►
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
Brilliant
thanks
very
much
so
good
afternoon.
Everybody
welcome
to
development
plan
panel.
This
is
a
remote
meeting.
I've
got
a
few,
I'm
councillor
walsh,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
development
plan
panel.
I've
got
a
few
prepared
words
that
cover
all
our
administrative
requirements.
I'm
just
going
to
read
those
folk
watching
I'm
using
my
two
laptops.
So
if
I
stare
off
to
sort
of
this
side,
it's
because
I'm
looking
at
all
my
my
papers,
which
are
on
my
laptop
rather
than
having
them
printed
out,
so
I'm
not
distracted
by
anything
else.
A
It's
not
like
I'm
playing
solitaire
on
the
screen
or
anything
more
seriously,
though
folks
welcome
to
the
meeting
that
this
meeting
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
remote
attendance,
while
items
today
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes.
I
will
manage
manage
the
debate.
A
Therefore,
I
call
on
all
attendees
to
mute
their
microphones
unless
I
invite
them
to
speak.
This
will
avoid
disruption
from
background
noise.
Can
all
participants
please
keep
their
cameras
on
during
the
meeting?
A
A
So
as
I'm
chair
and
there
may
be
some
problems
with
internet
connectivity,
and
so
I
proposed
that
we
adopted
a
deputy
chair
would
step
in
my
during
my
absence
now
at
previous
remote
development
plan
panel
meetings,
council
richie
has
agreed
to
step
in
and
I
I
don't
think
that
arrangement's
changing
council
rich
is
that
okay.
A
E
A
Feminine
feast:
well,
that's
heading
the
labour
party
all
over
right,
okay,
so
kevin's
council,
richards
agreed
to
be
deputy
whip.
We've
sorted
out
sound
issues.
So
now
I'm
going
to
introduce.
Oh
I'm
going
to
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
could
you
meet
your
microphone
once
you've
induced
my
souls,
we're
going
to
go
in
alphabetical
order.
So
if
I
could
start
with
councillor
anderson.
A
A
G
H
But
there
we
go,
let
me
keep
the
full
benefit
to
everybody.
There
we
go.
E
Good
afternoon,
all
councillor
jim
mckenna,
army,
ward,.
A
M
Good
afternoon,
everyone
adam
harvat
group
manager
for
policy
implants.
A
Excellent
right
thanks
so
much
folks.
So
could
we
move
to
agenda
item
one.
B
B
Under
a
gender
item
of
three
I've
not
received
any
formulate
items
of
business
under
agenda
item
number
four:
could
I
please
ask
members
to
declare
any
disposable
pecuniary
interests
I'll
take
silence
as
none
and
under
agenda
item
number
five.
I've
not
received
any
apologies
of
absence,
but
I
am
aware
that
council
collins
will
be
arriving
late
to
the
meeting.
A
Thank
you
very
much
tash.
So
moving
on
to
agenda
item
six
for
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
29th
of
july,
it's
been
brought
to
my
attention
already
that
council
furniture
is
is
listed
as
both
present
and
given
apologies,
and
I
think
it
was
given
apologies
so
we'll
we'll
amend
that
have
any
any
any
issues
raised
with
the
minutes.
A
Folks,
looking
at
elected
members
here,
no
okay
good,
are
we
I'm
prepared
to
accept
those
as
a
true
record
of
meeting
I'll,
take
your
silences
at
approval
and
does
anyone
have
any
matters
arising.
A
No
good
okay,
so
we've
got
two
substantive
items
today,
which
are
probably
going
to
be
the
the
subject
of
the
considerable
discussion
and
debate
and
we've
got
time
to
do
it.
So
what
I
intend
to
do
is
like
move
on
to
gender
item
number
seven,
which
is
the
update
on
the
legal
challenge
to
the
south
allocations
plan,
of
which
officers
are
going
to
provide
an
update.
So
rather
than
do
a
huge
pramble
from
myself,
I
think
it
better
if
we
hear
from
martin
and
adam
to
start
with
chaps.
O
A
N
N
Okay,
at
the
last
development
plan
panel
in
july,
an
update
report
was
given
on
the
high
court
challenge
to
the
site
allocations
plan,
but
at
that
time
the
judge
had
not
ordered
relief.
In
other
words,
what
needs
to
be
done
to
correct
the
errors
of
law
that
she
found.
N
N
To
recap,
very
briefly,
the
site
allocations
plan
or
sap,
as
we
call
it,
was
adopted
in
july
2019,
but
was
the
subject
of
a
legal
challenge
by
airborne
neighborhood
development
forum
submitted
to
the
high
court
on
the
20th
of
august
2019,
focusing
primarily
on
release
of
greenbelt
land
within
the
air,
bra
housing
market
characteristic
area
for
housing.
N
N
N
N
Following
the
adoption
of
the
core
strategy,
selective
review,
which
was
adopted
in
2019
policy,
hdr
1
states
that
the
review
should
be
submitted
by
the
end
of
december
2021,
as
the
plan
in
part
will
now
be
re-examined
by
an
inspector.
It
is
not
possible
to
submit
a
review
of
housing
allocations
and
safeguarded
land
by
2021
to
address
policy
hgr1.
N
N
N
Allocations
so
the
process
moving
forward
will
be
to
update
the
evidence
base,
as
as
detailed,
in
particular,
the
schla
or
strategic
housing
land
availability
assessment
to
determine
what
changes
to
the
plan
in
respect
of
the
37
green
belt
allocations
are
required,
taking
account
of
the
findings
of
the
judgment
and
any
updated
evidence
to
provide
further
update
reports
to
development
plan
panel
on
the
updated
evidence
and
proposed
approach
to
amending
the
plan
prior
to
resubmission
to
the
secretary
of
state
and
to
submit
any
proposals
to
the
secretary
of
state
for
further
examination
and
subsequent
adoption.
N
So,
looking
at
time
scales,
paragraph
3.15
explains
that
it's
estimated
that
the
process
for
the
schla
work,
which
has
started
can
be
concluded
between
six
to
eight
weeks
following
consideration
of
the
data
and
evidence.
Officers
will
aim
to
bring
a
further
report
to
this
panel
in
december.
Updating
members
on
the
evidence
gathered
and
the
approach
proposed
to
to
the
site
allocations
plan
work
as
set
out
in
paragraph
2.9
of
this
report.
N
A
Oh,
thank
you.
That's
very
clear
and
comprehensive.
Well.
2020
is
certainly
consistent
in
in
the
hands
of
dealing
with
us
through
the
inspectors
era.
We
find
ourselves
in
this
inspector's
plural,
this
situation,
so
there
is
a
map
type
way
forward,
suggested
by
lowe.
So
what
our
role
here
is
when
to
make
some
comments
on
that
process
suggested
path
forward.
A
That
kind
of
thing,
so
I
think
something
from
from
my
own
perspective
as
chair
just
to
say,
we
are
also
at
the
moment
so
need
to
bear
in
mind.
We
are
also
at
the
moment
in
the
middle
of
undertaking
a
local
plan
review
thanks
council
carter.
I
think
that's
an
indication
to
speak
yeah
yeah,
bringing
in
a
second
and
the
focus
of
that
local
plan
review
is
the
ongoing
climate
emergency
which,
despite
the
events
of
this
year,
has
certainly
not
gone
away
and
folk
have
been
keeping
up
with
the
news
on
other
things.
A
Apart
from
the
coronavirus
and
it's
a
very
clear
and
present
danger,
now
that's
a
central
strategic
objective
of
the
council
and
over
the
city,
and
I
don't
my
own
view
as
dp
chair-
is
that
we
shouldn't
distract
from
that
process
insofar
as
much
as
we
can
folk
need
to
bear
in
mind.
I
think
that
when
they're
considering
this,
so
I've
had
a
couple
of
indications
so
counselor
carter
did.
You
want
to
come
in
first
and
I'll.
Look
for
the
folks.
D
D
I
mean,
I
suppose
you
would
expect
me
to
say
this,
and
I've
been
very
much
involved
with
this
over
what
I
can
only
describe
now
as
a
a
ten
year
planning
shambles
culminating
in
this
court
case,
and
to
be
frank,
it's
no
good
just
saying:
well,
the
inspectors
got
it
wrong.
The
inspectors
came
to
their
conclusions
because
of
all
the
evidence
presented
by
your
administration,
and
so
you
can
share
the
blame
equally.
D
D
It
also
appears
that
there
is
a
total
house
new
homes
with
planning
permission
outstanding
of
29
000.
D
D
So
what
concerns
me
now
is
the
speed
at
which
we
can
move
the
process
forward
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
a
hiatus
which
leads
the
speculative
housing
developers,
who
I'm
sure
will
be
tuned
in
to
this
meeting
circling
sites
which
we
don't
want
to
see
built
on,
and
they
do
so.
There
is
a
need
there
is
a
need
to
move
with
speed,
although
I
think
the
way
forward
that
is
now
painted
in
the
report
is
probably
the
only
way
forward.
D
D
The
other.
The
other
point
is
that
I'd
like
some
reassurance
about
what
what
discussions
are
going
to
be
with
ward
members.
I
have
a
couple
of
specific
things
I
want
to
raise,
but
I
think
I'll
leave
it
at
that
for
the
moment,
but
I
do
want
to
come
back
on
two
specific
areas
which
I
think
there
are
errors
of
errors
of
fact
in
the
report.
A
Suffice
to
say
that
the
lower
numbers
that
were
presented
successively
would
never
been
expected
accepted
by
a
planning
inspector,
and
certainly
the
higher
figures
that
our
developed
friends
in
the
development
sector
would
put
forward
would
have
never
been
expected
by
a
planning
inspector
and
at
all
times
it
says,
administration's
been
evidence-led,
and
I
think
the
common
thread.
