
any
other
aspect
of
this
application.
Clifford
Parish
Council
have
also
sent
an
objection.
Comments
in
and
I
understand.
That's
been
sent
directly
to
members
as
well,
and
it
summarized
as
follows,
and
the
development
is
contrary
to
the
Clifford
neighborhood
plan
policy.
Dev2
is
an
important
part
of
the
visual
approach
to
the
Village,
serving
as
a
rare
remnant
of
the
historical
Toft
and
Croft
layouts.
B
Sorry,
LCC
highways
have
not
requested
the
changes,
they're,
still
substandard
path,
widths,
splays
and
sight
lines.
It
says
to
worsen
existing
highway
safety.
Only
one
entrance
and
a
significant
new
Junction
created
objectives
have
compromised
as
they're
no
longer
objecting
to
the
raising
of
the
Wall
height
associated
with
the
extension
they
have,
and
the
parish
council
reiterate
their
objection
to
the
Demolition
and
rebuilding
of
the
stone
wall
and
have
done
it
every
opportunity
available,
and
the
statement
is
made
in
conjunction
with
the
Clifford
history
group,
who
endorsed
the
comments
made
yeah.
B
B
And
having
consulted
with
LCC
conservation
is
a
view
that
the
existing
will,
the
existing
view
has
a
very
limited
sense
of
the
tofton
Croft
and
that
this
has
been
eroded
to
a
great
extent
with
development
over
time.
B
So
it
it
the
retention
of
the
wall
and
the
stone
sets
to
Mark.
The
original
position
of
the
wall
is
considered
to
be
appropriate
mitigation.
Alongside
the
method
statement
which
has
been
provided.
B
As
such,
it's
the
officer
recommendation
to
Grant
planning
permissions
subject
to
the
conditions
recommended.
Thank
you.
A
I
Yeah
I
have
a
question
just
relating
to
the
the
wall
itself
and
whether
the
I
I'm
struggling
to
understand
why
moving
the
wall
is
necessary
for
the
development
to
occur.
That's
that's
the
principle
issue
of
of
why
it
needs
to
be
moved
at
all.
A
A
question
to
the
officer
or
to.
L
I
think
I
think
chair,
yeah,
Mark,
Johnson
planning
consultant
and
the
developer
client
James
hogman
sat
alongside
mate.
We
we
heard
the
question
in
effect,
and
the
question
was:
why
does
the
wall
need
to
be
moved
and
just
picking
up
from
the
comments
that
were
read
on
further
representations,
because
I
think
from
that
you'll
get?
The
understanding
is
that
everything
else
within
the
scheme
is
proposed
is
is
acceptable
to
those
others
and
therefore
it
is
the
the
pure
point
about.
L
Why
does
the
wall
need
to
be
moved
well
in
in
dialogue
with
my
client
is
that
the
wall
needs
to
be
moved
because
those
additional
buildings
and
structures
that
form
part
of
this
application,
which
are
considered
as
an
enhancement,
worse
and
to
some
extent
the
visibility
splay
and
what
we're
trying
to
get
here.
The
reason
for
moving
the
wall
is
that
it's
already
substandard
moving
it
slightly
back
into
the
development,
so
we're
not
taking
more
land
from
from
the
the
public
highway,
but
by
making
the
development
site
slightly
smaller,
but
making
the
visibilities
play
better.
L
It's
reaching
the
manual
for
Street
standards
such
that
when
you're
pulling
out
of
this
side,
you're,
actually
not
fearing
that
you're
going
to
be
running
into
a
car
that
you've
not
quite
seen
coming
around
the
bend.
So
it's
all
about
the
visibility
splay
for
the
moving
of
the
wall.
But
again,
just
to
reiterate
the
point
is
that
that
wall,
when
rebuilt,
will
pretty
much
look
exactly
as
it
currently
looks,
albeit
it
slept
step
back
and
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
setback.
I
M
I,
don't
know
whether
you
can
hear
me
but
yeah
what
has
essentially
by
including
the
the
garage
which
will
be
seamlessly
built
into
the
wall
and
creates
a
positive
sense
of
enclosure
and
containment,
but
so
including
that
to
benefit
the
conservation
area
that
will
worsen
in
itself.
That
structure
will
worsen
the
visibility
splay
as
it
currently
is.
M
So
that's
why
the
proposal
is
to
to
set
the
rule
back
to
allow
us
to
meet
and
actually
improve
the
visibility
from
where
it
currently
is,
as
opposed
to
worsening
it,
and
we
have
taken
steps
to
minimize
the
setback
of
the
wall.
M
M
That's
the
distance
between
the
front
of
the
car
and
the
driver's
eyesight,
basically
and
we've
said
in
this.
Under
these
circumstances,
we'd
prefer
to
use
two
meters,
for
instance,
because
it's
only
a
fairly
quiet
road,
but
it
also
allows
us
to
then
meet
the
visibility
display
requirements
without
moving
the
wall
back
as
much
as
we
need
to
do.
L
H
We
heard
from
the
planning
officer
that
the
wall
will
be
taken
down
section
by
section:
Mark
taught
us
to
where
it
goes
and
put
back,
I'm
sure
I
read
in
the
paperwork
that
the
storm
would
be
cleaned
and
some
other
complaints
or
one
of
the
objections
was
it
would
lose
there'll,
be
a
loss
of
patination
and
aging.
H
L
Part
of
the
methodology
to
be
agreed
and
if
it
was
felt
best
that
it
was
you
know
better
not
to
clean
the
stone,
then
the
stone
doesn't
need
to
be
cleaned
in
effect.
That
I
think
the
the
major
point
is
you
break
down
the
wall
in
those
sections
you
rebuild
it.
Yes,
there
are
some
slightly
different
heights
to
it
on
the
basis
that
it's
it's
helping
to
mask
the
existing
building,
but
that
building
is
going
to
be
rebuilt
anyway
and
then
the
Corner
Garage
creates
that
feature
of
containment.
G
Point
in
paragraph
11
of
the
report
we
have,
it
makes
reference
to
a
telephone
call
between
the
agent
like
whether
that
was
Mr,
Johnson
I,
don't
know
babies.
It
says
the
agent
I've
had
a
phone
call
with
councilor
Lam,
followed
up
with
written
correspondence,
blah
blah
blah
we're
in
relation
to
visibility.
Displays
are
further
meeting
to
discuss
this
game
with
local
groups
with
suggested
fine.
We
then
go
on
to
number
paragraph
12
where
it
says
in
response.
The
agent
and
applicant
met
with
councilor
Lam,
the
representative
Clifford
Parish
Council.
G
So
what
was
the
outcomes
of
that?
Because,
in
other
words,
you
obviously
felt
it
was
worthwhile
meeting,
because
you'd
already
knew
from
the
telephone
conversation
with
councilor
Lam
that
the
sticking
point
was
the
wall
you
agreed
to
meet,
presumably
to
try
and
reach
a
compromised
position.
So
what
compromises
did
you
reach
by
having
the
meeting?
Because
you
gave
them
the
Hope
by
having
the
meeting
that
are,
compromise
was
possible.
