►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
G
A
C
K
G
I
am
a
member
of
driglington
parish
council
and
declare
that
as
an
interest,
they
will
have
been
consulted
on
the
planning
application
that
relates
to
the
drinking
tool.
Application.
K
A
A
J
I
don't
know
whether
I
one
of
my
colleagues
on
the
panel
was
talking
to
me
today.
Is
there
any
update
on
the
highways
implications
and
suggestions
that
were
made
at
the
last
panel
in
terms
of
minute
85,
because
we
think
there
might
have
been
an
email
sent?
Has
there
been
an
email
sent
clarifying
or
not.
F
No
cancer,
chair
anderson.
I
think
there
was
an
email
about
an
additional
protected
reserve
in
in
one
of
the
roads,
but
I'll
I'll
I'll
find
out
afterwards,
because
the
the
officer
was
president
last
pals
not
present
today,
and
I
doubt
whether
john
would
know
the
answer
to
it.
So
I
will
take
it
away
and
I'll.
Let
you
the
world
members
know
thank
you.
A
B
Chair
members
may
recall
that
this
application
was
brought
southwest
plans
panel
in
february.
The
application
was
deferred
to
explore
design
options
to
reduce
the
height
and
dominance
of
the
extension
to
belmont
house,
with
the
loss
of
accommodation
mitigated
by
enlarging
warehouse
and
to
provide
further
background
information
on
vacant
building
credits
following
this
previous
panel.
B
Right
sorry,
following
this
previous
panel,
the
developer
has
taken
on
board
the
comments
from
members
and
has
redesigned
the
scheme.
The
proposed
number
of
units
remains
unchanged
at
24
officers.
Consider
that
all
of
the
issues
raised
by
members
of
the
southwest
of
the
south
and
west
panel
have
been
addressed.
B
Members
will
recall
this
was
the
previous
form
of
extension
to
belmont
house,
which
was
three
stories
in
hate.
This
was
presented
two
months
ago
at
plans
panel.
This
is
very,
very
scheme
which
has
been
dropped
down
to
two
stories
in
hate.
A
result
of
this
means
the
extension
does
appear
much
more
subordinate
and
it
would.
It
reduces
the
perception
of
over
looking
to
the
houses
to
the
rear
on
shear
oak
road.
B
B
The
revisions
have
been
re-advertised
and
one
further
letter
of
objection
has
been
has
been
received
by
an
adjacent
neighbor
and
representations
have
been
made
by
all
three
ward
members.
These
are
covered
in
fall
in
the
panel
report.
The
main
theme
of
the
objections
is
that
additional
landscaping
should
be
provided
to
screen
for
development.
B
B
The
updated
panel
report
fully
explains
the
background
to
vacant
building
credits
and
how
the
proposal
is
fully
compliant
with
affordable
housing
policy.
The
the
proposed
one,
affordable
housing
unit
does
equate
15
of
the
additional
floor
space
created
by
the
development.
B
B
A
C
B
A
So
should
I
ask
them
goes
to
recommendation
all
those
in
favor
already
are
those
in
favor
of
the
application
somebody
to
move
it.
F
F
H
A
A
M
The
application
for
five
church
gardens
relates
to
a
two-story
extension
to
the
side
and
rear
new
entrance
port
to
the
front
and
new
gate
in
the
boundary
rear
boundary
wall.
This
case
has
been
subject
to
a
members
site
meeting
this
morning,
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen.
This
is
an
aerial
image
of
the
site,
which
comprises
one
of
the
six
units
within
the
church,
gardens
housing
estate,
which
was
granted
commission
in
2015..
M
The
application
site
occupies
a
prominent
corner
at
the
junction
of
a58
and
the
and
back
lane
located
40
meters
to
the
northwest
is
saint
paul's
church
a
grade
two
listed
building
and
its
graveyard.
Eight
meters
to
the
west
of
the
site
and
the
trees
along
the
southwestern
boundary
are
covered
by
a
tpo.
M
And
these
are
the
existing
plants
of
the
horse
property
and
now
the
proposed
plans.
M
So
the
application
applies
for
a
lean-to
front,
porch,
which
you
can
see
in
the
north
east
elevation,
which
comprises
timber
columns
and
zinc
roofing,
and
then
we
can
see
here
in
the
southwest
elevation
and
south
east
elevation
and
the
two-story
side
and
rear
extension,
which
would
wrap
around
the
host
property's
most
prominent
south
southern
corner
and
be
constructed
with
timber
frames.
Significant
glaze
walls
and
dark
gray,
zinc,
roofs
and,
as
you
can
see
from
the
plans
here
is
the
extent
of
the
extension
in
relation
to
the
host
at
the
outermost
corner
of
the
extension.
M
Would
project
4.7
meters
from
the
original
property
alterations
to
the
existing
rear
boundary
wall,
which
can
be
seen
in
the
street
boundary
elevation
and
include
the
insertion
of
a
new
pedestrian
access
timber
gate
onto
back
lane,
removal
of
the
existing
timber
fencing
and
an
increase
in
the
overall
stone
wall
height
to
2.3
meters,
with
a
stone
capping.
M
The
images
that
I
will
show
next
are
3d
drawings
provided
by
the
agent.
This
view
shows
the
side
and
rear
elevation
of
the
host
and
the
proposed
extensions
and
the
alterations
to
the
rear
boundary
wall,
as
viewed
from
back
lane.
Looking
north.
M
And
the
proposed
side
and
rear
extension
is
considered
to
significantly
detract
from
the
character
of
the
horse
dwelling
and
wider
street
scene
by
reason
of
its
design,
alien
materials
sighting
scale.
Given
the
prominent
corner
plot
location.
And
it
is
considered
that
the
proposed
materials
are
a
stark
contrast
to
those
of
the
original
property.
M
M
It's
considered
that
these
stone
properties
have
taken
inspiration
from
the
character
of
the
adjacent
listed
stone
church
and
the
historic
walls
along
back
lane,
and
the
proposed
design
of
this
extension
is
considered
to
challenge
the
strong
design
theme
of
the
church,
gardens
housing
estate
and
detracting
from
the
original
two-story
projecting
gable
element,
as
the
extension
produced
protrudes
further
a
further
2.2
meters
from
this
existing
elevation
in
turn
interrupting
the
existing
building
line,
which
is
created
by
this
gable,
and
the
extension
is
cited
upon
the
most
prominent
corner
of
the
horse
dwelling,
which
would
be
highly
visible
from
public
vantage
points
and
which
can
be
seen
by
the
3d
image
shown.
M
It
is
further
acknowledged
that
the
original
gable
element
is
an
important
characteristic
feature
and
design
theme
of
the
church,
gardens
housing
development
as
seen
on
numbers.
One.
Four,
five
and
six
therefore,
should
be
retained
as
such
to
maintain
the
ethos
and
distinctive
character
of
the
original
housing
estate.
M
In
addition,
the
proposed
introduction
of
the
three
additional
gable
roofs
concentrated
around
the
corner
of
the
dwelling
are
also
considered
to
create
a
cluttered
arrangement
of
reforms
which
does
not
harmonize
with
the
original
property.
M
M
The
next
slide
shows
the
tpa
tpo
information,
which
dates
from
2013
and
was
awarded
to
protect
the
existing
trees
in
the
south
southern
western
southwestern
boundaries.
When
the
redevelopment
of
the
farmer
bungalow
on
site
was
earmarked
for
the
current
housing
development
church
gardens,
it
is
considered.
The
preservation
of
this
mature
boundary
was
important
for
from
an
immediacy
perspective
and
will
provide
screening
of
the
forthcoming
redevelopment.
M
The
this
is
the
site
map
which
was
provided
in
the
applicant's
agricultural
impact
assessment.
As
can
be
seen,
this
is
t2,
which
is
a
17
meter,
early,
mature
lime
tree.
The
submitted
assessment
shows
the
trunks
of
the
of
the
tree
as
cited
within
12
meters
of
the
original
property
and
6.5
meters
of
the
proposed
rear
extension.
M
M
This
is
a
sketch
drawn
by
discussions
with
our
principal
landscape
officer,
and
this
is
the
site
plan
taken
from
the
submitted
agricultural
impact
assessment,
which
shows
t2
in
question
with
a
circular
rpa.
Sorry,
a
root
protection
area
and
its
canopy
shown
in
green,
given
the
location
of
the
tree
adjacent
to
the
highway
and
boundary
wall.
M
Sorry
not
very
clear,
they
are
not
drawn
correctly
due
to
the
presence
of
the
hard
standing
side.