Therefore,
if
you
want
to
look
for
a
common
thread,
is
the
overweighting
power
of
the
planning
inspectorate
and
its
impact
it
can
have
on
cities
like
ours
and
our
communities.
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
Indeed,
we
will
be
coming
on
to
the
national
potential
of
imposition
of
numbers.
The
next
item,
but
just,
I
think,
just
to
say
a
few
things.
First
of
all
that
officers
have
presented
evidence
they
haven't
been
shown
in
the
inspector's
report.
J
I
think
that's
the
a
key
point
to
be
made,
so
the
allegation
that
officers
of
this
council
hadn't
done
their
jobs
properly
in
terms
of
presenting
that
information,
I
think,
needs
to
be
refuted
and
what
we're
up
against
now,
of
course,
is
what
was
actually
written
in
the
inspectors
report,
which
is
where
the
judges
found
faults
and
a
reference
back
effect
effectively
to
the
planning
inspectorate.
To
put
that
right,
I
think
you
know,
in
terms
of
a
couple
of
positives,
to
come
out
of
it.
J
Do
note,
obviously,
that
that
five-year
housing
land
supply
is
delivered
effectively
by
the
city
centre
and
inner
areas
delivering
way
above
their
requirements
and
outer
areas
and
delivering
rather
less
of
that
in
terms
of
having
that
availability
of
housing
for
all
of
our
communities?
For
people
who
want
to
kind
of
be
able
to
buy
homes
near
the
area
that
they
grew
up
in
and
to
live
in
those
communities.
J
That
presents
a
challenge,
but
we
do
have
the
five-year
housing
land
supply,
which
is,
is
hugely
good
news
for
those
of
us
who
were
at
the
mercy
of
that
in
previous
years
and
had
the
speculative
development
that
we
don't
want
to
see
imposed
upon
us
and
the
fact
that
we,
hopefully
without
any
infrastructure
review.
Once
we've
got
this
part
of
the
process.
J
Out
of
the
way
can
move
forward
in
terms
of
developing
a
proper
local
plan
that
has
all
of
our
priorities
and
the
needs
of
the
city
in
terms
of
delivering
our
strategy
to
tackle
the
climate
emergency
at
the
heart
of
it.
So
I'm
keen
not
to
be
going
back
through
a
lengthy
process
that
we've
all
been
through
and
burned
scars
off
over
the
last
seven
to
ten
years
and
to
actually
be
able
to
move
forward
and
get
the
sort
of
housing.
J
We
need
in
the
city
that
meets
the
challenges
of
the
future
and
tackles
our
planet.
Emergency.
A
Yeah
thanks
councilman
yeah.
I
completely
agree,
I
think
making
progress
forward
is,
is
the
way
ho
ho
forward
and
and
effectively
the
quicker
and
simpler.
We
can
make
that
process
the
better.
There
are
other
things
on
our
mind.
Like
you
said,
climate
emergency
does
any
other
member
want
to
come
in
at
all
khao
sa
anderson.
G
Can
I
come
in
chair
because
council.
F
There's
a
number
of
things
in
terms
of
paragraph
2.9
of
the
report,
where
it
pathway
part
of
the
way
down.
It
says
this
is
a
commenting
from
the
judge.
What
approach
the
council
takes
to
except
some
circumstances,
can
I
suggest
that
we
have
a
clearly
set
out
definition
as
to
what
the
council
means-
and
I
do
mean
the
council.
I
don't
just
mean
me
or
you
individually,
I'm
talking
about.
We
need
a
collective
view
and
it's
clearly
set
out
so
that
people
know
what
to
measure
things
against.
F
Okay,
if
we
could,
if
we
could
have
that,
then
in
respect
to
paragraph
3.4
in
terms
of
windfall
sites,
we
need
to
try
and
keep
the
public
fully
informed
here
and
appendix
4
doesn't
actually
clearly
set
out
where
the
windfall
sites
where
and
how
they're
being
dealt
with
in
terms
of
delivery.
So
can
that
be
looked
at
and
whenever
we
take
any
forward
figures
in
terms
of
appendix
4
that
further
clarity
and
explanation
notes
are
put
in
place
in
terms
of
paragraph
3.6.
F
You
know,
let's
say
for
argument
sake.
You
were
wanting
to
put
some
of
these
green
belt
sites
back
in
again,
so
that
you
actually
have
evidence
to
show
that
there
is
a
need
in
the
areas
that
you're
wanting
to
do.
You
want
to
put
them
in
so,
in
other
words,
we
have
because
again,
that's
one
of
the
problems
with
the
community
is
that
they
don't
always
see
where
the
need
is
coming
from,
and
it's
just
a
way
of
you
know
learning
from
lessons.
F
You
know
a
number
of
people
have
mentioned
today
that
we've
got
scars
well.
Minds
are
very,
very
deep
because
I
started
off
this
when
mr
feeney
and
I
were
arguing
against
the
regional
spatial
strategy.
So
I
go
back
some
time
on
this
one
as
well
so,
and
the
other
thing
as
well
is
on
the
site,
the
green
belt
sites.
F
I
attended
a
presentation
this
morning
where
a
number
of
people
were
pointing
out
that
the
way
of
getting
sustainable
development
is
not
building
where
there
isn't
transport
links,
for
example,
because
we're
expecting
people
to
walk
more
we're
expecting
people
to
cycle
more,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
points
that
make
there
and
also
on
the
sites.
If
you
are
bringing
them
back
again,
can
you
set
out
very
clearly
what
the
infrastructure
needs
are
of
those
sites?
F
You
know
we
could
be
doing
with
it
done
on
most
of
the
sites
in
the
in
the
sap,
but
we've
not
got
an
opportunity
to
do
that,
but
we
would
have
an
opportunity
to
clearly
set
out
if
we
do
take
forward
these
green
belt
sites
again
what
the
actual
infrastructure
needs
are
locally
and
so
that
these
can
then
be
agreed
with
local
ward
members.
And
then
at
least
we
are
having
a
better
idea
as
local
ward
members
as
to
what's
going
to
be
expected
from
us
now.
The
other
things
are.
F
That's
been
brought
to
my
attention
in
terms
of
appendix
four.
Why
are
we
not
setting
out
the
actual
number
of
houses
delivered
in
each
of
those
hmcas
so
that
we
can
actually
see
where
the
shortfall
it
talks
about
certain
shortfalls?
F
But
you
may
actually
find
that
some
hmcas
have
actually
produced
just
about
produced
their
target
already
and
also.
F
There
is
a
degree
out
there
amongst
the
people
in
the
public
who
do
understand
this
process
that
the
inspector
in
the
past
has
mentioned
that
we
should
have
taken
into
consideration
delivery
from
2012
to
2017
as
well,
so
that
people
are
aware
of
what's
happening,
because
if
we
want
to
keep
the
public
on
side,
we've
got
to
start
making
sure
our
information
is
clear
and
at
the
moment
appendix
4,
in
my
view,
provides
more
cloud
than
it
does.
Clarity
in
the
way
that
it's
presented.
There's
it's
factually
correct.
I
am
not
disputing
that.
F
Certainly
adam's
aware-
and
I
think
martin
was
copied
into
correspondence
from
one
particular
part
of
the
city
about
clarifying
and
querying
what's
happening
with
the
hmcas.
Are
there
going
to
be
any
reviews
and
also
the
targets
therein?
This
goes
back
to
a
debate
that
counselor
carter
and
I
initiated
at
the
review
where
we
were
asked
to.
F
You
know
argue
the
case
later
on
about
changing
of
the
hmcas,
because
that
was
going
to
come
in
and
at
the
time
I
think
mr
elliot
mr
feeney
agreed
that
that
was
something
that
was
going
to
be
looked
at
in
the
future,
and
the
inspector
noted
that
and
people
wanting
to
know
what's
happening
with
that
in
terms
of
things.
So
I'm
sorry
that
that's
been
a
long
go
at
things,
but
I've
tried
to
be
positive.
I've
not
tried
to
you
know,
be
negative.
F
A
Thank
you,
council
anderson.
That
was
quite
a
list.
Let's
try
to
to
unpack
some
of
that,
for
you,
council
campbell,
if
you
don't
mind
I'll
bring
in
after
we've
attacked
some
of
these
because
there's
quite
a
list
which
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that
battery
at
all.
But-
and
I
appreciate
trying
to
be
positive-
that's
good
right,
so
opening
up
to
offices
regarding
windfall
sites.
A
How
would
we
put
greenbelt
sites
back
in,
although
there's
no
intention
to
do
that
at
the
present
time
or
in
the
foreseeable
future
sustainability
site
infrastructure
table
regarding
the
number
of
homes
actually
delivered
and
the
future
of
hmcas?
So
who
wants
to
pick
up.
A
N
N
I
mean
that's
not
to
say
it
can't
be
discussed
at
some
future
point
in
some
some
review
of
the
plan
of
some
future
stage,
but
we're
talking
here
about
remittance
of
the
sap
under
the
under
the
the
ruling
of
the
judgement
and
that
doesn't
it
doesn't
involve
reviewing
hmcas.
That
would
be
a
whole
lot
of
other
work,
distracting
us
from
from
the
job
in
hand
which
is
purely
to
look
again
at
those
37
sites
and
have
those
re-examined
appendix
4.