L
Okay
well
I
think
I
to
be
fair.
Council
I
came
in
on
on
the
team's
call
to
to
act
as
the
agent
at
this
particular
point
in
time,
but
I
think
the
the
purpose
of
the
team's
call
from
my
understanding
to
be
fair
was
one
such
that
we
could
understand
each
party's
positions
and
and
through
that
and
and
to
be
fair
to
councilor
Lam
and
the
representatives
of
of
the
parish
council
and
the
Historic
Society.
L
There
is
now
an
understanding
is
that
the
scheme
is
absolutely
fine
and
it's
just
the
relocation
of
the
war,
which
is
the
problem.
The
stone
sets
the
cobbles
versus
the
sets
are
absolutely
fine.
Likewise,
so,
whilst
there's
been
some
changes
to
material
the
wall,
as
part
of
that
conversation,
I
think
there's
an
understanding
is
that
there
is
just
now
no
agreement
on
that
particular
element
and
it
wasn't
a
false.
L
So
it
was
a
case
of
understanding
that
the
position
of
each
parties
and
talking
that
through-
and
it
is
a
case
that
in
planning
we
don't
always
reach
a
position
of
compromise
on
everything
and
I.
Think
for
now
is
that
as
I
say,
we're
asking
for
the
the
application
to
be
determined
with
the
wall
in
that,
in
that
very
slight
movement
backwards.
G
N
L
If
the
wall
remains
as
it
is,
because
the
the
planning
application
in
front
of
you
today
is
that
the
wall
is
moved
and
the
reason
why
the
wall
is
moved
is
also
because
it
forms
part
of
the
wrapping
around
the
garage
is
that
you
end
up
with
an
even
worse
visibility
player.
You
end
up
with
more
than
one
wall.
It
becomes
a
very
confused
planning
application,
so
would
would
it.
G
L
So
the
the
development
which
comes
as
a
whole,
okay,
it
has
to
be
built
as
it's
shown
on
the
plans.
So
you
I,
don't
think
and
I
know.
I
know
where
you're
going
getting
two
counts,
that
we
don't
all
respect
I,
don't
think
you
can
do
the
development
if
the
war
stays
where
it
is.
We'd
have
to
come
forward
with
a
different
development.
Okay,
so.
A
That
is,
if
you're
finished
with
the
the
applicant
yeah.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Johnson
and
now
we
move
on
to
the
offices
councilor.
A
G
C
So
we
didn't
raise
an
objection
or
say
the
the
wall
was
required
to
move,
because
it
was
part
of
the
application
so
just
to
clarify
that,
however,
as
existing
there's
a
substantially
substandard
visibility,
splay
and
by
basically
the
development
by
closing
off
the
other
vehicle
access,
which
is
also
significantly
some
very,
very
self-standard
you're,
intensifying
the
use
of
the
the
ramen
Road
access
and
therefore
you
know,
I
would
say
that,
yes,
you
do
need
to
improve
the
visibility
to
to
the
right
coming
out
of
that
access
and
it
may
seem
a
marginal
Improvement,
but
it's
actually
about
50
Improvement
in
the
visibility
distance
to
make
it.
G
What
you
just
said,
but
right
in
that
case,
has
that
been
clearly
explained
to
the
local
Parish
Council
and
to
the
ward
members,
because
from
what
I
can
read
from
the
and
I'm,
only
going
on
the
letter
that
we
all
received
from
the
parish
council
that
they
don't
feel
that
that's
the
way
that
things
have
been
set
out
to
them,
that
there
is
no
essential
nature
to
it.
It's
it
could
be
done,
but
if
it
wasn't
done
it
wasn't
gonna,
it
doesn't
stop
the
development
dead
in
its
tracks.
C
E
Yes,
I
think
I,
just
wonder
if
we
could
invite
the
objectives
to
to
speak
as
well,
because
we've
given
the
opportunity
to
the
applicant
to
speak
so
I
think
in
terms
of
democracy.
It
would
be
good
to
invite
either
Council
Alam
or
the
Clifford
Paris
Council
to
speak.
A
A
If
you
recall,
I
mean
last
at
the
last
meeting
in
February,
both
party
was
given
the
opportunity
and
this
time
around
I've
asked.
If
there
are
any
questions
to
the
agent
they
can
come
along,
but
they
were
not
given
specific
time
to
speak
as
a
public
speakers.
But,
however,
if
you
have
a
question
to
to
objectives,
you
can
ask
them,
does
that
make
sense.
G
Occasion
from
the
question
I
asked
the
highways
officer
to
see
if
the
resident
and
or
councilor,
Lam
and
or
the
parish
council
are
of
the
same
understanding
and
in
the
application
the
way
it
was
explained
to
me
very
clearly
by
highways
in
terms
of
their
View,
if
that's
there
taking
it
because
they're
still
objecting
to
it,
but
to
me
you've
made
it
very
clear
that
you
think
it's
essential.
That's
the.
C
A
E
Well,
I,
I.
Suppose
the
question
is:
how
do
you
respond
to
what's
been
discussed
today
about
the
well
partly
about
the
conservation
issue.
N
I
think,
to
my
mind,
it
comes
down
to
planning
balance,
but
moving
the
wall
by
its
definition,
has
an
impact
on
the
conservation
area
and
is
harmful.
There's
a
benefit
to
the
visibility
display.
By
doing
that,
the
judgment
is,
does
one
outweigh
the
other,
my
view
and
the
community
view
is
you
could
do
absolutely
everything
I
think
it's
a
really
good
scheme
overall,
really
welcome
it.
It's
just
a
matter
of
you
could
do
all
of
these
things
and
get
all
the
benefits
without
moving
the
wall
and
the
gain
is
marginal.
N
My
understanding
has
been
that
highways
officers
wouldn't
have
objected.
The
impact
wouldn't
be
severe.
If
the
wall
didn't
move,
it
doesn't
mean
they
wouldn't
like
it
to
move,
but
that's
my
understanding
that
there
wouldn't
have
been
an
objection
if
the
wall
stayed
where
it
was,
and
that
was
the
scheme.
So
that's
the
that's.
The
issue
before
you
I,
think
all
of
the
benefits
of
the
scheme
can
be
achieved
without
having
a
harmful
impact
on
the
conservation
area
by
moving
the
wall.
I
There's
a
comment
by
Clifford:
Parish
Council.
Is
there
somebody
from
the
parish
council
here
I've
got
a
question
about
the
neighborhood
plan.
I
I
want
a
question
about
a
neighborhood
plan
in
terms
of
the
conservation
sorry
jump
to.
I
In
terms
of
the
the
neighborhood
plan
and
the
conservation
Zone,
can
you
just
outline
why
the
parish
feels
that
the
wall
is
of
such
significance
in
the
village
and
what
impact
it
would
be
had
if
the
war
was
was
altered
or
moved.
D
Thank
you,
counselor.
It's
an
historic
wall.
It's
been
that
it's
been
shown
on
maps
for
over
well
best
part
of
200
years.
They
are
remarant
of
the
toughton
Croft
system.
It
mirrors
the
wall,
which
is
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road.