Therefore,
it
is
considered
compensation
would
be
greater
within
the
applicant's
garden
closer
to
the
development
roots
of
trees
generally
grow
towards
fertile
ground.
M
M
The
contracts,
the
construction
zone
of
the
development,
which
is
shown
by
the
red,
dashes
and
site
access,
are
likely
to
be
over
the
root
protection
area,
which
would
include
construction
processes
and
scaffolding,
which
is
likely
to
impact
the
canopy
of
t2.
M
It
is
noted
that
the
aia
has
submitted
no
site
levels,
information,
and
here
it
can
be
seen
that
there
is
a
suggestion
of
a
change
in
land
levels.
M
M
M
And
it
is
noted
that
there
are
no
concerns
relating
to
the
impact
upon
residential
immunity,
highway
safety
and
the
impact
on
the
setting
of
the
listed
church,
given
its
setting
40
meters
away,
and
the
reasons
for
refusal
which
are
set
out
in
the
start
of
the
report
relate
to
impact
and
character
of
the
host
and
short
and
long-term
impact
on
tpos.
As
a
result
of
the
development,
it
is
considered
that
a
decision
for
refusal
should
be
made
given
reasons
presented
at
this
panel.
A
Thank
you.
We
have
two
speakers
lisa
and
ian
ma
in
cooper
and
also
counselor
and
in.
A
A
Thank
you,
lis
and
ian
you've
got
four
minutes
to.
A
I
So,
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
The
background
our
intention
in
wishing
to
procure
this
extension
is
to
provide
an
internal
and
external
living
space
enjoying
the
views
of
the
garden.
Our
thoughts
were.
This
should
be
contemporary
aligned
with
many
modern
extensions,
and
the
concept
was
a
glass
box
design.
I
I
Lastly,
we
already
had
the
tree
survey
from
the
previous
development,
and
so
the
tpo
position
was
recognized
in
the
design.
We
believe
the
scheme
provides
a
complementary
space
within
and
external
to
the
dwelling
that
in
no
way
compromises
the
lyme
tree
notwithstanding.
There
have
been
no
objections.
We
have
obtained
three
letters
of
support
from
our
neighbours,
recognising
the
improvement.
The
proposal
makes
to
the
church
gardens
development.
I
The
main
issues
for
the
planners
are
summarized
as
significant
detraction
from
the
character
of
the
host
dwelling
and
wider
street
scene,
two
design,
alien
materials
sighting
and
scale
three
prominent
corner
plot
location,
one
as
previously
mentioned.
We
believe
the
design
significantly
adds
to
the
character
of
the
host
dwelling,
a
view
backed
by
our
neighbours
whilst
being
sympathetic
to
the
house
design
and
that
of
church
gardens.
Two,
the
design
incorporates
pitched
roofs
oak
structure
and
glazing
replicating
the
prominent
timber
frame,
glazed
gables
common
in
the
church
gardens
development.
I
I
Zinc,
metal
roofing
is
a
premium
product
installed
on
many
residential
extensions.
These
days
too,
providing
low
maintenance
and
a
long
life.
The
extension
is
subservient
to
the
host
dwelling,
in
that
it
is
only
16
addition
to
the
current
footprint
within
permitted
development
rules
based
upon
area.
I
I
Firstly,
our
tree
report
has
been
prepared
by
a
very
experienced
consultant
with
40
years,
dealing
specifically
with
tree
assessments
and
former
wakefield
council,
a
boric
cultural
officer
for
31
years
and
a
lease
city
council
senior
tree
officer
for
nine.
I
know
the
following
issues
with
this
recommended
reason
for
refusal.
I
The
lcc
landscape
officer's
refusal
is
a
single
email
supported
by
a
scribble.
Drawing
the
lcc
landscape
officer
makes
allegations
about
our
tree
survey's
route
protection
area
being
incorrect
based
upon
the
adjacent
road
and
yet
does
not
acknowledge
that
the
proposed
area
of
the
extension
was
previously
itself
had
surfaced,
as
it
was
a
driveway
to
the
original
property.
I
No
excavations
are
required
within
the
routing
zone
of
any
tree.
The
canopy
of
the
tpo
does
not
extend
over
the
extension
with
the
nearest
point
being
small
diameter,
twig
growth
and
relatively
opening
character.
No
tree
pruning
will
be
required
in
terms
of
the
social
proximity
of
the
tree.
To
extension,
the
planning
report
notes
there
are
two
relevant
tree
trees
with
tpos,
when
in
fact,
there
is
only
one.
I
A
H
Just
a
quick
one,
the
officer
said
that
in
negotiations
with
you,
they'd
suggested
an
alternative
location
for
the
extension.
Could
you
tell
us
whereabouts
that
was
and
why
you
thought
that
wasn't
appropriate.
I
Yep,
I
don't
recollect
any
discussion
to
that
respect.
There's
been
no
alternative
solutions
offered
no
discussion.
G
Thanks
very
much
a
couple
of
questions,
I
don't
understand
contemporary
design,
as
my
colleagues
know
who
sat
on
with
me
at
plans
planet,
I
just
don't
get
it
so,
leaving
that
aside,
it's
not
a
question
on
contemporary
design
because
I
really
don't
get
it
so
can
I
just
be
clear:
the
conservation
officer
doesn't
have
a
concern
about
it.
Your
neighbors
don't
have
a
concern
about
it.
The
council
doesn't
have
a
concern
about
it.
G
B
Thank
you
chair,
so
first
question
leading
up
for
the
the
comments
of
of
the
speaker.
Has
there
been
an
alternative
plan
put
forward
and,
secondly,
to
the
offices
in
relation
to
the
tree
in
in
respect
to
the
root
protection
area?
N
Yes,
the
question
goes
back
to
what's
called
the
reprotection
area
calculation,
so
in
the
submitted,
arbor
cultural
impact
assessment,
getting
the
reprotection
area
correct
is
the
first
and
foremost
important
thing
where,
if
you
don't
know
where
the
root
system
is,
you
cannot
assess
the
impact
correctly
and
now
in
this,
the
submitted
rpa
in
the
impact
assessment
shows
almost
50
percent
of
the
root
system
to
be
calculated
to
be
growing
or
underneath
the
road.
N
So
basically
the
rpa,
if
it
was
done
correctly,
would
have
taken
that
area
inside
the
road
and
redistributed
that
same
area
within
the
site,
and
that
would
very
much
make
a
lot
of
difference
to
the
formation
of
the
rpa.
Now
that
isn't
just
my
opinion,
I'm
looking
at
the
national
standard,
which
is
the
code
of
practice
for
trees
and
planning,
it's
called
bs
5837
trees
in
relation
to
design,
demolition
and
construction
covers
all
angles.
N
It's
got
delivery
of
tree
related
information
into
the
planning
system
chart.
So
it's
very
much
underpins
our
policy
council
policy
ld1,
which
is
space
around
buildings
to
allow
for
trees,
and
so
the
extract
from
bs5837
6.4.62.
N
N
N
The
setting
for
the
church
and
back
lane
very,
very
distinct
character
and
the
trees
are
a
huge
part
of
that.
In
the
original
planning,
there's
plenty
of
space
left
between
this
building
and
the
tree
five
meters,
which
allows
for
the
tree
to
grow
without
causing
conflict
with
the
building.
Here
we
have
now
the
the
building
extension
brings
out
five
meters,
roughly
forward
towards
the
tree
filling
the
gap
that
was
left
originally
and
that
is
going
to
bring
the
tree
and
the
extension
into
conflict
in
the
short
term
and
the
long
term.
N
In
the
short
term,
there
are
going
to
be
impacts
on
the
root
system.
For
for
sure,
there's
going
to
be,
the
canopy
has
got
to
be
cut
back
to
allow
for
construction.
There
are
going
to
be
ongoing
problems.
This
tree
is
110
years
old,
it's
going
to
live
for
another
100
years.
It's
got
high
immunity
value
in
the
locality
and
we
have
a
climate
emergency
where
we're
supposed
to
be
looking
after
trees
with
sick,
sequester,
carbon
etc.
N
So
the
assessment
doesn't
fully
cover
all
the
issues
of
an
impact
assessment,
but
it
should
do
drainage
hasn't
been
included
in
any
services.
There's
a
change
in
level,
there's
all
the
construction
requirements
and
so
on.
So
there's
definitely
going
to
be
some
harm
to
this
tree
and
there's
going
to
be
an
ongoing
indirect
conflict
over
time
to
the
detriment
of
the
tree
as
it
continues
to
grow.