N
It
doesn't
take
into
account
past
delivery,
it's
purely
an
indication
showing
what
happens
from
taking
the
sites
out
and
with
with
a
different
plan
period
starting
at
2017,
whereas
the
site
allocations
plan
start
date
is
2012.,
so
it
doesn't
account
for
any
of
the
of
that.
That's
not
to
say
that
moving
forwards
when
we
decide
what
we're
doing
with
the
sap.
N
We
won't
include
that
this
is
purely
a
factual,
factual
statement
of
what
the
current
situation
is
at
this
moment
in
time
when
we
well,
if
we
have,
if
we
decide,
we
have
to
relook
at
those
sites,
and
we
want
some
back
in
then,
obviously,
through
the
examination
process,
the
inspector
will
need
to
be
happy
that
she
is
content
that
the
sustainability
appraisal
that
was
done
previously
and
the
infrastructure
infrastructure
needs
are
fully
taken
into
account.
N
However,
you
know
our
sustainability
appraisal
was
done
previously.
The
inspectors
found
sound
and
we
did
consider
economic,
environmental
and
social
factors
in
assessing
all
sites,
as
as
we
are
required
to
do
currently,
infrastructure
needs
as
well.
We
covered
that
and
the
inspectors
found
that
to
be
sound
in
terms
of
the
infrastructure,
delivery
plan
and
site
requirements
on
individual
sites
regarding
specifics
related
to
specific
sites.
N
N
You
asked
about
whether
a
smart
should
be
done
as
well
as
the
schla.
The
schlar
is
done
on
an
annual
basis
anyway,
and
we
need
it
to
give
an
accurate
picture
of
delivery,
which
does
take
into
account
the
economic
recession
and
effects
of
covert
the
shema.
N
If,
if
there
is
a
need
for
any
other
evidence
that
members
consider
is
needed
to
inform
the
remittal
process,
then
yes,
officers
would
be
willing
to
consider
that,
but
the
schma
was
part
of
the
evidence
in
the
course
strategy,
selective
review
and
has
also
been
considered
and
found
sound
by
the
inspectors.
Very
very
recently.
N
I
agree
fully
with
what
council
mulherin
said
about.
We
we
we
want
to
move
forward.
We
want
to
get
the
the
sapra
metal
work
done
as
quickly
as
we
possibly
can,
so
we
can
move
forwards
with
local
plan
review
and
looking
at
climate
change.
N
In
terms
of
the
other
points
that
were
raised
about
the
risk
of
speculative
development,
we
do
have
a
five-year
supply,
so
in
the
short
term
we
should
be
able
to
defend
speculative
development.
But,
yes,
I
agree.
We
need
to
get
on
with
the
sap
work
quickly
and
remit
to
the
inspectors
as
quickly
as
we
can
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
a
five-year
supply.
A
question
was
also
raised
by
councillor
carter
about
discussion
with
ward
members.
N
Yes,
we
will
be
doing
ward
briefings
with
members
and
depending
on
the
scope
of
the
site,
allocations
plan.
Once
we
have
the
updated
evidence.
If
there
is
a
lot
more
work
involved,
then
yes,
we
would
be
involving
them
as
we
as
we
did
all
the
way.
Along
with
the
site
allocations
plan.
I
think
I've
covered
the
main
points,
but
I'll
I'll
I'll.
Let
martin
and
adam
add
to
that.
A
Yeah
thanks
thanks.
That's
really
really
helpful.
Martin
do
you
want
to
come
in
at
this
point
to
pick
up
anything
or
is
it
I've
got.
K
Nothing
to
add
chair,
but
I
think
chief
planning
officer
has
got
his
hand
up
excellent.
L
Thanks
to
feeny,
thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
martin.
Thank
you
lois.
I
mean
just
in
response
to
members
concerns
about
the
time
scale
I
mean
just
to
make
members
aware.
I
have
actually
written
two
pins
about
the
remittal
process
and
urging
the
need
for
for
speed
in
terms
of
supporting
the
council
to
move
its
local
plan
process
forward,
and
I've
had
a
response
to
that
letter,
inviting
me
to
to
attend
a
meeting
with
them
with
colleagues
to
talk
through
the
process.
L
So
in
terms
of
moving
things
on,
we
want
to
be
on
the
front
foot
with
this
and
work
at
speed
and
agility,
given
the
priorities
that
the
council
has
in
terms
of
the
local
plan
review,
as
well
as
addressing
the
outstanding
matters
in
relation
to
the
sap.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
point.
Chair.
A
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
wish
we
had
more
ability
to
use
hindsight
and
planning.
G
Save
us
a
lot
of
trouble
and
just
put
on
record,
we
did
say
you
didn't
need
the
green
belt
sites,
but
I
will.
G
Because
I'm
sure
we'll
end
up
talking
to
someone
else,
can
I
just
ask
a
couple
of
questions.
Sure
one
is
in
relation
to
the
sap
review
because
it
appeared
from
earlier
conversation
that,
in
effect,
we're
going
to
get
lost
on
these
housing
figures
again.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
there
are
other
elements
to
the
sap
review
that
need
to
happen,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
it
actually
is
a
requirement
that
we
do.
G
It
I'd
be
interested
to
know,
perhaps
from
a
legal
point
of
view,
whether
we're
at
risk
from
developers
who
have,
I
suppose,
taken
out
options
on
land
which,
to
all
intents
and
purposes
until
the
judgement
was
developed
with
all
land.
I
think
the
housing
characteristic
areas.
My
memory
was
that
we,
the
the
alterations
we
were
talking
about,
the
housing
characteristics,
were
not
major
changes,
but
I
suppose
minor
changes
to
make
them
more
more
reflective
of
what's
happening
on
the
ground.
G
But
I
assume
that,
if
looking
at
appendix
4,
if
we
take
the
green
belt
sites
out
altogether,
presumably
we'll
have
to
create
new
sets
of
target
figures
for
the
for
the
housing
characteristic
areas.
So
one
or
two
of
them
I've
got
on
paper
anyway,
a
substantial
shortfall.
So
I'm
looking
at
how
out
of
south
east.
A
G
The
south
west,
where
we're
in
excess
of
a
thousand
and
presumably
we're
gonna,
have
to
produce
a
new
set
of
target
figures
for
them,
or
presumably
developers
could
come
along
and
say
there
is
a
considerable
shortfall
here.
Could
we
use
this
site
to
meet
that
shortfall,
and
I
I
wouldn't
agree
with
barry
appendix
for
now?
You've
explained
it
to
me.
I
think
I
follow,
but
it
is
a
bit
term.
G
A
Okay,
yep,
thank
you
very
much
for
that.
So
just
it's
the
scale
of
sap
review.
Indeed,
a
legal
view
view
on
that.
I
want
to
bring
nicole
in
a
moment
possible
action
from
developers,
landowners,
the
options
on
the
site
and
a
new
target
figures
required
for
the
hmcas
I
mean
just
just
very
briefly.
For
myself
I
mean
I
think
there
is
always,
as
we
know
full
well
on
this
council.
There
is
always
landowners
and
developers
circling
around
looking
for
opportunities.
A
That's
the
nature
of
the
beast
as
it
were.
I
think
the
process
was
setting
out
really
keeps
the
the
sort
of
the
aperture
of
weakness
as
small
as
possible,
and
that's
the
the
right
and
proper
way
forward.
From
from
my
point
of
view,
nobody
wants
to
put
communities
through
the
stress
of
predatory
predictions
by
landowners
and
developers,
scale
of
the
stat
review
and
an
illegal
view
on
its
requirements.
A
B
Chair
can
come
in
with
regard
to
the
developer
question,
if
that's
helpful,.
B
So
from
a
developer's
point
of
view,
that
is
always
a
risk
and
obviously
any
any
developer
has
the
right
to
bring
a
challenge
if,
if
they
want
to
do
that
or
or
challenge
the
decision,
if
they
want
to
do
that
now,
the
appeal
the
period
for
appeal
expired
on
friday,
and
we
have
not
been
made
aware
that
any
party
has
made
an
appeal
to
either
the
relief
decision
or
the
substantive
decision.
A
Okay,
good
okay,
hmca
new
target
figures,
officers.
N
Just
just
just
if
I
can
just
come
in
on
that,
we
argued
throughout
well.
We
we
put
the
case
throughout
the
sap
examination
that
those
targets
are
indicative,
only
not
not
prescriptive,
and
that
would
be
the
case
moving
forwards.
So
I
I
don't
necessarily
think
that
there
would
be
a
need
to
create
new
targets
to
deal
with
the
sap
remittal
yeah.
I
I
don't
think
I
need
to
add
more
to
that.
G
Back,
I
noticed
that
north
west
outer,
which
murray
and
I
represent,
are
actually
in
credit
for
what
a
word
13
houses,
I'm
hoping
you're,
not
looking
at
us
anymore,.
A
Yeah
don't
spend
it
all
at
once:
council
richie,
then
council,
collins.
C
Thanks
chair,
I
do
think
it's
important
to
make
the
point
that
the
judges
ruled
it
was
errors
of
law
made
by
the
inspectors
and
now,
as
a
local
authority,
aware
picking
up
the
pieces
of
that
and
the
costume
resource
yeah
to
deal
with
that.
But
I
just
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
points
that
I've
been
kind
of
mentioned
and
it's
the
unbalance
of
the
housing.
C
Allocation
sorry
yeah
went
blank
there,
the
unbalance
of
the
housing
allocations
across
the
city,
where
we've
got
this
massive
surplus
in
the
city
center
and
the
inner
areas,
and
I
just
wondered
what
risk
that
brings
to
us.