Brahman
road
is
not
a
quite
Country
Lane.
D
It
is
a
fairly
busy
road
but
Yeah
by
blocking
up
the
entrance
on
the
High
Street
you're
increasing
the
amount
of
traffic
then
coming
onto
that
road,
so
in
in
a
way,
you're
worsening
the
situation
by
the
amount
of
traffic
you're
going
to
go
on
to
that.
A
Thank
you
any
anyone
else,
just
a
quick
one,
I
mean
last
time
when
we
were
out
on
a
site,
we
said
and
I'm
glad
what
we
just
said
about
how
busy
the
road
is,
but
what
we've
heard
about
the
visibility
and
the
safety?
A
What's
your
point
on
on
those
remarks
and
after
hearing
from
the
highway
offices,
because
the
road
itself
the
bend
is,
is
quite
dangerous
when
you
the
the
exit
to
the
this
particular
this
particular
building.
D
You,
as
highways
have
confirmed,
there's
been
no
recorded
accidents
at
that
spot.
D
G
One
question
for
the
officers
when
you
heard
back
from
councilor
Lam
and
from
the
parish
council
as
to
their
General
acceptance
of
the
application
except
the
wall.
What
conversations
did
you
have
that
you
can
disclose
to
us
about
saying,
look
in
order
to
get
this.
This
looks
as
though
it
can
go
through
if
the
wall
isn't
included.
Did
you
get
when
you
were
having
that
discussion?
G
Did
you
put
that
to
them
and
what
advice
can
you
give
us
in
terms
of
the
conversations
that
we've
had,
because
all
we're
left
with,
as
I
said
it
was
in
paragraph
12.?
Further
discussions
were
to
take
place.
We've
not
you
they've,
obviously
taken
place
after
the
report
was
written,
which
I'm
not
criticizing
I'm,
just
saying
they've
obviously
taken
place,
so
you've
not
had
a
chance
to
put
in
what
the
nature
of
those
discussions
were.
Have
you
any
idea
what
the
nature
of
those
discussions
were.
B
In
terms
of
the
discussion
with
officers,
the
the
nominee,
the
nominated
agent
asked
that
the
schemas
was
submitted
was
the
one
that
they
wanted
to
be
taken
to
determination,
and
so
that
was
the
basis
on
which
the
report
was
drafted
and
is
presented
to
you
today.
G
B
I
mean
my
judgment
is
based
on
the
scheme
as
submitted
rather
than
the
hypothetical
scheme
where
the
the
war
was
remaining
in
that
position
and
it's
my
view
as
the
officer
that
it
is,
the
scheme
as
a
whole
serves
as
a
an
enhancement
to
the
conservation
area
through
the
the
associated
works
and
the
containment
to
the
application
site
and
the
seamless
integration
of
the
boundary
wall
into
the
the
garage.
B
That's
proposed,
the
extension
being
below
the
height
of
the
boundary
wall,
the
introduction
of
New
Stone
boundary
walls,
replacing
the
defensing
to
the
application
sites.
B
So
when
looking
at
the
scheme
as
a
whole,
while
while
there
is
lessons
substantial
harm
acknowledged
in
in
terms
of
the
Demolition
and
the
moving
of
the
wall,
when
you're
considering
the
method
that
has
been
provided
for
the
rebuilding
of
the
wall
and
all
of
the
the
extension
works
and
the
enhancements
through
the
introduction
of
stone,
boundary
walls
back
to
the
application
sites,
it's
my
view
that
that
serves
as
a
an
enhancement
and
in
the
overall
planning
balance.
That's
the
position
that
has
been
reached
for
support.
C
The
basis
of
the
application-
and
so
if
you
left
the
wall
where
it
was
but
left
the
rest
of
the
application
because
of
the
intensification
of
the
use
of
that
access
and
this
significantly
substandard
at
you
know,
visibility.
That's
there
I
think
we're
reminded
to
object
simply
because
I
mean
what
what's
presented.
You
today
is
a
significant
Road,
Safety
Improvement
I'm,
aware
that
there's
not
been
any
recorded
collisions,
but
just
because
there
hasn't
been
any
recorded,
doesn't
mean,
there's
not
been
any
near,
misses
and
doesn't
mean
that
it's
safe.
D
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
I,
suppose,
I
suppose
the
the
point
I
was
I
was
I
was
going
to
actually
make
two
points,
but
councilor
Lamb
made
one
of
them
very
nicely
for
me.
It
and
it
follows
on
from
Council
Lamb's
point
it's
a
matter
of
balance.
D
So
if
the
plans
panel
came
to
the
view
that
the
developments
as
a
whole,
your
planning
judgment
was
the
development
soul
with
the
wall
retained
in
its
current
position
and
the
rest
of
the
works
accommodated
accordingly,
because
the
the
garage
with
the
the
outbuilding
with
the
Curve
would
have
to
be
moved
further
further
across
to
retain
the
form
of
development.
D
If
you
came
to
that
view,
what
the
panel
would
regard
as
an
enhancement
to
the
scheme
and
less
harm,
as
it
were,
to
the
conservation
area
or
it
might
not
be
harm
at
all-
might
be
an
improvement
to
the
to
the
conservation
area
in
light
of
the
work.
So
it
is
that
that
matter
of
planning
balance
that
you
you
would
have
to
you
would
have
to
come
to.
A
F
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
move
it
based
on
the
current
proposal.
D
Members
will
recall
this
application
was
actually
presented
as
a
position
statement
in
September
last
year,
and
there
are
a
number
of
questions
put
to
members
and
and
responses
were
provided
which
have
been
taken
into
consideration
and,
additionally,
members
resolve
to
agree
to
defer
and
delegate
approval
of
the
application
to
the
chief
planning
officer,
subject
to
a
report
being
brought
back
on
the
conditions
to
be
applied
to
that
outline
consent.
D
So
this
report
essentially
seeks
to
fulfill
the
second
part
of
that
resolution
in
terms
of
bringing
back
a
report
which
sets
out
essentially
the
shorthand
of
the
conditions,
which
is
what
you
would
normally
expect
to
see
on
an
application
with
a
recommendation
for
determination.
So
that's
the
first
couple
of
pages
and
then
in
an
appendix
to
you
have
the
the
long
form
of
the
conditions
I'll
just.
D
I
would
use
the
the
pointer,
but
anyway,
the
the
purpose
of
the
plan
was
essentially
to
show,
and
obviously
it's
largely
a
residential
scheme.
But,
as
members
are
recalled
in
the
Northwestern
corner
of
the
site,
there
is
the
local
Center
provision
which
includes
a
primary
school
local,
Center
and
Healthcare
provision.
D
So,
overall
those
conditions
cover
the
issues
around
time
limits,
compliance
with
the
approved
plans,
phasing
archeology
construction
practice,
contamination
and
Remediation
levels,
sustainability,
bus
stops
and
shelters,
Green,
Space,
Landscaping,
electric
vehicle
charging
points,
housing
mix,
minimum
space
standards,
accessible
housing,
flood
risk
and
drainage
materials,
sound
insulation
and
noise
mitigation,
lighting,
ecology
and
biodiversity,
iOS
matters
and
the
delivery
of
the
off-site
highway.