Maybe
for
another
hundred
years
who
knows,
but
the
the
submitted
survey
says
it
would
be
very
good
health
for
at
least
a
minimum
of
40
years.
N
So
that's
a
long
time,
so
the
the
reprotection
area
could
also
have
been
under
the
patio,
which
is
very,
very
light
construction
paving
as
well.
All
these
factors
should
have
been
addressed
and
should
have
been
in
the
reproduction
area
assessment.
So
you
know
I
can
only
give
my
professional
opinion.
I've
worked
over
30
years
in
this
industry.
I've
worked
13
years
at
least
city
council
planning,
landscape
planning,
so
I
think
I
am
experienced
and
have
the
right
qualifications
to
be
commenting
on
this.
N
I've
got
a
a
ba
in
landscape
architecture,
a
postgraduate
diploma
in
the
landscape,
art
architecture,
I'm
a
chartered
landscape
architect
with
a
landscape
institute.
I've
also
got
a
decline
with
diploma
and
horticulture.
I
think
I
am
qualified
and
experienced
to
speak
about
this
tree.
I
hope
that
helps.
B
So,
just
quickly
to
confirm
the
asymmetrical
likelihood
of
the
of
the
root
growth
into
the
areas
outside
of
the
heart
standing
to
the
main
road
likely
puts
the
actual
roots,
significantly
closer
to
the
property
than
the
actual
kind
of
template
of
putting
a
circle
around
it
and
assuming
and
therefore,
with
the
other
changes
the
likelihood
that
there
would
probably
be
incident,
unintentional
or
incidental
damage
to
that
root
system,
because
it's
undetectable
until
you
actually
get
into
the
ground.
That's
why,
in
your
professional
assessment,
the
actual
risk
to
this
protected
tree
is
of
such
weight.
G
What's
the
thing
again:
yeah
I
want
to
eat
planner
and,
and
then
one
two
sheamus,
if
I
make
one
to
the
planet,
is
really
just
to
reiterate
conservation.
Section
conservation
officer
doesn't
have
a
problem
with
it.
There
are
no
other
objections
that
I'm
aware
of
from
neighbours
or
the
parish
council
or
the
ward
councillors.
I
just
want
you
to
confirm
whether
I've
got
that
right
and
in
terms
of
the
tree
officer,
the
report's
done
by
steve
waterson,
who
was
40
years
as
a
tree
officer
working
for
wakefield
council
working
for
lead
city
council.
G
I
believe
you
know
personally,
I'm
told
he
trained
you.
I
don't
know
where
that's
true,
don't
know
whether
that's
not
true
we'll
leave
that
out.
That's
not
relevant
to
this
particular
planning
issue
at
this
particular
point.
Why
do
you
think
he's
got
it
so
significantly
badly
damagingly
wrong,
taking
into
account
his
view
is
taking
into
account?
Well,
he
kept
it
he's
giving
an
opinion.
We've
got
a
separate
opinion
at
this
particular
point.
G
An
opinion
needs
to
be
based
upon
the
fact
that
they're
on,
because
of
x,
y
and
z,
believe
that
aside,
I'm
sure
the
officer
is
capable
of
answering
the
question
himself,
but
taking
into
account,
he
says
the
tree
won't
be
influenced
by
that.
He
says
both
trees
are
going
to
remain
there
and
thrive
in
that
particular
situation
and
set
of
circumstances.
A
N
I
can
only
make
my
own
assessment
looking
at
the
information
that's
been
provided
and
I've
quoted
you
earlier.
The
parts
of
the
british
standard,
which
is
the
national
code
of
practice
and
the
comments
I've
made,
are
based
on
that
and
that's
all
I
can
say
really
and
that's
all
I
can
say
thank
you.
M
With
regards
to
your
question
and
that
you
directed
towards
me
it
that
is
correct.
That
conservation
have
no
concerns
with
the
application,
but
it
is
worth
noting
that
conservation
are
only
consulted
with
regards
to
impact
on
the
listed
building
and
not
design,
and
there
were
also
three
letters
of
support
from
local
residents
and
no
objections.
A
My
question
was
regards
to
page
53
number
45
and
where
it's
state
time
that
the
applicant
has
not
applied
for
work
to
propose
to
the
wall
height.
M
So
that
reference
was
made
with
regards
to
the
the
alterations
to
the
boundary
wall,
so
in
the
application
form,
it
only
states
that
there
would
be
the
insertion
of
the
gate
and
not
the
increasing
height
of
the
wall,
but
it
is
shown
on
plan
to
be
increasing
height
to
over
pd.
What
can
I
just
come.
A
Back
then
and
ask
was
the
wall
gonna
be
removed
and
re
rebuilt
and
in.
H
H
Right:
okay,
one
quick
question
to
officers
the
the
when
we
were
on
site
that
we
looked
at.
We
looked
at
the
old.
What
was
the
old
entrance
to
the
the
original
house
which
has
been
walled
up
and
on
on
the
drawings?
It
shows
a
replacement
wall.
I
suppose
the
question.
The
first
question
I
would
ask
to
you
is:
did
we
ask
about
in
effect,
rather
than
a
complete
wall,
a
wall
and
hedge,
as
they
have
around
the
rest
of
the
property,
which
would
be
better
for
the
environment?
H
I
don't
think
any
of
us
here
doubt
your
qualifications
or
your
passion
for
this,
but
we're
trying
to
understand
because
those
of
us
who
were
there
on
site
today
did
notice.
There
was
that,
from
my
lip
mercedes
point,
there's
quite
a
distance
between
the
tree
and
where
the
current
building
is.
H
Are
you
basically
saying
to
us,
because
if
you
look
on
the
plan,
there's
the
road
where
you
saying
the
the
root
structure
will
be
compromised,
and
I
understand
that
we
were
told
on
site
that
the
the
original
application,
the
original
entrance
to
the
property
was
over
the
drive
which
would
be
adjacent
to
that.
So
presumably
there'd
be
some
compromise
there
in
relation
to
the
root
structure
and
presumably
putting
the
patio
in
would
also
have
had
some
effect.
H
Are
you
basically
saying
to
us
that,
in
your
opinion,
you
couldn't
put
any
extension
on
that
corner
without
if
it's
materially
affecting
the
tree,
or
are
you
saying
just
this
one
and
if
they
chose
to
do
something,
perhaps
smaller
or
not,
didn't,
stick
out
quite
so
far
in
that
air
towards
the
tree
that
that
would
be
acceptable.
So
I
suppose
the
question
is
how
near
to
the
tree
do
they
need
to
get
if
they
wanted
to
build
an
extension
in
simple
terms.
N
We
need
to
establish
the
root
protection
area
as
mentioned
earlier,
because
then
we
know
the
limits
to
that,
but
as
regards
the
british
standard
and
polit
lead
city
council
policy
ld1,
the
whole
idea
is
to
allow
space
around
the
building,
in
other
words,
to
allow
light
to
not
to
set
up
a
good
relationship
between
any
structure
and
the
tree,
and
that
would
still
allow
for
maintenance
and
everything
else
now
nobody's
going
to
accept
a
building,
a
tree,
whipping
up
against
the
front
face
of
a
glass
building
or
the
compromises
there
will
be
in
light
and
leaves
and
debris
that
comes
with
the
tree.
N
Unfortunately,
and
that's
why
it
needs
space
now,
if
the
british
standard
on
our
policy
says
you've
got
to
allow
for
the
tree
to
grow
in
the
future,
allow
space
for
that
as
well
and
the
relationship
that
was
there
originally
was
was
very,
was
perfect.
It
allowed
four
or
five
meters
a
gap
for
the
tree
to
expand
for
light
to
get
into
the
building
for
the
structure
to
be
safe,
but
you
know
that
if
it
could
be
worked
out,
I
couldn't
really
say
sitting
here
now.
What
would
be
the
limits?
N
H
So,
just
to
get
clear
clear
in
my
mind
effectively,
what
you
appear
to
be
saying
to
us
is
that
the
principle
of
an
extension
in
in
this
location
is
not
a
no-go,
but
actually
what
the
information
you
would
need
to
make
a
decision
in
relation
to
whether
that
might
damage
the
tree
would
require
a
more
extensive
appraisal.
I
suppose,
is
the
best
word
of
the
current
route
structure
for
the
for
the
tree
is
that
is
that,
in
simple
terms,
is
that
is
that
what
you
say.
N
Yes,
that
would
that's
right,
counselor
yeah.