If
developers
don't
and
develop
those
sites,
would
that
then
put
pressure
on
our
five-year
land
supply
and
look
those
predatory
developers
then
could
try
and
pick
off
some
of
these
green
belt
sites
in
whatever
order
they
choose?
C
And
the
second
point
is,
I
think,
lois
has
reassured
me
that
the
shmas
updated
every
year,
even
anecdotally.
We
know
that
there's
a
housing
need
in
those
outer
areas
where
young
people
want
to
stay
in
the
places
that
they've
grown
up
in.
So
there
is
some
requirement
for
housing
out
there
and
this
unbalance
of
the
allocations.
C
I
won't
forget
that
in
a
hurry
now
remembered
it
will
could
have
consequences
for
us,
but
I
think
it
worries
me.
A
I
I
think
it's
two
two
good
points
you
raised
there
yeah
it
does
bear
repeating
that
it
was
the
errors
in
law
by
the
inspector
rather
than
the
council
that
have
caused
us
in
this.
The
situation
so
reaches
point
about
the
imbalance
of
locations.
M
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
come
in
on
that
one.
It's
absolutely
right.
Yes,
there
is,
there
is
a
risk
there
and-
and
that's
really
the
the
primary
purpose
of
the
schla
to
kind
of
test
market
feeling
for
the
delivery
of
that
pipeline
in
that
area
as
appendix
4
demonstrates.
There's
there's
a
huge
supply
in
the
city
in
the
inner
areas.
M
Over
and
above
the
target
sets
out
in
the
core
strategy,
and
so
the
schla
will
be
used
to
test
that
supply,
essentially
and
19
is
obviously
has
huge
implications
which
we
need
to
be
very
mindful
of,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
what
our
supply
is
at
the
end
of
this
process
is
robust
to
ensure
that
we
can
maintain
a
five-year
supply
over
the
duration
of
the
plan
period.
M
A
I
appreciate
that
council,
collins
and
then
council
anderson.
I
appreciate
you
want
to
come
back
so
castle
collins.
O
Yep,
thank
you
chair.
I
I
welcome
the
fact
that
you
said
you
didn't
want
to
put
the
green
belt
sites
back
in
for
now.
However,
if
the
developer
or
if
the
owner
of
that
site
or
a
developer
chooses
to,
they
can
still
putting
forward
a
planning
application
and
try
and
justify
the
planning
on
that
greenbelt
site.
Under
the
exceptional
circumstances,
I
would
support
what
councillor
carter
says
that
we
need
to
seriously
and
quickly
review
what
exceptional
circumstances
would
be
for
us.
O
But
if
you
tell
us
what
the
exceptional
circumstances
are,
we
might
be
able
to
give
you
planning
permission
and
move
forward
in
that
direction
under
those
terms.
O
So
can
we
not
do
something
fairly
quickly
as
a
body
to
say
what
might
be
acceptable
to
us
under
exceptional
circumstances?
If
it's
just
affordable
homes,
I
don't
think
that's
pushing
our
developers
far
enough.
I
think
there
have
to
be
targets
regarding
affordable
homes.
What
percentage
I
think
they
have
to
be
targets
regarding
what
they're
going
to
do
regarding
biodiversity
targets
as
to
how
they're
going
to
improve
the
infrastructure
and
the
road
network
around
them,
and
I
think
we
need
to
do
that
fairly
quickly.
O
Otherwise,
once
one
planning
officer
is
accepting
a
proposal
from
one
developer,
it
could
have
a
cascade
effect
and
we
might
not
actually
get
as
good
a
deal
as
we
we
could.
If
we'd
addressed
it
quickly,
we
have
had
the
climate
emergency
for
over
a
year
now
we
have
been
pushing
officers
for
new
policies,
but
we
still
haven't
got
them.
So
I'm
just
very
concerned
that
even
with
ambition,
sometimes
we
don't
actually
get
the
paperwork
behind
us
to
support
what
it
is
we
need.
O
A
I
think
it'd
be
useful
to
get
some
clarity
from
from
chief
plan
officer
about
exceptional
circumstances
that
might
ease
elected
members,
throw
a
browse
on
that
so
david.
If
you
want
to
speak
to
that,
that'd
be
really
helpful.
L
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
I
mean
other
colleagues
can
comment
as
well,
but
just
to
differentiate
in
terms
of
plan
making
in
order
to
release
sites
which
are
designated
within
the
green
belt.
The
local
authority,
through
its
evidence
and
through
the
plan,
needs
to
demonstrate
exceptional
circumstances
in
in
there
being
a
need
to
do
that.
So
there's
a
plan
making
exceptional
circumstances
in
relation
to
dealing
with
individual
planning
applications.
L
Housing
in
the
green
belt
is
inappropriate
development
by
default,
and
should
a
planning
application
come
in
by
an
individual
developer,
they
would
need
to
to
identify
and
demonstrate
very
special
circumstances
in
order
for
that
application
to
be
considered
as
acceptable.
So
there
is
a
distinction
there
in
terms
of
plan
making
and
in
terms
of
considering
individual
planning
applications.
O
I
know
that
each
individual
application
has
to
be
seen
on
its
own
merit,
but
there
should
be
some
sort
of
overarching
sort
of
request
from
ourselves
as
to
what
we
think
would
be
exceptional
circumstances
and
and
have
some
input
from
the
councillors
just
rather
than
an
individual
planning
officer.
Looking
at
each
individual
case.
What
does
mr
feeney
believe
that
the
we
could
put
on
that
list
regarding
exceptional
circumstances,.
L
I'm
not
sure
if
I
misheard,
you,
council
concert.
I
think
you
might
be
conflating
exceptional
circumstances
and
very
special
circumstances.
Exceptional
circumstances
are
through
the
plan
making,
so
we
have
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
there's
a
need
to
release
the
sites
based
on
the
evidence
we're
putting
forward
to
an
inspector
in
relation
to
individual
planning
applications.
L
It's
for
the
promoter
of
that
scheme
to
demonstrate
the
very
special
circumstances
for
inappropriate
development
in
the
green
belt
and
in
terms
of
the
appropriateness
of
development
in
the
greenbelt.
That's
set
out
in
national
planning
guidance,
which
sets
out
the
sort
of
development
that
you
could
ordinarily
accept
within
the
greenbelt,
such
as
open
recreational
uses
or
ancillary
facilities
relating
to
agriculture,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
so
it
is
prescribed
in
national
planning
guidance,
but
in
terms
of
setting
out
what
we
think
are
very
special
circumstances
for
housing
in
the
greenbelt.
L
We
wouldn't
do
that
as
a
planning
authority,
because
the
onus
is
on
individual
applicants
through
their
proposals
to
demonstrate
to
us
based
on
their
information
what
they
feel.
The
very
special
circumstances
are.
We
wouldn't
want
to
set
criteria
for
that,
given
what's
set
out
already
in
national
planning
guidance.
A
F
We
are
actually,
in
some
cases
partially
taking
you
know,
take
on
board
the
points
that
residents
make
and
sometimes
fully
take
on
board.
What's
being
said,
but
we
are
advised
that
you
know
there's
not
a
lot
more,
we
can
do
about
it.
We've
got
what
we've
got
so,
if
that's
there,
how
can
we
get
the
development
control
officers
to
start
using
your
information?
F
Then,
if
it's
there,
because
I
cannot
recollect
once
a
report
coming
forward
from
development
control,
saying
that
strategic
officers
have
said
this
site
needs
x,
y
and
z,
so
that
we
can
be
sure
that
it's
actually
done
it's
up
to
ward
members
or
members
of
the
public
to
actually
point
out
to
the
plans
panel
that
it
hasn't
been
done.
So
how
can
we
get
development
control
officers
when
they're
in
discussions
with
developers
to
actually
insist
that
these
things
are
put
in
as
a
bare
minimum?
K
So
so
I
think
councillor
anderson
raises
a
point
that
we're
we're
very
cognizant
of
and,
as
the
sap
did,
this
remittance
will
have
to
address
the
infrastructure
needs
of
the
sites.
Should
the
evidence
suggest
that
they
be
proposed
to
be
taken
out
of
the
greenbelt.
Now
that
comes
in
a
variety
of
forms
through
highways
modeling
through
flood
risk
assessment
through
education
needs
through
green
space
needs
where
the
council
can
have
a
control
over
the
delivery
of
that
infrastructure
and
the
housing
provider
can
have
some
control
over
that.
K
So
what
you
will
see
are
site
requirements
in
association
with
the
sites
that
are
in
the
site,
allocations
plan
that
detail
the
infrastructure
required.
K
As
members
will
know,
there
are
some
elements
of
infrastructure
that
the
council
can't
have
control
over,
but
in
such
instances,
for
example,
in
the
healthcare
sector,
the
council
is
working
very
closely
to
front
load
and
have
a
dialogue
around
a
pipeline
of
development
to
enable
the
health
sector
to
provide
adequately
to
meet
increased
increased
residence.
A
Okay,
mine
yep.
Thank
you
thank
you
for
that,
but
I
want
to
move
things
along.
I've
got
council
finnegan
and
then
councils
mckenna
to
speak,
and
then
I
want
to
wrap
this
item
up
so
and
then
I
think
counselor
carter
had
some
specifics
to
raise
as
well,
but
we'll
come
to
those
as
well
so
council
finnegan.
H
Thank
you
chair
a
couple
of
points
to
be
made.
We've
been
banging
on
about
unrealistic
housing
targets
for
forever
and
certainly
we're
against
them
in
the
regional
spatial
strategy.
We've
been
against
them
since
we
are
in
this
mess
because
of
unrealistic
housing
targets.