Works
cycle
provision
and
sustainable
travel
measures,
Provisions
regarding
the
John,
Smith
and
plane
pitches
and
Community
use
of
the
school
playing
pitch.
D
D
The
applicant
is
in
continued
dialogue
with
the
environment
agency
and
and
it's
something
where
I
think
there's
a
confidence
that
there
will
be
a
technical
solution
and
it's
it's
around
how
the
spine
related
crosses,
cocked,
back
the
means
of
doing
that
and
addressing
flood
risk
and
nature
conservation
concerns
so
as
I
say
that
that
work
is
ongoing,
but
we're
not
anticipating
a
full
response
from
the
EA
for
a
few
more
weeks,
so
at
the
most
it
may
be
that
there's
an
additional
condition,
perhaps
to
come
from
them
to
add
to
this
list.
D
Additionally,
as
noted
in
the
report
condition,
36
was
a
condition
that
was
suggested
by
Yorkshire
water
relating
to
water
supply.
That
was
a
condition
which
they
had
suggested
now,
probably
a
year
or
18
months
ago,
and
through
the
fullness
of
time,
they
are
now
more
confident
they
can
deliver.
What
they're
actually
required
to
deliver
on
a
statutory
basis,
look
at
certain
that
officers
had
is
that
the
condition
is
proposed
is
ultraviaries
and
essentially
it's
something
which
is
beyond
the
developers.
Control
Yorkshires
are
satisfied,
and
so
we've
agreed
to
the
deletion
of
condition
36.
D
so,
ultimately,
and
as
I
say,
it's
an
information
report
for
members
on
that
basis
to
note
the
suggested
conditions.
Thank
you
chair.
A
G
In
being
involved
in
land
banking,
if
nothing
needs
to
be
done
for
10
years,
we're
desperate
for
housing
in
the
city,
the
quicker
those
houses
get
built
the
price,
if
you
build
large
large
numbers
of
housing,
the
unit
price
should
go
down,
which
means
to
be
then
become
more
affordable.
The
more
we
are
complicit
in
constraining
the
growth
of
housing,
the
more
the
prices
will
go
up
now,
finding
the
developers
happy
with
that,
but
I'm
not
disputing
that,
but
our
role.
So
why
have
we
gone
for
10
years
because,
based
on
a
thousand
houses?
G
That's
a
hundred,
let's
say:
100
houses
per
annum
actually
takes
10
years.
That's
20
years,
and
following
on
from
that,
you
see
and
where
this
is.
The
main
point
is
that
we
are
currently
going
through
a
review
of
a
number
of
our
core
plan
policy
plans,
and
my
understanding
is
that
it's
whatever
they
get
they
find
their
permission
on
is
the
ones
they've
got
to
be
compliant
with
well,
hopefully,
in
the
next
year,
we'll
have
tighter
ones
on
climate
change.
G
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
the
reason
for
the
10-year
permission
it's
the
same
as
the
northern
quadrant
and
the
middle
quadrant
permissions,
which
are
also
for
10
years.
So
there's
an
element
of
consistency
and
it's
to
do
with
the
the
large
size
of
the
site
and
essentially
to
allow
definitely
sufficient
time
to
allow
those
Reserve
matters
applications
to
come
forward.
D
That
said,
what
I
would
say
is
we
have
two
developers
in
this
instance,
so
it's
Taylor,
wimpy
and
redrow
and
as
effectively
the
site
is,
is
halved
so
you'd
anticipate
a
bit
like
the
recent
applications.
You've
had
at
middle
quadrant
for
those
applications
to
probably
come
in
in
The
Fairly,
not
too
distant
future.
So
I
suspect
there'll
be
no
need
to
allow
such
a
long
period
of
time,
but
we've
done
it
for
consistency
purposes.
Given
the
previous
permissions.
G
I
can't
see
the
logic
of
that,
because
our
your
role
in
planning
is
to
facilitate
the
development
of
houses
in
as
orderly
a
way
as
possible
and
in
a
timely
manner
on
that,
and
if
we,
if
we
put
it
in
for
three
years,
then
they've
got
to
produce
the
work
within
three
years.
They
can
get
the
approvals
within
seniors.
G
They've
then
got
it
on
the
stocks
and
they
can
then
start
doing
it
because
in
what
three
four
years
time
we're
going
to
have
literally
probably
blood
in
the
carpet
when
everybody
starts
falling
out
about
where
Housing
Development
should
and
shouldn't
go,
and
one
of
the
arguments
that
we
put
forward
is
well
we've
not
built
enough
houses.
That's
why
we've
got
to
bring
the
green
belt
forward.
Well,
we
are
adding
to
that
problem
because
we're
saying
you've
got
10
years
to
bring
this
in.
Why
can
we
not
I
whoever
made
the
decision?
I?
G
D
Yeah
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
the
so
it
wouldn't
be
a
con.
It's
not
a
restriction
on
development,
so
we're
not
preventing
house
building
from
happening,
but
I
understand
what
you're
saying
in
terms
of
it
allows
an
undue
period.
If
you
put
it
in
that,
in
that
sense,
I
mean
it's
something
we
can
certainly.
As
I
say,
these
conditions
aren't
absolutely
finalized.
So
it
is
something
that
we
can
discuss
with
the
agent
and
see
what
might
be
in
the
art
of
the
possible
I
suspect
it's
not
a
problem.
D
G
G
Absolutely
the
other
thing
is
I
personally
think
we
should
be
bringing
back
all
the
applications
to
this
panel
so
that
we
can
monitor
what's
happening
rather
than
taking
everything
offline
to
leave
it.
Not
that
I
don't
trust
it,
but
we
need
to
be
making
sure,
because
some
of
us
have
been
very
passionate
recently
about
the
climate
change
things
which
has
been
different
from
other
people,
have
a
different
emphasis.
I
He's
following
often
some
of
those
points
I'd
raised
some
concerns
as
well,
so
I
think
your
point
about
consistency
is
key,
because
this
is
in
effect.
Is
it
not
for
far
I
think
it'll
be
about
five
separate
applications
eventually
to
deliver
about
5
000
houses
across
that
area,
so
the
decisions
we
make
on
the
earlier
ones
are
naturally
going
to
have
a
knock-on
effect
on
the
others,
because
yeah
I
know
we've
all
had
experience
in
future.
I
I
So
you're
suggesting
that
we
are
asked
to
approve
something
today,
and
that
gives
permission
to
the
developers
to
sit
on
land
with
an
inflated
value
for
10
years,
at
the
same
time
as
submitting
alternative
land
in
your
current
call
for
land
on
the
separate
sap
application.
Would
you
agree
with
me
that
that
is
the
very
definition
of
land
backing.
A
I
F
D
D
The
points
you
make
are
entirely
logical
and
it's
something
that
we
can
reflect
on
and-
and
certainly
you
know,
as
Andy
said-
we'll
have
that
discussion
with
the
applicant,
because
I
think
it's
a
perfectly
Fair
Point
and
I'm
very
pleased
that
you've
raised
it
because
it
does
come
from.