That
would
be
the
starting
point
to
get
the
survey
information,
the
baseline
of
the
existing
situation,
absolutely
correct
and
then
to
actually
assess
all
the
potential
impacts
that
come
after
the
ones
that
have
not
been
included
in
the
impact
assessment.
Like
say,
changes
in
levels,
there's
going
to
be
drainage
and
services,
and
and
so
on.
All
of
these
things
can
have
an
impact,
but
I
think
the
corner,
I'm
not
I'm
not
saying
that
an
extension
isn't
possible
there.
N
No,
and
it's
just
that
corner
pressure
is,
is
the
the
biggest
aspect,
the
other
two
wings,
if
you
like,
probably
wouldn't
I
can't
imagine-
would
have
too
much
impact
so
there's
definitely
scope
for
tweaking
this
and
getting
a
better
form
to
that
wooden
conflict
in
the
tree
and
end
up
with
a
good
balance,
a
good
relationship
with
this
very,
very
important
tree-
that's
110
years
old,
and
we
want
to
preserve
it
for
the
future
as
well.
F
I
just
wanted
to
to
to
make
that
clear,
but
also
I
want
to
make
clear
to
members
that
actually
this
is
the
application
that
the
applicant
wanted
to
be
considered
because,
as
elliot
said,
and
we've
not
had
the
confirmation
from
the
architect,
a
suggestion
was
made
to
take
the
extension
away
from
the
root
protection
airway.
We
think
it
is
and
across
the
back
of
the
building,
but
obviously
at
the
request
of
council
hutchinson,
the
application
of
brought
forward.
Is
this
application
and
not
not
another
one?
Thank
you.
Chair.
J
So
what
you're
saying
is
this
is
shameless
to
begin
with
and
then
planning
in
general
that
there
might
might
be
might
be
a
way
forward
if
on
this
one,
and
is
there
any
additional
conditions
that
could
be
put
on
to
protect
the
tree
and
in
highways
the
way
that
highways
often
get
around
root
problems?
Is
they
put
cages
over
the
top
of
the
roots
to
enable
them
to
to
grow?
Is
that
feasible
on
a
location
like
this
or
not?
That
would
help
the
root
side
wouldn't
help
the
growth
at
the
top.
J
N
N
N
Whilst
this
is
the
rear
elevation
of
the
house.
Actually,
it's
it's
fronting
onto
a
quite
prominent
and
attractive
frontage.
How
you
back
learn!
So
that's
the
sensitive
part
of
the
scheme.
I
think
what
the
case
officer
has
done
before
in
trying
to
suggest
an
alternative
is
to
look
at
this
particular
area
here,
which
is
it's
quite
a
substantial
area.
It's
devoid
of
the
tree
areas.
N
This
elevation
here
of
the
adjoining
house.
It's
a
side
elevation,
so
you
haven't,
got
principal
windows
which
would
come.
You
might
otherwise
conflict
with
their
immunity.
So
from
a
generalistic
planning
point
of
view,
the
ideal
opportunity
to
form
an
extension,
it
seems
to
be
in
this
location
here
and
that's
what
we've
suggested
and
clearly
you
can't
just
pick
what's
being
proposed
up
and
just
lop
it
there.
It's
got
to
be
sensitive
to
design,
so
it
ties
in
as
well.
N
G
G
You
just
say
the
contemporary
design
doesn't
fit.
So
we
can't
use
the
tree
issue
anymore
at
that
particular
point,
but
I
understood
that
correctly
so
you're
saying
if
this
design
is
shifted
to
the
other
side,
that
would
mean
there
is
a
compromise
to
be
had
because
I'm
reading
it,
you
don't
like
this
design,
whatever
it
is
on
this
house.
So
it's
not
a
compromise
option.
Have
I
understood
that
right.
N
No
not
particularly
know,
I
think
what
we,
what
we're
essentially
saying,
is
we're
not
adverse
to
contemporary
design,
but
it's
the
location
of
the
footprint
of
the
extension
in
the
vistas
along
back
lane
and
proximity
to
trees.
If
a
similar
form
of
development
were
proposed
along
the
southwest
or
southeast
elevation
of
the
house,
then
I
think
officers
would
be
more
comfortable
with
that,
as
long
as
the
composition
of
that
extension
seems
proportionate
and
ties
into
the
rest
of
the
house.
So
I
think
it's
not
the
design
per
se.
F
F
And
yes,
they
could
provide
further
information
if
they
were
prepared
to
do
some
investigative
digging
as
to
exactly
where
the
where
the
rpa
actually
actually
is.
So
that's
one
issue,
and
that
could
be
the
compromise
that
council
anderson
started
to
to
refer
to.
But
the
secondary
issue
is
then-
and
we've
not
actually
discussed
this
at
all
as
a
panel
is
what
members
think
of
the
contemporary
design,
because
officers
have
concerned
that
the
contemporary
design
is
too
contemporary
for
its
location
and
for
the
impact
upon
the
existing
host
property.
F
So
if
members
were
to
want
to
defer
this
for
further
consideration
with
the
applicant,
what
I
would
then
ask
them
for
members
is
actually
a
comment
upon
what
they
think
of
the
contemporary
design,
because,
obviously
I
don't
want
to
set
the
because
we've
already
been
criticized
at
some
point
for
for
delays
on
dealing
with
these
applications
to
set
the
applicants
off
spending
more
money
on
the
rpa
consideration.
F
When
we,
I
don't
have
a
class
there
as
to
what
members
think
of
the
actual
design.
So
if,
if
members
did
want
to
try
and
offer
a
compromise
and
defer
along
that
basis,
some
clarity
upon
what
members
think
of
the
design
will
be
helpful
and
whether
they
agree
with
officers
that
it
is
too
contemporary
needs.
Significant
alteration
to
fitting
with
the
existing
building
in
the
general
area
would
be
helpful
because
otherwise
it
would
potentially
lead
to
additional
costs
which
might
be
aborted
for
the
applicant.
Thank
you,
chair.
H
The
best
word
I
can
use
to
describe
the
design
is
insipid.
It
really
is,
I'm
slightly
embarrassed
at
the
prospect
that
I
might
have
been
on
the
panel,
though
we
agreed
this
because
by
modern
standards
we
would
not.
We
would
not
be
letting
this
through.
It's
really
they're,
really
well
I'll,
say
it
they're,
really
poorly
designed.
In
my
opinion,
my
view
on
the
the
contemporary
nature
of
the
extension
is,
if
you
are
building
an
extension,
you
need
to
make
it
clear:
it's
it's
not
part
of
the
original
building.
H
You
know
it
is
an
extension
and
I
quite
frankly,
I
have
no
problems
with
the
design.
I
I
know
on
site,
there's
a
lot
of
glass
and
you're
probably
going
to
need
a
lot
of
neck
curtaining
to
to
screen
it
off,
but
I'm
I'm
relaxed
and
I
think
it
okay.
It
makes
a
bold
statement.
It
makes
a
much
better
statement.
In
my
opinion
than
the
original
building,
so
I'm
not
fussed
about
that.
H
I
think
the
thing
that's
really
concerning
all
of
us
isn't
it
is
the
impact
on
the
tree,
because
none
of
us
want
to
lose
the
tree,
and
so
I
mean
we
can
talk
around
it
all
afternoon
if
you
like,
but
I
am
quite
happy
to
prepar-
propose
that
we
defer
this
application
for
further
for
officers
to
have
further
negotiations
with
the
the
owner
in
relation
to
the
effectively
a
survey
of
the
tree
root
structure
as
to
where
it
is
a
discussion
about
whether
the
extension
in
this
particular
location
is
appropriate.
H
But
I'm
not.
I
wouldn't
suggest
that
we
wanted
to.
H
Micromanage
the
design
and
because
I'm
quite
happy
with
it,
so
I'm
quite
happy
to
propose
that
chair.
F
I
understand
completely
what
counts
campbell's
saying
I
would
like
just
to
hear
from
the
rest
of
the
members,
though,
of
what
their
opinion
of
a
contemporary
design,
because
again,
if
the
applicants
to
go
away
and
and
put
the
cost
of
investigating
the
route
protection
area,
which
is
great
but
I'd
also
like
them
for
the
panel
to
to
to
give
a
steer
on
what
they
think,
because
do
they
accept
that
contemporary
design
of
this
nature
will
be
acceptable,
whether
it
be
on
that
corner,
if
root
protection
area
can
be
shown
to
be
elsewhere
or
whether
it
actually
needs
to
be
moved
onto
the
back
of
the
property.
A
Yes,
I
agree
with
the,
so
we
will
ask
members
their
ideas.