We've
been
consistent
in
our
opposition
to
that,
but
this
is
more
of
a
specific
issue
at
appendix
4
in
the
outer
south
west,
which
is
where
morley
resides.
We
have
new
sites,
not
in
sap
a
v
ll
aap
of
350
new.
O
H
Now
I'd
be
curious
to
understand
where
that
site
is
and
the
other
question
to
officers
is
taking
into
account.
Morley
has
had
to
bear
the
best
part
of
2000
new
homes,
either
being
built,
have
been
built
or
are
going
to
be
built
in
the
very
near
future.
Then
what
assurances
do
we
have
that
morley
won't
be
asked
to
accept
yet
another
dose
of
significant
housing
numbers
purely
to
deal
with
what
was
not
our
foul
up
in
the
first
place.
Thank
you.
A
Thereby
raising
a
specter
of
a
problem
that
doesn't
exist,
but
if
obviously
I
want
to
briefly
reply
to
the
specific
question.
K
Could
I
just,
could
I
just
come
back?
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
email,
councillor,
finnegan.
A
K
Details
of
that
windfall
number
it
it
may
be
that
that's
not
one
specific
site,
but
a.
H
K
Of
different
sites-
but
I
just
I
just
think
stimulated
by
that
question-
it's
important
that
members
understand
that
this
is
a
judgment,
not
a
choice
for
us
to
emit
these
policies
back.
So
we
will
need
to
work
within
the
adopted
policies
that
this
council
has,
some
of
which
have
been
recently
adopted.
As
has
been
pointed
out
through
the
core
strategy,
selective
review.
A
Yeah,
I
completely
agree,
and
members
should
know
better
to
raise
strong
and
arguments
of
problems
that
don't
exist.
Council.
E
E
But
what
underpinned
this
review
was
that
every
housing
characteristic
area
would
take
their
fair
share
of
housing
and
if
you
look
at
the
altered
area
with
the
noble
exception
of
elton
northwest,
as
council
campbell
has
already
said,
there's
a
shortage,
a
huge
shortage
of
nearly
6
000
houses
there.
You
know
that
can't
be
right.
We
would
be
in
dire
trouble
now
if
it
wasn't
for
the
inner
area
city
center
in
early
inner
leads
and
in
our.
F
E
They
have
produced
more
than
10
000
houses
above
their
requirements,
not
only
have
they
taken
their
own
allocation,
they've
included,
an
extra
10,
000
houses
and
there's
a
very
basic
unfairness.
To
this.
You
look
at
places
like
airbur,
which
is
obviously
the
topic
of
conversation
at
the
moment
which
I've
driven
to
many
times
driven
through
many
times.
It's
one,
big
green
field,
there's
green
belt
all
over
the
place
in
where
I
live
in
army
bramley
and
your
ward
headingly
chair
and
almost
heralds.
You
know.
E
It's
basically
very
very,
very
unfair
and
nobody
said
that,
and
I
think
I
should
say
that
it's
all
right,
even
paul
councillor
finnegan
wanting
on
about
morley,
I
lived
in
mali,
there's
plenty
of
green
spaces
in
morley,
there's
very
little
in
my
ward.
I
won't
repeat
that
again
very
little
now
my
way
of
thinking,
cherries
and
that
we
are
where
we
are.
E
I
accept
that
we
are
where
we
are
on
this
one,
but
what
we
need
to
consider
is
when
we
have
applications
in
the
inner
areas
that
we
have
to
ensure
there's
plenty
of
public
open
space
around
them.
This
year
this
week
on
planning,
we
had
the
privilege
of
maybe
eight
weeks
of
work
where
the
telly's
in
a
city
park
came
on
stream.
E
I
think
we
have
to
think
more
of
that
when
planning
permissions
come
to
to
caroline
south
and
west,
to
kevin's,
north
and
east
and
to
my
own,
but
we
have
to
look
very
carefully
that
if
these
places
these
houses,
these
new
developments
need
to
have
plenty
of
green
spaces
where
the
local
people
can
at
least
walk
the
dog
with
nothing
else,
and
the
kids
maybe
have
enough
room
just
enough
room
to
provide
them
with
a
playground.
E
If
we,
if
we
don't
think
along
those
lines
chair,
we
are
letting
down
the
vast
majority,
the
most
deprived
barriers
in
the
city
down
very
badly
for
which
protecting
greenbelt
in
areas
that
people
from
my
ward,
your
war,
salma's
war,
kevin,
richie's
war,
caroline
ward,
he'll,
never
have
the
pleasure
of
enjoying.
There
is
something
very,
very,
very
basically
unfair
there
and
I'll
finish
on
that
line
chair.
But
I
want
you
to
consider
that,
and
I
want
every
member
to
consider
that,
because
it's
something
I
shall
be
watching
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
A
Oh
well
well
said
councilman,
I
mean
this.
As
mr
elliott
said,
this
is
a
judgment.
That's
legally
handed
on
to
us
not
a
position
where
we'd
want
to
be
in.
Ideally,
there
has
always
got
to
be
equity
in
fairness
and
how
we
go
forward
and
that's
what
we've
endeavored
to
to
run
as
a
as
a
council.
Isn't
it
a
fair
approach
to
make
sure
everyone's
got?
Every
community
has
the
homes
we
need.
A
This
shifts
that
somewhat
it's
fair
to
say,
but
I
think
as
we
go
forward,
we'll
need,
as
you
say,
the
green
space
we
need
and
the
right
housing
mix
that
we
need,
and
it
was
a
bit.
It
was
a
proud
moment
when
city
park
came
forward
at
city
plans,
and
I
was
proud
to
be
on
that
panel,
but
you're
right.
We've
got
to
get
this
right.
A
We've
learned
a
lot
of
things
in
the
last
six
months
and
I
think
we've
we've
relearned
about
quality
of
life
and
the
importance
of
green
space,
and
I
hope
developers
who
are
watching
internally
this
broadcast
will
take
that
to
heart.
It's
a
huge
concern
for
us
all
right,
councilor
carty.
You
wanted
to
pick
up
some
specifics,
but
I'm
wondering
if
that
might
be
better
done,
with
an
exchange
with
mr
elliot
and
lois.
Perhaps
outside
of
this
meeting
council
carter
has
disappeared.
D
D
D
Looking
at
the
current
economic
situation
and
the
fact
that,
even
when
times
were
better
the
economic
growth
that
was
being
projected
by
the
council
way
back
when
the
the
core
strategy
was
first
devised
were
ever
met,
and
we
know
the
answer
to
that
was
no.
So
I
do
want
to
question
an
answer
on
this
economic
situation
and
to
jim
mckenna,
for
whom
I
have
a
great
deal
of
respect
to
be
frank,
jim,
if
you've
driven
through
airbra
and
not
seen
the
havoc
and
the
traffic,
then
I
hope
you
weren't.
D
D
D
Well,
I
can
take
you
to
a
site
of
120
at
dawson's
corner
flats.
Where
are
they?
They
aren't
a
site?
That's
ever
been
mentioned,
but
it's
been
it's
a
conversion
of
of
office,
accommodation
into
flats,
right,
adjacent
to
new
public
station.
Very
sustainable,
nobody
objected,
but
it's
reflected
nowhere.
D
D
That's
supposed
to
identify
the
green
belt
sites
that
have
been
now
taken
out,
and
I
refer
you
to
hg
42
hg
43.
D
K
Chair
martinelli,
I
think
it
does
warrant
an
email,
a
response
going
back
on
the
detail
it
it.
It
may
be
that
the
dawson's
corner
site
actually
is
one
of
the
hg-1
sites
in
the
sap,
but
we
need
to.
We
need
to
clarify.
We
need
to
clean.
N
A
N
Was
counsellor
carter
referring
to
hg
242
and
40
hg
243?
Yes,
I
was
right.
Those
aren't
listed
as
green
belt
sites
to
come
out
are.
N
A
K
Check
sorry,
could
I
could
I
just
go
back
to
because
council
carter
did
make
the
point
that
that
his
question
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
wasn't
answered
around
the
economic
situation
and
the
housing
numbers.
So
I
just
really
do
need
to
clarify
that,
within
the
remittance
of
these
policies
to
the
planning
inspectors,
there
is
no
room
to
to
change
the
core
strategy
policy
on
the
housing
requirement
and
just
to
remind
members
that
the
housing
requirement
is
set
to
last
for
the
plan
period
and,
and
that
is
through
different
economic
circumstances.
K
Now
the
economic
circumstance
we're
in
at
the
moment
could
not
have
been
foreseen.
I
I
I'd,
suggest
and,
and
the
pandemic
wouldn't
have
been
foreseen,
but
the
work
on
the
schla
is
going
to
provide
us
with
clarity
on
the
impact
of
that
on
the
housing
market
in
leeds.
But
what
we
won't
be
able
to
do
through
the
remittal
of
the
sites
to
the
inspectorate
is
change.
The
target.
A
Yeah
thanks
man
that
that's
helpful
is
someone
else
trying
to
speak
and
it's
coming
coming
through
very
well
or
is
that
off-camera
noises
on
someone's
feed?
I
don't
know
anyway,
so
that
was
a
detailed
discussion
about
this
folks
right
at
the
start,
if
you
haven't
lois
out
or
way
forward,
we've
discussed
various
items.
We
haven't
substantially
come
to
a
position
that
would
change
that
way
forward,
and
I
propose
that
we
move
forward.
On
that
basis.
Councillor
collins,
you
wanted
to
come
in
feel
free.
O
Thank
you,
chair
very
quickly.
Hd
242
was
in
the
sap
and
is
now
coming
out
because
it's
green
belt
there.