It
does
come
from
a
a
different
perspective
and
it's
something
that
we
should
really
take
very
seriously.
I
So
my
follow-on
point
was
going
to
be
that
I
suspect
any
developer
would
say
well
in
principle.
No,
no.
We
just
want
to
get
rid
of
it.
We're
going
to
submit
the
reserve
matter
straight
away,
but
but
on
on
factual
points,
we're
saying
what
could
happen
of
the
outcome
of
the
decisions
we
make.
So
am
I
right.
That
conditions
can
be
varied
by
application.
D
I
So
they
would,
but
they
could
apply,
then
for
a
separate
concept.
So
there
is
a
process.
The
point
I'm
getting
to
is,
the
answer
we've
been
given
is
that
you
would
need
to
go
away
and
discuss
with
the
applicant
whether
or
not
they're
happy
for
us
to
reduce
the
time
limit.
My
argument
would
be
that
we
are
the
decision
makers
here
and
we
are
the
ones
that
decide
not
the
applicant
the
terms
of
the
conditions,
so
my
nervousness
is
I.
I
What's
come
back
on
the
answers,
you've
given
and
that's
what
I
ask
is
that?
How
would
we
ensure
that
that
that
time
year,
limit
wasn't
taken
to
its
full
extreme
and
if
we
agree
with
this
today,
I
think
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
the
answer
I'm
being
given
is
if
we
correct,
if
we
agree
the
10-year
time
limit
technically,
if
the
developer
so
wished,
they
could
do
nothing
for
10
years
and
there's
nothing
we
could
do
to
enforce.
It.
Is
that
right.
I
Then
I'll
be
very
Swift
on
the
second
Point.
Am
I,
therefore
right
to
assume
that
on
conditions
63
and
64,
which
relate
to
the
Threshold
at
which
traffic
scheme
Works
kick
in,
so
it
says
to
no
more
than
250
dwellings
to
be
occupied
until
the
schema
works
are
approved.
That
effectively
means
that
we
could
be
and
what
the
house
builders
build
100
houses
a
year,
so
we
could
be
13
years
down
the
line
until
any
road
works
kick
in.
So
is
that
a
knock-on
consequence
of
the
10-year
condition.
D
No,
no
so
my
internet,
so
that
those
are
off-site
works
specifically
at
Junction
46
that
are
required
by
national
highways
and
so
they've
requested
those
conditions
and
that's
looking
at
the
Quantum
of
development
in
the
East
Leeds
extension
and
when
those
works
are
required.
But
understanding
is
those
works
are
probably
happening
sooner
rather
than
later.
C
I
I
Could
you
just
talk
us
through
that
in
practice,
because
I'm
a
bit
concerned,
the
two
things
aren't
aligned
here
there
is
a
a
free
school
application.
That's
already
gone
through
to
a
build
a
new
school
on
that
site.
So
does
this
condition
now
say
that
that
can't
be
carried
out
until
the
alternative
pictures
have
been
made
available
and
does
the
efsa
know
about
that.
D
Yeah,
so
the
colleagues
who
are
involved
in
discussions
with
the
DFE
to
facilitate
a
new
school
on
the
site.
So
yes,
so
the
your
understanding
is,
is
broadly
correct.
D
Essentially
it
seeks
to
ensure
that
development
on
the
the
local,
Center
and
scores
part
of
the
site
doesn't
occur
until
that
alternative
provision
has
been
made
elsewhere,
as
as
per
that
planning
permission
at
winmore,
Grange
I
am
aware,
I
think
there's
a
key-ness
to
get
on
sooner
rather
than
later,
so
our
anticipated
or
where
we
were
in
terms
of
an
anticipated
opening
date
was
I,
believe
September,
2026,
but
I
think
there
is
some
pressure
to
kind
of
bring
that
forward
from
the
from
a
schooling
perspective,
not
not
from
a
need
perspective,
but
that
is
something
that's
being
worked
through,
but
ultimately,
the
purpose
of
that
condition
is
to
ensure
that
those
alternative
pictures
have
been
brought
forward.
A
Thank
you.
Mr
Johnson
has
shown
an
interesting
speaker
before
I
bring
Mr
Johnson
once
again.
If
you
can
just
hold
on
to
your
question
and
ask
Dave
what
we've
heard
so
far
and
we'll
we'll
ask
you
to
come
along
Mr
Johnson,
then
after
David
spoken
yeah.
D
I
thought
it
I
was
trying
to
whisper
to
the
chair,
because
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
if
you
hear
what
Mr
Johnson's
got
to
say
about
the
10-year
point,
because
I
said
before
in
answering
your
questions,
I
think
it's
a
fair.
It
is
a
fair
point
and
it
is
here
for
you,
members
to
put
this
to
to
officers
and
make
a
decision
on
that
whether
10
years
is
appropriate
or
whether
a
shorter
period
is
appropriate
from
an
officer's
perspective.
D
Whilst
we
understand
the
point,
we'd
want
to
reflect
on
it
and
see
whether
we
could
deliver
your
wishes,
which
would
involve
then
a
discussion
with
the
with
the
applicant,
but
it
might
just
be
that
if
the
question
is
put
to
Mr
Johnson
now
that
we
can
sort
of
circumvent
that
process
and
provide
comfort
for
for
members
or
otherwise
at
this
panel.
At
this
point
in
at
this
point
in
time,.
K
C
I
I
Just
had
the
previous
application,
where
we
were
told
that
if
people
want
to
speak
they've
had
their
opportunity
last
time,
they
can
only
speak.
If
we
ask
them
a
question.
We've
now
been
told
that
the
agent
is
signaling
from
the
back.
He
wishes
to
speak
well,
I'm,
sorry,
that's
not
the
procedure
that
we've
been
following
I.
Think
personally,
the
officer
answered
the
question
that
I
was
given
the
applicant.
The
agent
had
sufficient
time
last
time,
I
recall
to
answer
them,
I'm,
not
sure
my
answer,
but
I
me
asked
it.
I
A
I
think
the
question
was
quite
important
with
regards
to
the
10
years
issue
and
and
Mr
Johnson
is
here
rather
than
having
a
long
short
debate
over
it
might
as
well
put
the
question
and
see
if
we
can
get
the
answer
and
see
if
we
can
resolve,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
each
one
of
us
wants
to
see
more
houses
going
up
in
our
city.
There
is
a
shortage
of
houses.
A
10
years
is
a
long
time
and
then
obviously
comes
and
then
I
absolutely
agree
with
all
those
who
have
spoken
about
the
land,
banking
and
the
rest
of
it.
So
I
think
we
need
to
put
this
question
to
Mr
Johnson.
This
10-year
you've
heard
the
debate.
So
what's
your
view
on
those
on
on
the
matter
of
10-year
application?
Sorry
yeah.
L
Fully
expect
that
we've
got
the
same
10-year
condition
on
the
other
quadrants
we're
quite
but
quite
frankly,
it
wasn't
at
our
suggestion
in
in
all
of
the
quadrants
and
middle
quadrant,
which
I'm
coming
back
on.