We
got
to
go
to
comment,
we'll
keep
your
proposal
and
all
consulate
combo
until
we
go
to
some
comments
and
take
it
from
there.
Okay
is
that,
okay,
so
idea
any.
N
Yeah,
can
I
just
say
one
last
thing,
because
council
anderson
there,
you
mentioned
what
you're
referring
there
to
so-called
engineering
solutions.
Yeah
in
the
case
like
this
engineering
solutions,
you
know
to
do
with
foundations
and
stuff
are
absolute
last
case
scenario,
and
we
would
not
consider
them
in
this.
They
are
very
extremely
difficult
to
achieve
and
very,
very
damaging.
Often.
The
other
thing
is
just
to
make
clear
that
we've
talked
a
lot
about
rpa,
but
that
is
not
the
only
issue
with
the
trees
with
the
tree.
A
N
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
actually
like
the
design.
I
don't
like
the
existing
design,
I'm
having
gone
on
the
photographs,
but
I
like
the
design.
I
like
the
materials
as
councillor
campbell
said,
though
my
only
concern
is
the
tree.
So
if
we,
if
we
are
happy
to
accept
a
compromise,
I'm
happy
for
the
applicant
to
reconsider
those
materials
again.
B
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
I
think
comment
on
this.
We
have
many
conversations
about
contemporary
and
non-contemporary,
and
this
is
a
bit
of
a
weird
one,
because
it's
a
contemporary
building
with
a
slightly
more
contemporary
design
on
it.
So
it's
a
what
how
contemporary
do
you
get
get
to
be
contemporary?
B
I
think
you
know
we
can
sit
here
all
day
and
talk
about
what
we
would
like
or
not
like
in
the
end,
that's
down
to
personal
choice
and
it's
whether
or
not
it
happens,
a
characteristic
of
the
area
and
that's,
and
that
is
a
subjective
judgment
in
itself.
I
think
that's,
perhaps
a
discussion
for
another
day.
The
fundamentals
of
this
one
are
it's
in
the
wrong
place.
I
think
we
all
agree
it's
in
the
wrong
place.
The
potential
damage
to
a
very
old
tree
is
not
an
acceptable
risk.
I
think
the
fundamentals.
B
This
is:
there's
no
objection
to
an
extension
there's.
No,
it's
permanent
development
right
by
the
sounds
of
it
anyway,
because
of
the
size
of
it.
It's
it's
location,
that's
the
problem,
location,
location,
location.
So
the
question
before
us
now
is:
do
we
refuse
and
basically
make
them,
go
back
to
the
original
drawing
board
or
we
do
do
we
try
and
somehow
mark
the
current
application
into
something
else
different,
because
that
will
naturally
create
a
different
design
anyway.
B
So,
as
a
committee,
you
know,
if
we
refuse
it,
we
are
fundamentally
saying
straight
away
that
an
extension
in
this
position
is
not
acceptable.
That's
probably
a
much
more
clear-cut
argument
and
trying
to
jerry-rig
it
around
something
else,
and
then
just
saying
actually
to
the
applicant
come
back
with
a
new
application,
because
actually
we're
trying
to
establish
the
fundamentals
of
not
of
whether
an
extension
in
this
location
is
acceptable,
not
whether
an
extension
is
acceptable
and
and
on
that
base
side
I
would.
A
F
Very
chair
understand
that
motion,
but
the
first
motion
actually
was
made
by
councillor
campbell
so
yeah.
No,
no,
I
understand
completely
I'm
not
trying
to
muddy.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
done
correctly.
F
That's
all
so
we
on,
on
the
basis
of
what
counselor
campbell
said,
we
have
a
motion-
that's
not
seconded
at
the
moment,
to
defer
okay
seconded,
so
that
motion
is
to
defer
for
further
discussions
and
investigation
about
the
rpa
and
obviously
where
that
would
lead
us,
but
that
is
with
the
panel
accepting
the
contemporary
design
on
this
building
would
be
acceptable.
L
Councillor
given
given
where
we
are
with
the
order
of
events,
are
you
wanting
to
put
an
amended
motion,
or
are
you
asking
or
amended
motion
formally
of
which
they
would
be
involved,
or
are
you
asking.
B
I
I
I
would
actually
recommend
the
motion
to
basically
have
it
and
say
that
we
in
principle,
we've
proven
extension,
but
we
don't
improve
an
extension
in
this
location
and
the
the
the
design
is
a
completely
different
issue.
I
think-
and
I
think
we're
bullying
the
world
so.
L
L
A
F
So
just
to
get
get
the
order
correct,
because
it's
now
being
proposed
and
second
as
an
amendment,
the
vote
would
be
on
councillor
reyes
motion,
which
is
effective
refusal
of
the
application.
H
H
I'm
sorry,
but
there's
a
rational
reason
for
doing
that.
You
really
need
to
understand
what
my
reasoning
is.
If
we
hadn't
got
as
far
as
panel,
then
the
applicant
would
have
been
able
to
withdraw
this
application
and
put
in
another
one
if
we
turn
it
down
effectively,
what
we're
saying
to
them
is
if
they
come
back
again
with
another
application,
they
have
to
put
another
application
in
which
seems
to
be
unreasonable
when
there
is
a
mechanism,
I'm
sorry
can
I
get
to
the
end
of
this.
Can
I
get
to
the
end
of
this?
H
L
Thank
you
chair.
So
when
an
amended
motion
is
put
and
seconded
there's
an
option
to
either
invite
the
person
who
put
the
substantive
motion
to
withdraw
that,
if
not,
if
that's
not
withdrawn,
then
you
would
take
a
vote
on
the
amended
motion
as
to
whether
to
accept
that
amended
motion.
However,
I
think
councillor
campbell
has
tried
to
explain
his
or
has
explained
the
reason
for
that,
whether
that
changes,
your
amended
motion,
counselor
or
counselor
reagan,
that's
something
you
might
want
to
consider.
B
B
H
To
be
able
to,
as
I
say,
I
I
used
the
phrase
I
did
because
I
thought
that
would
would
solve
the
problem,
I'm
not
averse
to
tweaking
it
a
little
bit
because,
as
as
you
say,
I
think
we're
very
clear
what
what
we
feel
is
appropriate.
What
we
don't
feel
is
appropriate
and
therefore,
if
we
can
encapsulate
that
in
a
form
of
words,
then
I'm
happy.
A
A
We
don't
do
we,
we
either
defer
or
refuse
or
accept.
H
A
B
I
think,
on
the
basis
that
I
feel
the
application
was
brought
prematurely
to
panel,
it
would
be
better
to
have
a
clean
cut.
We
are
making
a
very
clear
statement
that
we
do
not
agree
that
an
extension
in
this
location
is
acceptable
and
and
to
incentivize,
and
therefore
to
bring
an
application
very
clear
that
there's
no
middle
ground
that
and
we're
making
it
very
because
I'm
not
going
to
withdraw
my
amendment
you're.
C
A
while
back-
but
I
know
you
didn't
notice
my
hand
up
it
was
said
earlier.
Wasn't
it
in
the
discussion
that
the
original
planning
to
build
these
properties
insisted
that
the
properties
were
a
certain
distance
away
from
the
tree,
so
an
extension
in
that
area
will
contravene
the
what
was
agreed
and
planned
in
the
original
discussion.
L
F
A
A
O
Good
afternoon
I'm
mark
jackson,
principal
planning,
officer
and
who's
been
who
dealing
with
the
hunting
application.
That's
brought
for
you
brought
before
you
this
afternoon.
O
Sorry,
this
application
is
brought
before
you
seeks
approval
of
reserved
matters
soon
to
details
approved
in
now,
iron
planning
content
that
was
granted
at
city
plans
panel
in
may
2020.
O
O
The
outline
proposal
split
the
the
two
allocated
sites
into
four
parcels
for
development
and
outlined
a
master
plan
which
this
reserve
matters.
Application
is
broadly
in
line
with
the
two
sites.
Allocation
allocations
were
reference,
hg2168,
hakewood
and
hg2169
hegwood,
hardly
south,
and
they
sandwich
baghill
bet
and
hague.
Woods,
which
you
can
see
I'm
pointing
to
in
the
middle
of
the
main
development.
O
The
outline
planning
application
was
submitted
in
2017
and
was
worked
through
by
the
developer
and
the
the
local
planning
authority.
It
was
a
development
that
was
led
by
planning
and
looking
at
bringing
the
sites
forward
in
the
site
allocation
plan.