B
O
One
on
the
other
side
of
the
roundabout,
I
think
it
was
hg
241
that
came
out
initially.
Hd
243
is
green
belt
and
that's
the
one
that's
around
the
old
college
site
and
that
has
now
come
out
of
the
green
belt.
But.
A
O
A
On
that
note,
I
think
we
should
move
to
our
next
gender
item,
which
is
the
planning
white
paper
now
for
our
huge
potential
audience
viewing
on
the
world
wide
web
information
superhighway,
et
cetera,
et
cetera
government's
proposed
a
planning
white
paper,
and
that's
going
out
for
consultation,
which
we
will
be
responding
to
as
a
as
a
city
council
and
as
a
development
plan
panel,
will
make
a
huge
contribution
to
that
response.
A
So
obviously
going
to
speak
to
paper.
In
a
moment
the
white
papers
proved
really
rather
controversial
so
far,
and
there
are
some
significant
changes:
potential,
significant
changes
looming
to
the
planning
system
and
but
there's
also
a
lot
of
items
that
are
rather
vague
and
to
follow
and
to
be
confirmed,
etc,
etc
within
it.
So
the
debate
today
will
be
built
around
that
purpose,
but
I
mean
there
seems
to
be
two
schools
of
thought
on
the
white
paper
at
the
moment.
A
I'll
bring
the
officers
in
a
moment,
but
two
schools
of
thought
seems
to
be
this.
This
is
a
anti-democratic,
over-centralizing
power
grab
by
whitehall,
or
this
is
a
a
developer's
gift
to
bring
in
lots
of
low
quality,
bland
overcrowded
developments,
and,
I
think,
really
folks,
as
a
development
plan
panel.
We
need
to
bring
a
synthesis
of
those
two
positions
forward
and
see
if
we
can
make
some
progress
so
martin
and
adam
who
is
leading
on
this.
K
Thanks
chair,
sorry
again,
I
think
this
robin
robin
coughlin
was
was
gonna.
I
I
Yeah,
okay,
I'll,
try
and
be
very
quick.
I
I
did
have
something
for
about
10
minutes,
but.
A
I
So
it's
a
major
shake-up
of
the
planning
system.
That's
been
proposed.
The
consultation
runs
till
the
29th
of
october.
I
I
So
the
white
paper
is
set
out
as
three
pillars
or
topic
areas,
there's
planning
for
development,
beautiful
and
sustainable
places,
and
then
planning
for
infrastructure
and
connected
places,
so
I'll
just
go
through
each
of
those
in
turn.
First
of
all,
planning
for
development,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
proposals
in
in
this
pillar.
I
There's
a
there's
quite
a
bit
more
detail
that
I
can
go
back
to
if
if
members
would
like,
I
think
our
concerns
with
this
are
that
there
is
a
lot
of
complexity
on
the
ground
and
how
can
that
be
so
easily
simplified
into
three
zones
and
what
would
happen
to
our
existing
designations
like
housing
allocations?
I
I
A
sort
of
question
for
us
is
well
what
extent
will
local
variations
be
appropriate
and
what
sort
of
examples
are
there
in
leads
that
that
we
would
need
to
have
our
own
flavor
there's
also
a
proposed
revision
to
the
standard
method
of
setting
local
housing
requirements
according
to
a
national
formula
and
there's
a
separate
government
consultation
on
this
to
bring
in
some
sort
of
immediate
changes.
I
But
the
white
paper
talks
about
factoring
in
land
constraints
and
opportunities
is
something
for
the
future.
I
think,
and
then
it
proposes
a
much
more
streamlined
system
for
dealing
with
planning
applications
and
also
quicker
plan
preparation.
I
I
There'd
probably
be
less
formal
public
consultation,
there's
a
replacement
of
a
number
of
the
sort
of
standard
processes
like
sustainability,
appraisal,
like
duty
to
cooperate
and
and
the
tests
of
soundness
and
as
officers
we've
got
a
few
concerns
about
whether
there'll
be
enough
opportunity
for
consultation
and
local
democracy
in
this
sort
of
streamline
system
and
how
would
neighborhood
plans
fit
in
and
and
also
what
about
devolution
will
that
replace
the
duty
to
cooperate?
I
You
know
the
proposal
for
a
mayor
of
west
yorkshire
so
that
that's
a
canter
through
the
first
pillar,
the
second
pillar,
beautiful
and
sustainable
places.
It's
got
an
important
role
for
for
design
codes
and
there's.
Basically,
this
means
there'll
be
no
need
for
planning
permission.
So
if,
if
a
proposed
development
accords
with
the
code,
it
can
be
built
so
again,
there's
some
questions
around
this
democracy
is
a
time
for
local
consultation.
I
You
know
upstream
on
in
the
plan
making
process
and
are
there
the
resources
and
the
time
to
do
a
proper
job
with
genuine
local
consultation.
I
I
I
And
I
mean
in
terms
of
implications
for
us
the
the
aspiration
in
the
white
paper
for
zero
carbon
by
2050
doesn't
really
accord
with
the
council's
aspirations,
which
are
more
ambitious
for
2030.
I
I
I
So
just
I
mean
in
conclusion,
I
think
this
is
like
a
starter
for
10
really
from
the
government.
There's
a
lot
missing,
it's
kind
of
expecting
local
authorities
to
fill
in
the
gaps.
I
I
There's
a
lot
of
emphasis
on
speeding
the
planning
process.
Up
I
mean
I
think
officers
do
have
concerns.
How
much
will
this
be
at
the
expense
of
you
know:
involvement
of
local
communities
and
and
councils.
I
So,
as
officers
we've
been
putting
together
a
response,
but
we're
very
much
welcome
members,
opinions
on
the
best
way
to
respond
and
then
we're
hoping
to
bring
a
detailed
draft
response
back
to
development
plan
panel
in
october.
That's
me
done
hope
that
wasn't
too
long.
A
A
I
give
it
a
cautious
one
and
a
half
out
of
10
at
the
moment,
however,
it
has
got
to
go
out
to
consultation
many
faces.
I
would
imagine
significant
hurdles
and
it's
already
gendering
some
significant
opposition
in
the
in
in
in
local
government
circles
of
quite
most
political
parties
to
be
fair,
I've
got
a
couple
of
councils
to
come
in,
but
I
just
just
just
a
point
for
myself.
As
chair
council
car,
don't
worry,
I've
got
you,
it's
all
right,
you're
on
my
list.
A
I've
got
council,
parliaments
and
council
cards,
but
just
to
say
for
my
own
position.
Here
is
both
dp,
chair
and
and
chair.
It
needs,
saying
and
repeating,
and
it
will
form
part
of
our
consultation
response,
but
a
zero
carbon
date
for
new
homes,
2050.
A
and
the
zero
carbon
date
of
2050
for
the
for
the
country's
whole
is
utterly
meaningless.
It's
a
figure
plus
because
it's
mid-century,
I
suspect-
and
it's
far
enough
away,
that
current
crop
of
politicians
and
senior
civil
zones
won't
actually
have
to
deal
substantially
with
it.
There's
no
scientific
basis
for
zero
government
by
2050.
A
2030
is
where
we
need
to
be
aiming
at,
and
that
implies
significant
change
on
our
society.
2050
is,
is
completely
meaningless
and
it's
your
regular
reminder
panel
that
we,
if
the
sustainable
homes
code
adopted
towards
the
end
of
the
the
90s
hadn't
been
jumped,
we'd
already
have
looked
at
well
over
400
000,
zero
carbon
homes
being
built
in
britain.
A
A
There
are
some
further
issues
with
it
doesn't
address.
Infrastructure
doesn't
address
actually
affordable
housing,
which
is
very
different
from
the
government's
definition
of
affordable
housing
and
as
robin's
highlighted
there
is
such
an
anti-democratic
street
street
running
through
this.
That's
a
recipe
for
real
discomfort
in
our
communities.
O
Mr
chair
and
yes,
I
sort
of
agree
with
you
regarding
the
policies
that
the
government's
proposing
to
write
for
us,
because
I
don't
think
we
can
really
comment
until
we
see
them.
I
think
if
they
are
too
wishy-washy,
then
we'd
be
far
better
off
having
our
own
policies.
So
I
agree
with
you
that
we
need
to
know
that
they're
going
to
have
teeth.
O
The
second
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
this
is
all
sounds
great
and
that
we're
going
to
have
beautiful
homes
and
beautiful
estates,
but
we're
not
going
to
actually
be
able
to
achieve
all
of
those
if
the
developers
actually
still
want
to
take
a
huge
profit
margin,
because
if
it
costs
them
more
to
build
it
they're
just
going
to
push
that
back
onto
the
homeowner.
O
O
Where
are
we
actually
going
to
put
all
of
these
community
small
gardens
and
green
infrastructure?
I
think
we'll
we'll
miss
a
key
opportunity
there
if
we
allow
those
to
be
filled
in.
There
was
a
fourth
point,
but
I
forgot
what
it
is
so.
But
yes,
my
understanding
at
the
moment
is
that
this
white
paper
could
have
had
a
lot
of
positives,
but
I
think
because
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
behind
it.
It's
going
to
be
very
difficult
for
officers
to
comment
on.
A
D
D
I
have
spent
the
last
very
many
years
arguing
against
central
direction
on
planning
matters.
It
began.
Well,
it's
it's
existed
for
donkeys
years.
It
got
worse
under
tony
blair,
it
got
even
worse.
Under
gordon
brown,
with
the
barker
review,
david
cameron
continued
it
and
now
it
seems
it's
continuing
further
and
I
think
there's
a
fundamental
reason
for
that.