Hopefully
next
month
on,
the
reserve
mat
as
follows
as
quickly
as
possible
on
the
back
of
the
outline
consent,
I'm
under
great
pressure
at
the
moment,
to
submit
Reserve
matters
on
this
Southern
quadrant.
What
we
don't
need
is
to
delay
the
debate
on
a
matter
which
is,
quite
frankly,
not
a
matter
at
all.
L
So
if
a
standard
three-year
condition
was
applied
to
the
southern
quadrant,
it
would
be
of
no
concern
to
the
developer
on
the
basis
that
we
are
ready
to
submit
the
reserve
matters.
Bearing
in
mind
there
are
three
applicants
on
the
southern
quadrant,
there's
redrow,
there's
Taylor
wimpy
and
then
there's
the
council
themselves,
but
to
the
developers.
The
three
years
is
not
an
issue
happy
to
take
that
condition.
L
And,
and
to
be
fair,
councilor
I
didn't
mean
to
word
it
in
in
the
sense
that
it's
not
a
matter
I
I,
don't
disagree
with
the
comments
that
you
made
about.
You
know
the
ability
to
land
bank
all
the
rest
of
it.
So
in
that
respect
it's
it's
it.
We
would
well.
You
know
not
necessarily
welcome
its
condition,
but
the
condition
would
not
cause
as
a
problem.
H
H
H
D
D
Additionally,
obviously,
matters
have
been
overtaken
somewhat
By
changes
in
building
regulations
more
recently-
and
obviously
you
won't
have
heard
it
last
time,
but
at
the
last
meeting
the
developers
have
made
clear,
for
instance,
there'll
be
no
gas
boilers
in
this
development
at
all,
so
they
are
certainly
working
to
those
or
working
towards
those
standards.
Whether
or
not
they
actually
meet
those
those
future
standards,
I
I
can't
say,
but
what
we
can
all
we
can
do
from
a
planning
perspective
is
ensure
that
they
meet
current
policy.
D
I
can
add
a
little
bit
more
because
I
had
the
same
question
going
through
my
head
when
I
read
it
so
I
didn't
know
this
on
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I'll
just
I
looked
it
up,
so
there
has
been
a
shift
in
building
control
regulations.
D
So
these
these
figures
won't
reflect
it
because
I'm
going
back
to
2022,
but
when
you
consider
it
against
2022
building
regulations
approval
this
the
new
sorry,
the
future
home
standard
will
increase
or
improve
on
those
standards
in
terms
of
carbon
emissions
which
reduction
of
carbon
emissions
by
75
to
80
percent.
D
D
As
you
mentioned,
there'll
be
zero.
Carbon
ready,
so
there'll
be
no
need
to
retrofit
them
to
make
them
zero.
Carbon
fossil
fuel
boilers
logical
conclusion,
from
all
of
that
they
will
be
banned
in
those
homes.
You
won't
be
able
to
use
those
so
it'll
be
reliant
on
matters
such
as
heat
networks
and
heat
pumps
and
those
sort
of
things.
So
that's
what
the
future
home
standards
will
will
bring
about.
F
Thank
you,
chair,
I've,
been
wrote
to
by
councilor
Graham,
whose
chairs
for
consultative
committee
and
she
speaks
on
behalf
of
windmill
counselors
on
this
one
and
she's
raised
the
same
points
and
I
thank
Barry
and
Ryan
for
raising
them.
Regarding
the
tenure
which
I
think
we
are,
we've
got
a
resolution
too,
and
that's
certainly
the
way
forward.
I
think
I'm
sure
around
the
table.
F
Members
will
see
that,
but
she
also
raises
a
point
at
councilor
Stevenson
raises
regarding
the
social
blocks
on
the
school
and
the
hold
up
with
John
sweetman's
playing
pictures.
You
know
it's
a
bit:
they
it's
a
bit
vague
and
perhaps
should
be
strengthened
a
bit
more.
She
reminds
us
in
the
email
that
there'll
be
13
000
new
residents
in
this
area.
So
obviously
this
is
very
much
an
essential
part
of
it
and
she
goes
on
to
say
and
that
she
would.
F
She
doesn't
like
the
idea
of
the
decision
we
deferred
and
delegated
she'd
like
to
retain
the
right
from
her
consultative
committee
and
win
more
counselors
to
have
further
details
as
they
are
negotiated
and
I
I
think
that
again
is
very
reasonable.
So
what
I've
had
around
the
table
is
is
very
reasonable
and
I'd
like
to
just
reinforce
those
points,
please
on
behalf
of
the
doing
more
counselors
and
the
Consultants
of
community.
D
Yeah,
so
that's
that's
the
real
Keys
piece
of
work
which
colleagues
elsewhere
in
the
counselor
working
on
at
the
moment
to
try
and
deliver
those
pitches
as
quickly
as
possible,
and
that's
those
same
colleagues
who
are
involved
in
the
discussions
with
the
DFE
to
ensure
that
there
is
that
there
isn't
a
conflict
there
between
those
two
things.
So.
G
That
brings
me
to
my
final
point
as
someone
who's
been
on
Council
for
a
lot.
One
of
the
major
problems
we
I
come
up
with
is
the
way
that
the
conditions
have
been
written
and
then
interpreted
down
the
line.
How
can
we
be
sure
I'm
not
suggesting
that
legal
office
suspense
the
next
five
years?
Writing
them
all
individually,
but
how
can
we
be
sure
that
they
are
written
as
tightly
as
the
as
they
need
to
be,
but
also
future
proofing
them?
G
Now,
it's
almost
sitting
down
looking
at
your
glass
and
trying
to
foresee
what
might
happen
in
the
future
because
we've
as
a
plans
panel,
we've
occasionally
asked
for
things,
but
we've
been
told
that
the
approval
was
granted
and
the
standard
was
only
X,
whereas
by
the
time
the
last
set
come
forward,
even
if
they
brought
them
forward
tomorrow.
So
they
charge
it
up
another
five
six
years
before
the
final
one
comes
forward.
How
can
we
be
sure
that
they're
written
in
such
a
fashion
that
they're
future
proofed
as
well,
because
these
are
only
bullet
points?
G
K
It's
it's
panels,
trust
to
a
certain
extent,
in
the
in
the
judgment
and
experience
of
offices
of
writing
conditions
as
tightly
as
we
can.
We
can
only
ask
for
Con
in
the
conditions,
compliance
with
our
policy
at
this
time,
so
we
can't
sort
of
future
prove
to
that
extent,
because
obviously
the
conditions
have
to
be
written
to
to
mitigate
the
in
what
would
otherwise
be
the
adverse
impact
of
development.
K
At
this
moment
in
time
and
at
the
moment
when
the
the
development
is
being
proposed
and
is
coming
to
panel,
so
we
can
only
yeah
ask
of
policy
demands
and
compliance
with
policy.
That
is
when
the
conditions
are
written
rather
than
further
down
the
line,
but
we
do
also
have
to
write
conditions
in
a
way
so
that
they
are
valid
enforceable
in
compliance
with
the
law
and
planning
practice
guidance.