O
These
issues,
such
as
transport
growth
transported
impact
on
local
junctions,
are
not
considered
for
consideration
within
this
application.
O
O
O
O
O
The
the
proposal
for
for
35
dwellings
off
sandringham
drive
is
sighted
to
the
east
of
the
site,
east
of
of
hagwood,
and
the
larger
proposal
on
the
southern
side
of
hagwoods
is
for
164
dwellings
and
the
access
road
is
is
off
hague
pagemoor
road,
the
general
character
of
the
air
area
is
auroral,
and
these
the
the
four
parcels
of
land
are
surrounded
by
various
historic
developments
that
have
were
developed
at
different
times
have
different
ages,
their
different
styles
different
characters,
but
consistently
the
use
of
materials
such
as
stone,
brick
and
render
are
all
present
on
the
northern
side
of
of
hague
woods.
O
The
predominant
character
is
a
mixture
of
of
two-story
houses
with
some
small-scale
bungalows
on
the
southern
side
along
hagemaw
road,
the
general
character
is
two-story
properties,
hague
hagwood
itself
has
is
always
has
always
been,
is
in
the
ownership
of
the
applicant
and
has
always
been
intended
to
enhance
and
preserve
its
both
its
the
woodlands
themselves,
but
also
this
the
immediate
setting
the
developments
have
tried
to
increase,
include
buffers
of
landscaping
to
ensure
that
the
transition
from
the
developments
is
retains
a
general
rural
character.
That
is
there
at
present.
O
The
proposal
will
achieve
10.08
biodiversity
net
gains
across
the
site
and
the
development
themselves
were
all
were
subject
to
a
condition
on
the
outline
consent
that
sought
renewable
energies
and
and
a
reduction
in
their
carbon
footprint.
O
The
outline
had
various
conditions
which
will
will
seek
to
ensure
that
the
proposal
in
this
respect
is
policy
compliant
in
terms
of
the
house
designs,
as
previously
mentioned
that
there
is
a
mix
of
housing,
types,
tenures
and
and
sizes.
The
design
details,
as
you
can
see
from
these
cgis,
is
a
variety
of
a
pallet
of
materials.
O
The
landscaping
incorporated
in
the
proposed
developments
will
increase
biodiversity,
so
they're
not
just
functional
in
terms
of
places
for
dogs
to
or
dog
walkers
to
to
walk,
but
they
they
provide
functional
spaces
that
can
be
used
for
recreational
purposes,
but
also
have
visual
good
visual
amenity
and
also
serve
to
to
improve
the
biodiversity
across
the
site.
O
O
O
O
A
Thank
you.
We
now
have
tim
chapman,
who
is
speaking
against
the
application.
D
D
D
There
was
no
effective
consultation
with
the
local
community,
which
is
redrow
standard
practice
elsewhere,
paragraph
80
also
states.
The
applicant
has
also
met
and
discussed
the
proposals
with
wag.
This
happened
just
twice
and
wild
made
very
clear
that
this
was
no
substitute
for
proper
community
consultation.
D
D
D
D
There
is
no
valid
application
for
you
to
consider
and
determine
we
pointed
this
out
to
the
applicant
in
january
and
to
the
council
in
our
formal
application,
but
I'm
sorry
to
say
that
both
the
applicant
and,
more
importantly,
our
officers
have
apparently
decided
to
ignore
this.
That's
a
waste
of
everybody's
time
and
money,
including
your
own.
D
The
only
local
information
used
is
the
council
strategic
housing
market
assessment
from
2017
for
out
of
south
west
area
already
five
years
out
of
date,
and
it
showed
five
housing
type
deficiencies,
regular
cater
for
just
two
types:
three
bedroom
and
four
or
more
bedroom
houses.
The
other
three
types
are
bungalows,
but
red
rose.
Housing
mix
ignores
these
completely,
so
what
little
information
is
available
is
not
taken
into
account
in
red
rose
mix
which
fails
to
relieve
fails,
fails
to
can't
read
rewriting
relieve
the
acute
local
shortage
of
bungalows
nearby
estate
agents.
D
D
D
National
planning
policy
framework,
paragraph
134
states,
development
that
is
not
well
designed-
should
be
refused,
especially
where
it
fails
to
reflect
any
local
design,
guidance
and
supplementary
planning
documents.
The
lead
street
design
guide
is
applying.
Is
a
supplementary
planning
document
red
rose
parcel
a
that's
the
one
to
the
north
of
hagwood
parcel
a
proposals
are
accessed
from
upper
green
avenue
and
clearly
conflict
with
it
and
without
the
justification
that
the
guide
demands
when
there
is
a
conflict,
73
houses
already
offer
problematic
single
access.
Now,
54
more
proposed
goldie
sacks.
D
Local
street
should
comply
with
the
guide,
parcelate
proposals
for
well
short
of
complying
and
so
risk
not
being
adopted.
Our
conclusion
key
information
is
missing.
No
consul
station,
no
consultation
statement,
no
proper
local
housing
need
assessment,
incomplete
analysis
in
the
cpo
report.
What
contends
that
this
is
not
yet
a
valid
application
and
there
are
conflicts
with
policy.
D
G
A
couple
times
for
me:
we
talk
about
h4
and
housing
mix
at
this
particular
point
now.
The
applicant's
view
is
that
what
the
community
need
is
four
five
bedroom
houses.
Indeed,
they've
got
42
of
all
plots
of
four
and
five
bedroom
detached
houses.
Now
that
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
be
the
housing
mix
that
we
require,
but
taking
into
account
your
knowledge
of
the
local
community
is
that
the
housing
mix
that
reflects
housing
need
in
the
local
area.
Does
it
even
reflect
the
council's
claimed
housing
mix
in
the
wider
outer
area?.
D
Thank
you
councillor.
Well,
the
the
housing
mixers
are
pointed
out
caters
for
the
houses
that
are
most
prevalent
in
the
area.
Already.
We,
we
suspect,
there's
also
a
need
for
for
smaller
afford
or
for
affordable
houses.
Very
much
and,
as
I
pointed
out
the
if
you
go
to
an
estate
agent
they'll
say
we
want
bungalows,
but
if
new
develop,
if
developers
in
the
area
aren't
going
to
provide
bungalows
all
the
houses
that
are
needed,
where
are
they
going
to
come
from.
P
The
local
housing
needs
will
not
meet
local
people's
needs
and
locals
will
not
be
met
by
this
development.
The
four
and
five
bedroom
houses
will
drag
in
people
from
outside
of
the
development
with
the
money
with
their
cars
to
drive
onto
the
motorway,
go
off
to
their
jobs.
Come
back,
eat,
sleep
repeat
and
do
exactly
the
same.
Where
are
my
grandkids
going
to
live?
They
can't
afford
the
four
and
five
bedroom
houses.
P
A
G
On
policy,
h3
density,
I
wonder
if
tim
the
planning
officer
accepts,
it
doesn't
comply
with
h3,
which
is
density
basically
suggesting
that
15
over
is
marginal.
Would
you
agree
with
that?
What's
your
views
on
the
density.
A
A
C
You
chair,
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
density.
I
think.
If
we
have
guidelines,
then
we
should
be
sticking
to
them,
not
letting
developers
put
more
in
when
that
just
lines
their
own
pockets.
Really,
I've
got
my
questions,
though
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
grass
verges
or
trees
in
grass
verges.
C
So
is
that
something
the
community
would
like,
or
do
you
think
that
is
non-standard
for
your
area?
That's
one
question
and
the
second
is:
is
the
community?
Did
the
community
expect
all
of
these
parcels
of
land
to
be
filled
to
the
brim
with
houses,
or
do
you
were
you
expecting
more
to
be
left
open
space,
I'm
in
particular
concerned
about
the
area
labeled
a
a
because
for
me,
if
that
was
left
vacant,
then
you
would
have
a
much
open,
more
open
aspect.
D
I'm
not
surprised
because
the
original
outline
application
was
for
299
houses
and
of
course
that
was
a
that
was
a
major
concern,
but
there
are
areas
particularly
thinking
of
about
of
parcels,
a
and
d
where
we
think
the
the
impact
of
houses
will
be
too
great
on
the
central
open
area.
D
They
will
be
overlooking
the
the
the
central
valley
of
which
hagwood
is
a
part
which
at
the
moment,
is
it's
a
very
secluded
rural
valley
containing
ancient
woodland
but
wider
than
that,
but
we
don't
want
houses
built
close
to
that,
so
that
when
you're
down
in
the
valley,
you
think,
oh,
this
house
is
there
at
the
moment
it's
pretty
good
they're
just
about
visible,
but
if
you
bring
them
forward,
it
can
change
the
character
of
the
wood,
and
that
would
be
a
great.