The
fundamental
reason
is
that
the
treasury
are
convinced
without
any
evidence
that
local
authorities
deliberately
stop
house
building
and
they
don't
six
or
seven
large
speculative
house
builders
stop
house
building
because
they
control
the
tap.
D
We
have
the
letwin
review,
which,
in
my
view,
was-
and
I
make
no
apology
to
my
own
party
for
saying
this-
was
a
complete
waste
of
time.
His
study
into
land
banking
was
a
piece
of
well.
D
What
worries
me
about
this
white
paper
is
that
battle
lines
have
already
been
drawn
up
and
no
sensible
debate
is
being
held
and,
I
regret
to
say,
chair
I've
seen
councilman
herring's
white
paper,
and
it
bears
out
precisely
what
I've
just
said.
D
You
know
my
comments
about
the
mayoral
authority
and
planning
powers
there,
and
it
was
one
of
our
red
lines
to
the
government
on
devolution
that
we
wanted
a
veto
putting
in
there
and
whatever
officers,
or
indeed
your
colleagues
may
tell
you
that
veto
was
in
there
because
of
what
my
group
and
other
conservative
groups
in
west
yorkshire
said
to
the
ministers.
D
There's
all
thoughts
in
this
paper
that
can
be
that
can
be
rebutted.
There
are
things
that
can
be
agreed
and
I
have
a
horrible
feeling
we're
going
to
miss
the
opportunity
of
putting
something
forward
that
all
political
parties
can
agree
upon.
Now.
I
say
this
as
a
as
an
absolutely
committed
free
market
conservative,
I
believe
in
competition,
but
I
don't
believe
there
is
competition
because
of
the
fact
there
are
this
large
cartel
that
can
effectively
price
fix.
D
By
doing
that,
you
immediately
begin
to
address
a
lot
of
the
concerns
we
heard
in
the
debate
earlier
today
about
the
general
public's
view
of
the
lack
of
infrastructure,
which
in
most
cases
is
absolutely
correct,
and
it
gives
the
local
authority
money
and
indeed
less
of
an
excuse
to
provide
not
provide
the
infrastructure
that
new
developments
need
and
that's
completely
missing.
In
this
white
paper,
and
certainly
whatever
the
council
does,
I
shall
be
making
my
representations
on
those
fairly
controversial
things.
D
I've
just
I've
just
said,
but
if,
if,
if
you
believe
in
the
free
market,
then
you
can't
believe
that
one
section
of
the
free
market
is
protected
and
therefore
is
no
longer
a
free
market
and
excludes
competition.
D
I'll
give
you
an
example
in
the
financial
crisis,
the
large
seven
or
eight
builders
stopped
building
and
land
banked
and
squeezed
out
smaller
developers.
That
is
a
fact,
so,
consequently,
we've
even
less
competition
now
than
we
had
before
the
financial
crisis,
and
I
think
some
of
you
will
agree
with
the
comments
I've
just
made,
and
what
I'm
saying
to
you
is
that
we
ought
to
be
constructively
going
back
to
the
government
on
this
and
not
in
the
sort
of
of
you've
said
it.
D
So
it
must
be
wrong
attitude
that
so
often
pervades
our
discussions,
because,
as
as
robin
coglin
almost
admitted,
there
are
some
things
in
there
that
actually
would
be
quite
helpful
to
us.
We
would
agree
with,
and
actually
the
standard
methodology
for
house
numbers
providing.
It's
not
an
imposition
could
be
very
helpful
to
us
and
particularly
helpful
in
reducing
house
numbers
that
we
don't
need
and
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
A
Thank
you,
council
carter.
I
think
the
controversial
bit
from
that
was
the
the
land
taxation.
I
think
you
were
reading
from
the
labor
party
manifesto
from
last
year,
but
no
I
it
there's
clearly
going
to
be
a
a
reasonably
fair
amount
of
of
consensus
on
this
and
certainly
areas
of
common
concern
and
hopefully
they'll
be
born
and
how
we
go
forward.
I
think
using
dpp
as
a
basis
for
a
working
group
to
help
craft
a
response
would
be
a
useful
and
good
idea.
A
Judging
from
what
friends
in
local
government
around
the
country
are
saying
from
a
number
of
different
parties,
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
disquiet
and
I
think
we're
starting
to
to
to
see
why
it
you
know
it
is
vastly
vastly
vastly
concerning
on
just
about
every
level.
Robbie's
pointed
out
that
there's
small
elements
that
are
improving,
that's
almost
the
nature
of
a
white
paper,
really
isn't
it
be
rare
for
government
to
get
everything
completely
wrong
despite
the
last
six
months.
A
Having
many
examples
of
that,
but
it
we
will
try
to
move
forward
in
a
positive
way
and
on
that
note,
council,
rich
you're.
Next
then
councillor
campbell.
C
Thanks
chair,
I
just
want
to
touch
on
the
element
of
the
reduction
in
elected
member
involvement
in
planning
decisions,
and
by
that
it
also
includes
the
people
who
we
represent
the
public
yeah.
That
does
give
me
great
concern
as
a
planning
chair.
One
of
the
decisions
that
we
have
to
make,
as
you
all
know,
is
when
counselors
bring
requests
for
referral
to
panel
when
they
disagree
with
the
officer's
delegated
decisions
and
the
like
and
obviously
has
to
be
a
planning
reason.
C
But
again
that
demonstrates,
and
often
they
are
turned
over
by
plans
panels,
and
I
think
our
record
on
appeals
is
pretty
even
judging
that
yeah,
they
are
finely
balanced
decisions,
so
we
lose
that
element
also,
I
don't
think
it's
in
the
paper,
but
I
think
it's
in
the
white
paper
that,
with
the
move
to
digital
there'll,
be
no
need
for
lamppost
notices.
Now
that
might
seem
a
minor
trivial
point.
However,
certainly
my
ward,
I
think
council
grew
and
will
agree.
C
We've
only
had
small
sites
infill
sites,
but
quite
often
people
complain
that
they've
not
seen
the
site
notices
and
we
do
know
that
actually
leads
goes
above
and
beyond.
Our
statutory
requirement
on
on
notices,
so
I
still
feel
they're
an
important
element
to
play
in
the
system,
and
the
final
thing
is
that
with
the
abolition
of
106,
just
referring
back
to
the
devolution
debate-
and
I
read
the
papers
prior
to
that-
the
scrutiny
chairs
input
and
so
on.
C
There
were
lots
of
references
to
section
106
in
that
and
the
assurance
that
it
stayed
with
local
planning
authorities.
I
just
wonder
if
there
were
any
concerns
that
the
new
levy
that's
proposed
might
find
its
way
to
the
the
mayor,
rather
than
the
local
planning
authority,
to
develop
the
infrastructure
as
as
kind
of
agreed
in
the
evolution
deal.
That
might
be
a
bit
off-piste
for
this
meeting,
but
it
is
a
question
I
wanted
to
hansen
at
some
stage.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah,
thanks
guys
have
you
got
a
commentary
from
officers
on
that
on
the
questions
counselor
richie
raises
is
anything
we
can
say
at
the
moment.
Martin
adam.
K
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
I'll,
be
brief,
actually,
because
I
found
councillor
carter's
critique
and
suggestion
actually
excellent.
G
It
really
does
reflect
most
of
my
views
in
relation
to
this
proposal
and,
and
it
goes
back
to
something
we've
said
for
some
considerable
time,
and
that
is
that,
unfortunately,
the
developer
community
has
the
era
of
government,
and
I
think
there
are
too
few
government
ministers
or
even
mps
who've,
actually
sat
in
a
plant's
panel
and
seen
the
excellent
work
that
ross
plants
panels
do
in
relation
to
trying
to
promote
sustainable,
reasonable
development
in
that
reflects
the
need
of
their
community,
and
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
end
up
if
this
goes
through
with
a
better
planning
system,
we'll
certainly
end
up
with
a
system
that
produces
more
profit
for
developers
and
more
costs
to
local
authorities.
G
That
said,
as
andrew
did
say,
there
are
a
couple
of
elements
of
this
that
I
think
are
useful.
The
phrase
beautiful,
which
I
noticed
appears
in
several
places
it's
one
of
those
things
that
beauty
is
in
the
by
the
beholder,
but
at
least
it
just
requires
some
sort
of
effort
to
try
and
make
something
look
reasonable
and
I
think
he's
his
comment
about
the
standard
methodology
for
housing
need.
G
Given
those
of
us
who've
spent
all
our
the
last
10
years
of
our
lives.
Struggling
with.
This
is
a
useful
thing,
because
it
allows
certainty
within
all
local
authorities
and
effectively
doesn't
allow
developers
or
authorities
to
play
off
one
against
the
other,
but
certainly
I
would
support
council
council's
suggestion
about
a
small
working
group
because
it's
quite
difficult
to
respond
to
so
many
points
yeah
in
an
afternoon
like
this.
A
No,
that's
good
good
points.
Colin,
I
mean
yeah.
I
think
I
think
a
working
group's
the
way
forward.
It's
going
to
be
a
it's
very
nature.
It's
quite
quite
time
limited
and,
let's
see
how
we
can
make
some
progress,
get
some
consensus
across
the
there
is.
They
said
there
is
a
lot
to
respond
to
and
a
lot
of
questions
we
need
to
ask
ourselves:
I've
got
councillor
anderson
and
councilman
herron.
F
Just
I
was
going
to
mention
what
councillor
carter
did
about
the
working
together.
The
reason
I'm
coming
at
that
angle
is
that
I
think
this
is
an
opportunity
for
us
as
a
council
as
well.