K
So
we
work
as
hard
as
we
can
to
do
that
because
otherwise,
not
only
do
you
have
no
Assurance,
but
we
as
officers
have
no
Assurance.
Unless
we
work
as
hard
as
we
can
to
do
that,
that
you
know
they
will
be
valid
and
enforceable
and
unchallengeable
and
that's
what
we
want
to
in
the
same
way
that
you
do
because.
G
The
major
ones
I'm
thinking
about
is
the
relationship
between
management
companies
and
getting
work
done
because
the
number
of
things
just
now
where
Things
Fall
between
you
know,
is
it
the
council
that
should
be
doing
this
or
is
it
the
developer
that
should
be
doing
or
is
it
something
that
the
management
company
need
to
take
on
so
effectively?
The
residents
need
to
take
on
and
get
it
done
themselves,
and
it's
very
difficult
as
a
ward
member
trying
to
get
enforcement
to
it
because
they'll
say
well,
it
wasn't
very
clear
when
the
condition
was
written.
G
It
wasn't
explicit
that
that's
what
is
no
mint,
so
it's.
How
can
we
get
that
right
so
that
when
the
residents
move
in
we've
had
about
18
000
residents
when
they're
moving
in
with
their
needs,
you
know
it's
it's.
How
you
give
reassurance
to
future
people,
not
that
you
can
condition
this
by
the
way,
but
you
know
the
story
about
Health
Service
needs
here.
How
can
people
be
sure
that
the
Health
Service
needs
are
going
to
be
met
as
quickly
as
possible,
rather
than
waiting
until
the
realized
house
is
built
and
saying?
G
Oh,
yes,
we
said
we're
going
to
provide
Health
Care
Systems.
We
better
do
it
now.
You
know
it.
I
certainly
can't
condition
that,
but
that's
an
example
of
we're
trying
to
bring
residents
with
you
is
difficult.
So
that's
what
I'm
looking
for
reassurance
but
I'm
quite
happy
with
what
the
league
officers
said.
But
that's
where
I'm
worried
about
is
management
company
rules
where
the
developer
should
be
doing
work
and
where
does
it
fall
to.
I
D
So
unfortunately,
I
haven't
got
the
slide
up,
but
as
early
on
on
the
earlier
slide,
you'll
have
seen
there's
a
spine
rate
which
runs
from
the
far
north,
from
Leeds
Road
down
through
the
site
and
down
to
manston
Lane.
So
there
is
a
condition
which
I
forget
the
number,
if
I'm
honest,
there's
a
condition
in
there.
D
It
says
each
Reserve
matters,
application
which
contains
an
element
of
the
spine
mode
needs
to
show
that
and
how
that
fits
in
with
the
rest
of
the
greater
good
and
that's
to
ensure
that
we
get
a
spine
rate
which
connects
up
to
all
of
the
phases
of
development.
So
we
would
expect
the
when
you
see
Reserve
matters.
Applications
come
up.
That's
the
plan.
Yes,
so
when,
when
Reserve
matters
plans,
come
back,
you'll
be
able
to
see
where
that
spine,
Road
sits
and
how
that
then
connects
into
future
phases.
I
As
a
very
polite
way
of
you
saying,
I
was
wrong
and
I
hadn't
seen
it.
Thank
you
13.
Thank
you
very
much,
somebody's
on
the
ball
further
to
councilor
McKenna's
Point
and
cancer,
Anderson's
condition
69..
So
as
a
ward
member
I'm
aware
that
the
council
has
located
an
alternative
site
for
the
pictures,
that's
in
my
ward,
which
is
up
at
near
the
area.
I
D
Possibly
jump
in
as
well
and
I
only
so
hesitate
slightly
because
we've
been
in
discussions
with
sport
England
on
these
conditions
for
a
period
of
time.
So
we
have
we've
had
several
iterations
of
agreed
wording,
but
they
are
yeah.
They
are
subject
to
some
Flex
to
ensure
that
they
fit
with
the
school
and
the
local,
Center
and
other
things,
and
to
ensure
that
we
can
do
what
we
need
to
do
in
terms
of,
for
instance,
the
highway
Works
to
facilitate
development
and
and
the
school
and
the
local
Center.
D
So
we
as
as
I,
spoke
about
colleagues
elsewhere
in
the
council,
were
leading
on
this.
We
want
to
ensure
the
council
isn't
stymied
in
facilitating
these
things
as
well.
So,
even
though
we're
looking
for
Flex
there,
we
do
need
to
then
go
away
and
agree
that
with
sport
England,
so
it
might
be
that
there
is
still
some
flexibility
in
that
condition.
That
might
help
us
and
that's
something
that
we
can
look
at
but
are
just
caution
that
we'd
need
to
agree
with
sports
England.
Okay,.
I
I
wouldn't
want
us
to
get
ourselves
into
a
situation
where
we
are
depriving
a
community
of
what's
growing
quickly
of
Health
Facilities
school
facilities,
because
we
weren't
able
to
replace
four
football
pitches
somewhere.
It
just
seems
the
property
will
be
wrong
in
that
scenario,
so
my
preference
would
be
to
loosen
that
further.
But
I
take
your
point
if
it's
more
complicated
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
aware
that
that
condition
could
eventually
end
up
holding
up
Community
Provisions
if
it's
not
dealt
with
sufficiently.
E
Sorry
I
was
going
to
ask
ask
a
question
really
sure.
So
one
of
the
things
about
large-scale
developments
is
in
my
world
we
have
the
The
Secret
of
Hospital
development,
which
Andrew
will
know
about
quite
quite
a
bit
and
one
of
the
things
that
residents
during
a
building
site
development
often
are
concerned
about,
is
the
the
heavy
lorries,
the
dust,
the
noise
and
everything
else
and
I.
E
Just
wonder
if
we
can
learn
from
that
experience,
because
it's
been
quite,
you
know
disastrous
in
some
ways
for
people
to
have
to
live
through
a
hot
summer
and
quite
difficult
conditions,
whether
we
can
build
in
with
Section
with
the
section
38
team
as
well
any
conditions
that
make
it
more
enforceable
and
better
for
people's
lives.
During
that
process.
D
Yes,
that's
it
it's
a
fair
point,
and
this
is
a
point-
that's
been
raised
on
the
on
previous
applications
as
well,
and
it's
been
the
subject
of
discussion
at
The
consultative
Forum.
So
there
are
several
related
conditions
which
talk
about
so
in
the
first
instance
talk
about
phasing.
D
So
what
you
don't
want
if
you're
an
existing
like
what
resident
is
to
have
a
building
site
at
the
back
of
your
house,
for
you
know
five
six
years,
much
better
to
have
the
short
pane
of
houses
being
built
early
on
in
in
early
course,
and
then
there's
a
moving
away
from
your
property
and
that's
something
we're
trying
to
factor
in
through
phasing
on
the
previous
Northern
quadrant
and
middle
quadrant
consents.
So
similarly,
there's
a
condition
here,
I
suppose
it's
slightly
different
to
the
northern
quadrant,
where
that
was
more
immediate
concern.