So
you
know
great
disadvantage.
D
D
It's
it
just
can't
get
our
heads
around
this
one.
There
are
those
that
say
that
the
the
outline
application
means
that
you
can
ignore
it
any
level.
We
don't
think
you
should,
because
there
are
ways
in
which
the
the
open
character
of
parts
of
this
area
can
be
maintained.
D
But
if
there's,
if
every
part
of,
if
every
part
of
the
the
outline
approval
gets
it
gets
built
on,
then
that
central
character
will
be
eroded.
J
J
Having
read
this
and
having
read
your
letter
that
you
sent
through
to
us
all,
there
appears
to
be
a
difference
of
opinion
if
I
can
put
it
as
diplomatically
as
that,
that's
what
it!
What
paragraph
80
says,
is
red
rule
consulted
with
the
surrounding
community
through
leaflet
drops
prior
to
the
application
being
submitted
it
it
has.
This
is
a
bit
of
my
concern.
It
has
also
met
and
discussed
the
proposal
with
ward
members
and
wag
during
the
course
of
the
application.
Now
your
report
that
you
sent
to
us
appears
to
give
an
indication.
J
Have
you
met
with
them
in
a
workshop
capacity
to
work
through
the
various
issues
that
you've
got
to
see?
If
there's
compromise
possible,
because
we
have
proved
as
a
council
that
when
we
set
these
workshops
up
with
local
residents,
better
developments
can
come
forward.
What
level
of
consultation
have
you
had
with
red
row
since
the
pandemic?
We
were
allowed
to
start
going
out
meeting
with
each
other.
D
Thank
you
councillor.
We,
the
three
of
the
three
of
us
here
and
one
or
two
more,
that
that
have
put
together
walks
arguments
had
a
lengthy
meeting
with
with
two
representatives
from
from
red
row
back
in
february.
I
think
it
was
it
was
we
we
kept
going
about
three
hours,
something
like
and
we
covered
a
lot
of
ground,
but
this
this
was
never
an
alternative
to
to
consulting
with
the
public.
D
Direct
work
doesn't
feel
you
know,
we've
got,
we've
got
some
knowledge
and
opinions
between
us,
but
we
don't
claim
to
to
be
an
alternative
to
consulting
the
community
and
we
don't
claim
to
know
what's
what
would
come
out
of
the
local
community
if
if
there
was
a
a
better
consultation,
so
there
was.
J
No
exhibitions
or
anything
like
that
at
a
local
school
where
people
would
go
along
now
it
also.
I
can't
I
don't
think
any
of
it.
Oh
yes,
one
of
the
elected
members
is
present
in
the
audience,
but
it
says
here
that
they've
discussed
a
proposal
with
the
ward
members
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge
of
all
three
from
arsley
and
robin
who'd
been
consulted
and
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge
of
the
councillors
in
morley
south
being
consulted
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge.
Can
I
ask
my
cousin.
A
P
P
We
finished
up
having
a
meeting
with
them.
I
will
be
brief,
but
I'll,
try
and
answer
the
question
and
it
was
a
two-way
thing.
We
were
continually
pressing
through
our
councils
on
the
molly
borough
independence
side
yeah,
for
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
redraw,
because
we
felt
that
they
weren't
giving
a
voice
to
the
community.
It
had
been
totally
inadequate.
P
The
first
time
we
got
any
response
from
our
ward
councillors.
Other
ward
councillors
was
when
they
said
that
they
had
been
they'd,
seen
things
on
facebook.
They
were
concerned
and
also
redraw
made
the
same
comments
because
they
approached
us
about
the
facebook
and
seen
on
facebook.
So
there
was
a
request
through
one
route
and
a
direction
through
the
other.
P
P
However,
when
they
arrived,
we
made
it
extremely
clear
to
them
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
that
they
must
accept
that
this
is
not
a
substitute
for
public
consultation,
and
we
also
said
we
didn't
invite
any
of
the
ward
councillors
on
any
color
of
politics,
because
we
wanted
to
talk
to
you
from
the
community
because
they
haven't
done
it
with
any
form
of
liaison
with
the
community.
P
They
have
an
eight
principles
document
which
says
first
principle
talk
to
the
community
at
the
very
beginning,
consult
with
everybody
in
the
community
and
continue
right
the
way
through
none
of
that
happened,
and
we
put
that
to
them.
At
the
very
beginning
of
the
meeting,
we
reached
a
stumbling
block
because
they
wouldn't
talk.
They
wanted
us
to
talk
about
what
we
wanted
to
talk
about.
We
said
you,
but
we
want
you
to
do
that.
P
In
the
end,
we
went
through
a
number
of
things
in
the
in
the
whole
aspect,
things
that
we
wanted
them
to
consider.
There
were
various
things
you
know,
why
put
a
house
here
when
there's
a
road
bungalows
there
move
them
away
all
these
kind
of
things.
I
woke
into
detail,
but
we
tried
to
go
through
these
practical
things.
At
the
end
of
the
meeting,
we
asked
them
to
consider
a
further
public
consultation
in
line
with
what
they
normally
do
on
large
developments
like
this.
They
went
away
and
said
they
consider
it.
P
We
then
decided
well
we'll
do
a
bit
more
with
red
drill.
They
came
for
a
site
visit,
we
offered
it
to
them
to
take
them
around
the
site
and
show
them
some
of
the
things
that
we
were
concerned
about
and
the
residents
they
came
again
and
we
thanked
them
for
it.
At
that
particular
time
we
went
round
the
site,
they
acknowledged
what
we
were
saying
when
we
were
there.
We
then
pressed
the
point
again
following
that
visit
with
their.
P
I
think
it
was
their
technical
director.
If
I'm
right
is
the
person
david
faraday,
we
pressed
the
point:
are
you
going
to
do
the
public
consultation?
It
was
at
that
point
after
they'd
rolled
all
rolled
us
over
and
found
out
what
we
were
about.
They
refused
to
take
to
engage
in
any
further
public
consultation,
which
is
what
we
said
at
the
beginning
and
in
the
end
we
got
nothing
since
then
we
haven't
whether
or
not
they
have
consulted
with
ward
councillors.
G
A
J
See
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
at
least
councillor
foster
was
not
has
not
been
properly
consulted.
I'm
not
saying
that
all
ours
and
rob
new
councillors
are
in
that
boat
because,
unless
they're
here,
they'll
be
able
to
speak
for
themselves,
but
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
counselor
foster
has
not
been
fully
consulted
at
cisco.
B
D
C
H
B
So
so,
just
to
be
clear
for
us
as
members.
Obviously
we
need
to
make
consideration
actually,
the
the
the
the
density
development
in
that
sense
is
actually
probably
a
secondary
issue
to
the
fact
that
you
don't
think
they're
providing,
in
your
opinion,
the
right
type
of
properties
to
meet
the
local
housing
need.
So
that's
the
fundamental
issue.
You
don't
believe
it
suits
local
need
rather
than
the
density
itself,
because
obviously
the
density
falls
on
from
what
you
need.
If
that
makes
sense,.
P
Okay,
can
I
answer
that
can
I
can
I
attempt
to
reply
to
that?
Can
I
attempt
to
reply
to
that?
Everything
has
a
knock-on
effect.
The
density
is
a
starting
point.
That's
obvious
to
everybody,
you're,
taking
an
open
rural
area
and
filling
in
the
heart
of
the
village
right
up
to
the
edge
of
an
ancient
forest
with
housing.
So
that's
the
knock
on
effect
then
takes
all
of
that
outwards.
P
So
is
it
the
main
issue?
It
could
be
the
main
issue,
because
if
they
reduced
it
by
half
a
lot
of
the
others
should
go
away,
they
commensurate
with
the
size
of
the
development.
The
issues
has
a
knock
on
effect,
so
we
can't
put
one
issue
down,
but
we
can
prioritize
the
fact
that
the
number
of
houses
are
being
crammed
into
an
area
as
tight
as
they
can
make
it
and
the
knocking
effect
is
us.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
F
So
if
everything
flows
from
the
density
yeah,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
everything
flood?
Sorry
if
everything
flows
from
the
density,
the
density
that's
in
front
of
it
is
actually
less
than
what
was
approved
yeah,
but
the
site
council
understand
that
doesn't
mean
what
I'm
saying
to
you
is
incorrect,
because
what
you've
got
in
front
of
you
is
10
less
than
what
was
approved.