It
would
be
a
moot
point
between
us
and
birmingham
as
to
which
one
is
the
you
know
the
prime
planning
authority,
and
I
think,
if
we
can
make
for
make
a
coherent
case
that
has
cross-party
support
and
bearing
in
mind
what
we're
getting
in
terms
of
devolution
as
well.
F
I
think
this
is
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
actually,
instead
of
it's
easy
to
car,
I
can
criticize
this
white
paper
as
well
very
easily,
but
what
about
putting
down
what
we
would
like
to
see
what
we
can
positively
do,
give
us
the
powers,
and
we
will
do
this-
you
know
you,
your
neighborhood
plans,
a
good
example.
F
As
I
said,
I
go
back
to
the
regional
spatial
strategy
when
I
was
having
a
go
at
the
way
that
planning
was
being
developed
in
those
days.
We've
got
to
get
it
right.
I
think
this
is
a
once
in
a
lifetime
opportunity
for
us
to
get
it
right.
The
government,
you
know
you
can
criticize
them
for
the
number
of
u-turns,
but
they
are
also
a
government
who
do
listen
to
what
the
public
are
actually
saying
and
react
accordingly.
F
F
I
hope
that
his
plans
chairs
all
the
plans
chairs,
are
doing
what
they
think
is
the
right
development,
that's
necessary
for
the
city
and
all
the
time
and
the
officers
are
doing
exactly
the
same
thing.
It's
incumbent
on
all
of
us
to
start
forgetting
about
politics
for
a
minute
when
it
comes
to
planning.
F
F
Let's
prove
them
that
we
can
work
together,
that
we
can
come
up
with
a
consensus
way
forward,
and
that
way
we
can
then
lobby
ministers
to
actually
go
take
down
across
party
support
in
terms
of
what's
happening,
the
opportunities
there
for
us
if
we
choose
just
to
carp
on
about
it,
as
we
often
do
in
this
council
or
it's
the
nasty
government
all
the
time.
This
is
an
opportunity.
F
A
Thanks,
I
mean
to
be
fair
barry.
I
think
if
we
make
that
case,
which
we
will
and
the
government
doesn't
listen
to
us,
that's
very
definitely
the
government's
fault.
I
think
there
is
so
many
grave
dangers
with
this
white
paper,
but
yeah,
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
do
do
the
people's
business,
which
I
think
we
always
endeavor
to
try
to
do,
but
we
really
have
to
do
it
for
this
white
paper,
because
it
does
give
me
serious
grave
concerns
going
forward.
Councilman
heron.
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
think
there
was
a
risk
of
us
reaching
consensus
there
before
council
anderson
started
moving
away
from
that.
We,
I
think,
there's
everything
in
terms
of
council
carter's
original
comments.
The
government
white
paper
absolutely
misses
the
point
in
terms
of
where
the
hold
up
is
in
terms
of
house
building
delivery,
and
I
would
agree
with
them
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
it's
house
builders
developers
londoners
sitting
on
land
with
planning
permission
and
not
actually
developing
out
those
sites.
J
That's
the
big
problem,
so
I
think
there
we've
got
some
some
room
for
agreement
there
and
also
my
white
paper
next
week,
talks
about
the
government
working
with
councils
and
the
lga
so
actually
in
terms
of
putting
forward
sensible
suggestions,
including
the
land
attacks
that
council
carter
supports.
J
Then
I'm
very
happy
to
to
work
cross-party
in
a
small
working
group
ahead
of
us
putting
in
a
submission.
So
I
think,
there's
there's
definitely
an
opportunity
for
us
to
reach
consensus
between
now
and
whenever
the
development
plan
panel
is
meeting
to
sign
off
for
consultation
response.
A
Yeah,
I
completely
agree
lisa
thanks
and
just
very
much
we
we,
we
will
be
as
part
of
the
consultation
process.
Yes,
there
are
other
questions,
but
we
will
also
be
wanting
to
set
out
what
we
would
do,
what
we
would
see
in
its
place.
I
think
that's
really
important.
For
example,
affordable
housing
is
still
ill-defined
and
the
government's
definition
of
affordable
housing
differs
greatly
from
anything
that
could
be
termed
by
people
in
the
real
world
was
affordable
and
will
once
again
be
making
making
that
case.
A
As
part
of
this
consultation
response,
there
is
clearly
a
lot
of
overlap
and
officers
have
heard
us
loud
and
clear
man
adam.
Could
you
just
refresh
if
there's
no
other
elected
member
speaking?
Can
you
just
remember
refresh
counselors
members
about
what's
the
the
process
and
the
timeline
folks
just
to
get
clear
in
our
heads
so.
K
Chair,
the
the
government's
deadline
is
the
29th
of
october
and
there's
an
intention
to
bring
a
fairly
final
draft,
which
answers
all
the
questions
in
detail
to
development
plan
panel
on
tuesday,
the
13th
of
october.
K
Now,
that
would
necessitate
if
we
were
to
keep
two
committee
deadlines,
that
report
having
been
drafted
by
thursday,
the
1st
of
october.
K
So
we
really
are
looking
at
next
week
and
the
week
of
the
14th
and
the
week
of
the
21st
as
being
potentially
the
the
monday,
the
28th,
as
as
being
the
opportunities
to
to
have
those
further
sessions.
A
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
we
have
to
meet
that
week.
Folks
right,
mr
feeney,
you've
got
your
hand
up.
L
Thank
you
chair.
I
mean
I
mean
just
to
comment.
I
think,
in
terms
of
pulling
together
a
comprehensive
response
that
there
are
a
number
of
strands
to
it.
Aren't
there.
L
I
certainly
support
a
cross-party
response
to
along
the
lines
that
council,
mulherin
and
other
members
have
mentioned,
because
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
response
that
is
setting
out
how
we
think
things
can
be
improved
in
terms
of
the
proposals
and
also
acknowledging
where
we
think
there
are
some
benefits
from
some
of
the
proposals,
for
example,
increased
use
of
digital
technologies,
etc,
etc.
L
I
think
the
other
thing
to
bear
in
mind,
as
well
in
terms
of
the
working
group
discussion,
is
that
there
may
be
areas
of
activity
beyond
planning
which
is
complementary
to
planning
and
the
delivery
of
some
planning
objectives,
which
also
need
to
be
acknowledged,
because
the
white
paper
proposals
and
the
questions
as
we've
had
in
the
past
with
government
consultations
are
specific
to
particular
aspects
of
those
proposals.
It
takes
you
down
a
particular
route
in
responding
to
those
queries.
L
There
may
be
things
beyond
that
framework
and
beyond
that,
construct
that
we
think
planning
should
be
about.
Our
planning
should
be
integrating
with,
in
terms
of
other
ways
of
delivering
on
on
our
wider
council
ambitions
in
terms
of
improving
the
existing
housing
stock
or
whatever
it
might
be,
and
I
certainly
take
the
points
about
green
space
as
had
been
mentioned
this
afternoon
at
this
meeting,
because
those
sorts
of
interventions
in
terms
of
structural
change
within
compact
urban
areas
require
significant
change.
Don't
they
in
terms
of
legislation
and
intervention.
L
What
we
might
want
to
think
about
is
that,
if,
if
we
are
preparing
a
paper
for
the
the
dpp
deadline,
there
may
be
changes
to
the
paper
or
updates
to
the
paper
following
dpp
between
the
13th
and
the
29th
of
october,
and
it
might
be
that
any
subsequent
changes
or
additions
could
be
agreed
chair
through
you
and
through
councillor
mulherin,
so
that
we
get
you
know
as
rounded
and
as
detailed
a
response
as
possible
within
the
time
that's
available.
A
That's
really
helpful
david
thanks,
yeah,
we'll
have
to
we'll
have
to
circulate
dates.
Just
from
elected
members
on
this
panel,
just
who's
interested
in
participating
in
working
group.
That's
myself,
councilman
herron,
councillor,
anderson
council,
iris.
A
L
Sorry
to
interrupt,
if,
if,
if
members
are
wanting
this
to
be
cross
party,
are
you
wanting
us
chair
to
approach
groups
who
aren't
represented
in
the
meeting
this
afternoon
as
well
to
get
any
additional
comments.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
would
be
the
short
answer.
I
think
we
absolutely
have
to
be
inclusive
on
this.
So
yeah
I
mean
obviously
there's
quite
broad
representation
on
here
already,
but
yes,
because
david
yeah,
no
one
exclude
any
a
political
group
on
the
council,
so
that's
that
will
circulate
dates.
Obviously
we're
going
to
be
fairly
quickly
on
that
when
the
advantages
doing
things
by
zoom,
it
could
be
we'll
fall
out
of
one
meeting
and
into
the
next
by
not
changing
chairs,
which
is
quite
useful.
A
We
have
quite
a
lot
of
debate
on
this.
I
am
conscious
of
time.
Is
anything
anyone
desperately
wants
to
add
right
now?
How
can
we
wrap
things
up?
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
indications
which
I'm
gonna
take
as
we
can
wrap
things
up,
yeah
good,
no
areas,
no
aob's,
as
they
say
at
the
end
of
meetings.
Excellent,
okay!
Well,
listen!
Folks!
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
That
was
a
really
useful
session.
We
are
gonna,
run
a
wee
bit
over
a
zoom
time,
but
we're
still
within
five
minutes
of
an
in-person
time,
and
if
zoom
is
the
new
in
person,
then
there
you
go
within
ship
time.
A
So
thanks
very
much
folks
and
have
a
safe
journey
home
to
your
free
fridges
to
make
a
sandwich
or
wherever
you're
going.