D
Whereas
here
you
have
leads
right
to
the
north
monsters
Lane
to
the
South,
and
you
have
the
beckon
an
element
of
a
green
Corridor
that
separates
them.
But
nonetheless,
we've
included
that
phase
and
condition
to
try
and
accommodate
that,
so
that
moves
away
logically
from
north
and
south
towards
the
center
and
out
towards
elor.
D
Secondly,
I
suppose
at
the
sharp
end
of
it
is,
is
really
the
construction
management
practice
measures
and
that's
to
do
with
ensuring
there
isn't
mud
on
the
highway
dot
to
ensure
that
developers
comply
with
the
hours
that
they're
supposed
to
be
comply
with
in
terms
of
operation
and
construction.
C
D
Will
probably
all
agree
that
they're
all
often
perennial
concerns,
because
there's
often
many
subcontractors
and
people
don't
always
do
what
they're
supposed
to
do.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
monitoring
and
enforcement,
and
so
on.
So
yes,
I'm
well
aware
of
the
issues
on
seacroft
hospital
and
we're
supposed
to
avoid
those
being
repeated
here.
But
essentially
all
we
can
do
is
really
have
a
as
tighter
condition
as
possible
and
the
condition
is
is
quite
lengthy
in
in
terms
of
its
requirements
and
setting
those
out
and
then
we'll
seek
to
enforce
against
those.
I
Had
a
technical
question
on
the
comment
on
how
we
move
forward
so
I
think
we're
in
agreement
that
condition
two
needs
to
be
amended
all
around.
I
So
this
is
an
information
report
to
us.
So
are
we
affect?
What
are
we
amending
in
terms
of
a
resolution
and
in
doing
so,
are
we
not
there
for
basically
just
saying
this
is
coming
back
to
us
every
time
anywhere
for
us
to
agree
and
make
amendments
too,
so
I'm
unsure
what
the
difference
is
between
that
and
an
information
report,
but
we
need
to.
We
need
to
formally
move
that
that
conditions
amended
and
and
what's
the
mechanism
to
do
that.
K
Members
at
the
last
panel
when
this
was
that
did
actually
defer
and
delegate
this
to
officers,
but
asking
that
the
details
came
back
for
your
information,
so
there
is
no
motion
or
decision
to
be
made
by
you.
It's
just
you
reporting
these
comments,
as
you
have
done
back
to
the
offices,
so
that
officers
can
go
and
negotiate
and
well
discuss
this
further
and
then
look
at
the
wording
of
the
conditions
taking
on
board
your
comments
from
today.
I
Is
there
is
it
if,
if
so
minded,
could
this
panel
overturn
that
previous
decision
and
ask
that
everything
comes
back
to
us
in
future?
Is
that
doable,
whether
or
not
we
want
to?
Is
it
doable.
D
I
think
in
in
terms
of
everything,
the
reserve
matter,
applications
has
always
been
the
intention
that
we
will
bring
those
to
to
plans
panel,
because
that
is
really
the
nitty-gritty
of
it.
Isn't
it
and
that's
where
the
the
plans
panel
will
be
able
to
see
the
the
precise
design
layout
parking
Landscaping.
All
of
those
matters
for
you
to
influence
and
comment
on
and
get
hopefully
Comfort
on
or
improve,
as
as
the
case
may
be
so
you'll
have
that
you'll
have
that
control
anyway.
D
This
is
only
really
the
outline
in
terms
of
your
comments
and
it's,
and
that
was
one
of
the
comments
about
Reserve
matters,
but
about
the
shortening
of
the
three-year
period,
where
we
will
do
that,
because
we've
heard
what
you've
said
we've
heard
from
the
applicant,
so
we
can.
We
know
we
can
deliver
on
that.
D
If
something
happens
in
the
meantime,
which
contradicts
that,
then
we
would
bring
that
would
bring
that
back
to
we
bring
that
back
to
panel
because
that'll
be
contrary
to
what
we,
what
we've
discussed
and
the
other
one
was
the
other
one
main
one
was
condition:
69.
Wasn't
it
just
about
the
flexibility?
So
what
what
we
can
do
is
hope
you
have
a
discussion
about
that,
including
sport
England,
and
we
can
do
a
note
for
members
and
bring
that
back
to
to
members
and
let
them
know
what
the
outcome
of
that
is.
D
G
Anderson
I've
been
on
a
number
of
panels
where
we've
been
told
very
clearly
that
the
conditions
have
already
been
set
and
we
can't
alter
them.
You
know:
we've
been
we've
been
given
clear
advice
that,
despite
us
having
concerns
about
X,
Y
or
Z
that,
because
the
conditions
have
been
set,
is
only
looking
at
the
narrowly
defined
items
that
are
brought
in
the
reserved
matters.
How
if
something
was
to
happen
that
did
concern
the
majority
of
plans
panel
and
it
reflected
back
in
a
condition?
G
How
can
we
go
about
getting
that
done
because
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
in
two
three
years
time
we
haven't
a
clue.
None
of
us,
unless
we've
got
crystal
balls,
have
a
clue
what's
going
to
happen,
so
it
might
be
when
a
reserve
matters
comes
forward,
it
actually
generates
an
amendment
would
need
would
be
necessary
to
a
condition.
How
can
we
get
that
built
in
so?
In
other
words,
it's
knowingly
unknown.
If
you
see
what
I
mean.
D
I'll
have
a
go
and
answer
so
the
conditions
that
we've
already
drafted,
which
are
in
appendix
2,
which
is
the
long
hand
version
of
those
conditions
so
we've
obviously
we've
been
through
them
as
officers
they've
been
shared
with
the
developers
where
they've
already
been
through
a
process
of
tweaking
ensuring
that
we
are
hopefully
block.
You
know
future-proofing
them,
as
you
put
it.
D
They've
also
been
discussed
with
colleagues
in
in
other
parts
of
the
council
who
are
leading
on
the
school
and
the
health
provision
and
so
on
to
ensure
that
we
have
got
an
overall
good
oversight
to
ensure
we've
not
created
a
you
know,
an
unexpected
monster
down
the
line.
So,
hopefully,
we've
flushed
out
any
issues.
D
F
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
agree
with
Andrew's
opening
statement
that
73
conditions
might
well
be
a
record
and
I
hesitate
to
suggest
to
suggest
another
one
in
our
circumstances,
but
Council
Graham
on
behalf
of
the
consultative
committee
and
the
local
Ward
members
had
suggested
that
they
be
kept
involved
and
I'd
like
to
propose
that
we
put
a
condition
on
that.
There's
a
lot
to
to
celebrate
about
that.
F
D
Yes,
in
theory,
we
could
add
a
condition
about
details
of
the
scheme
for
Community
consultation
to
be
submitted
and
approved,
and
it's
likely
that
that
will
be
a
continuation
of
what
we
we
do
at
the
moment.
But
in
imposing
that
condition.
I
suppose
it
would
give
comfort
and
some
certainty
about
the
continuation
of
of.
A
Thank
you,
David
Our
member,
happy
to
know
the
information
content
within
the
report
yeah.
Thank
you.