J
F
Could
be
the
fuel
so
so
in
a
way,
I'm
accepting
the
you're
potentially
agreeing
with
me,
because
actually
because
actually
it,
as
you
say
yourself,
it's
up
to
that
299,
but
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
289,
so
it
is
a
lower
density
than
what
it
actually
has
approval
for.
Might
I
respond
on
that
point
before.
C
Other
members
come
in
chair
the
as
a
matter
on
a.
O
It's
important
to
say
we're
going
what
this
is
a
fundamental
issue
that
was
dealt
with
at
the
outlying
consent.
Housing
need
assessment
has
been
supplied
at
this
stage
of
the
reserve
matters.
I'd
also
just
like
to
point
out
that,
in
terms
of
there's
been
various
mix-ups
in
terms
of
references
to
the
majority
of
five
bed,
houses
and
I've
asked
members
to
look
at
the
planning
office
chief
planning
officers
report,
which
outlines
the
actual
numbers
and
the
five
there's
the
there's.
O
C
O
O
C
L
There's
just
an
issue
of
procedural
matters
that
I
would
like
to
clarify.
The
speaker
has
suggested
that
he
or
his
wag
has
written
directly
to
members
of
the
panel.
Now
officers
haven't
received
such
a
letter,
and
I
just
wanted
to
check
whether
members
have
received
a
letter
of
direct
which
would
amount
to
direct
lobbying
from
the
objectors.
L
Okay
on
that
basis,
then
I
need
to
give
you
some
advice,
because
direct
direct
lobbying
of
members
of
the
panel
is
not
an
appropriate
way
to
make
your
representations
because
it
doesn't
allow
for
a
transparent
or
give
the
officers
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
what
you
have
said
in
that
letter.
So
on
that
basis,
members
I
would
ask
you
to
give
little
to
no
weight
to
that
letter,
because
that
is
just
one
opinion
that
no
one
else
has
had
the
opportunity
to
to
be
able
to
comment
on.
A
K
Thank
you
very
much
chair
good
morning,
good
night
good
afternoon.
Rather
everybody
my
name's
steven
sadler,
I've
been
involved
in
this
project
for
nearly
eight
years.
Now,
that's
more
than
eight
years,
including
through
the
various
stages
of
the
site
allocations
plan,
including
its
formal
allocation
in
2019,
and
the
council's
grant
of
outline
planning
permission
only
18
months
ago.
I
regard
this
development
as
an
exemplar.
You
know
the
development
plan
and
development
control
system
can
successfully
deliver
new
homes
for
leads,
with
the
benefit
of
the
collaborative
approach.
K
I'm
also
delighted
that
red
row
homes
has
been
success.
The
successful
bidder
for
the
site,
given
its
widely
accepted
credentials
in
building
good
quality,
well-designed
sites
and
homes.
I'm
joined
today
by
the
africans.
Experts
next
to
me
in
design,
ecology,
landscape
and
technical
matters,
should
members
have
any
queries
after
I
finished
my
six
minute
speech.
K
Planning
permission
has
already
been
granted
we're
not
seeking
planning
permission
today
and
that
permission
was
granted
following
very,
very
detailed
scrutiny
that
planning
permission
was
for
up
to
299
houses
and
all
the
section
106
agreement
and
funds
were
based
on
that
figure.
As
you,
as
officers
have
quite
rightly
said
today,
the
the
actual
figure
we're
proposing
today
is
289,
it's
less
than
the
approved
figure.
You
also
appreciate
that
the
chief
officer's
recommendation
is
positive,
unequivocal,
unequivocal
and
clear.
He
considers
that
the
details
of
the
reserve
matters
indicate
a
well-designed
and
attractive
scheme.
K
K
This
doesn't
even
include
even
include
the
2
million
pounds
from
the
community
infrastructure
levy
that
the
council
can
prioritize
towards
education.
For
example,
there's
been
some
criticism
today
about
the
nature
of
public
consultation,
which
I
regard
as
particularly
unfair
and
I'll
say
why
particularly
we've
had
a
covered
pandemic
as
well.
At
the
outset
of
this
nine
months
ago,
1269
local
homes
were
leafleted
with
details
of
the
proposal
and
invited
to
make
comments
through
a
website
specifically
set
up
by
redrome.
K
Residents
have
taken
the
opportunity
to
make
comments
through
that
process,
and
those
comments
have
been
taken
into
account
by
redrome.
It
has
also
voluntarily
met,
as
you
will
have
heard,
from
the
west
arsenal
action
group
today
to
meet
the
two
separate
occasions,
including
a
very
extensive
walk
around
the
site.
K
The
suggestion
that
retro
hasn't
consulted
the
public
is
completely
erroneous.
It's
especially
unfair
to
suggest
the
consultation
process
has
been
deficient
or
the
local
communities
being
prejudiced
in
making
its
views
known,
there's
no
requirement
actually
for
any
engagement,
but
the
engagement
has
been
thorough.
The
layout
benefits
from
the
topography
in
the
setting
and
the
chief
officer's
conclusion
that
paris
140
to
148
in
your
report
that
the
layout
creates
distinctive
character
areas
responds
positively
to
its
context
and
creates
a
visually
interesting
scheme
that
will
have
a
distinct
sense
of
place
is
well
considered.
K
It
has
numerous
areas
of
functional,
open
space
and
provides
significantly
improved
connectivity
through
the
central
area
of
haywood
for
existing
residents
as
well
as
prospective
ones.
The
proposed
homes
are
well
designed
with
a
varied
palette
by
red
row,
homes
widely
regarded
locally
and
nationally.
They
have
good
quality.
There
are
good
details
and
design
features,
they
will
add
value
to
the
locality
and
complement,
rather
than
detract
from
the
character
of
the
area.
K
The
quality
of
provision
and
appearance
will
only
be
enhanced
by
the
topography
of
the
site
and
its
setting,
which
will
make
for
pleasing
variation
in
building
views
in
building
heights
of
use
along
streets
and
amongst
good
quality
areas
of
gardens
and
open
space
in
terms
of
scale,
the
housing
types
of
a
variety
and
appearance,
and
which
will
be
a
positive
addition
to
the
character
of
the
area,
predominantly
two-story,
a
wide
mix
of
accommodation
is
proposed.
Perhaps
on
that
point
I
can
just
say
nearly
60
percent
are
one
two
and
three
bedroom
homes.
K
Of
course
people
have
tried
to
suggest
their
own
easily
this
morning
that
the
scheme
is
dominated
by
four
and
five
bedroom
houses.
It's
clearly
not
true
and
43,
affordable
homes
at
two
bedroom,
for
example,
and
fifteen
percent
of
the
total,
a
modded
three-story
apartment
building
and
parcel
b
is
also
proposed
and
will
look
entirely
entirely
appropriate.
In
its
context,
you
may
have
seen
that
from
your
site
visit
this
morning,
the
general
location
of
that
off-western
road
in
terms
of
landscaping,
substantial
areas
of
functional,
open
space
are
provided
across
the
ford
development
parcels.
K
The
provisions
on
the
largest
parcels
to
the
north
and
the
south
of
the
woods
concentrating
on
promoting
and
enhancing
the
existing
public
rights
away
and
linking
the
site
through
haywood,
some
320
new
trees
will
be
planted
across
the
site.
An
additional
270
linear
meters
of
native
hedgerow
will
be
planted
too,
and
nearly
3
000,
linear
meters
of
beech
and
laurel
hedge
will
soften
garden
garden
boundaries.
K
A
Thank
you.
Yes,
are
there
any
questions
counselor,
and
this
now
got
to
you
first.
J
I've
got
three
exception.
What
you
said
about
the
consultation.
If
someone
wasn't
online,
how
did
you
consult
with
them?
I
mean
I
accept
what
you
say
that
you
delivered
leaflets
around
and
it
was
up
to
people
to
respond,
but
if
people
weren't
online,
how
did
you
interact
with
them?
Question
number
two:
was
there
ever
any
discussion
at
any
of
the
consultation
events
or
in
the
feedback
you
got
about
the
need
for
bungalows
or
similar
type
properties,
and,
thirdly,
bear
in
mind
the
problems
we've
now
got
in
terms
of
heating
and
energy
needs
in
our
houses.
J
If
you
look
at
paragraph
186
in
the
report,
the
officer's
report
doesn't
actually
expand
upon
what
you
you
are
doing
in
order
to
address
these
issues.
So
can
you
outline
to
us
what
energy
efficient
methods
you're
going?
Are
you
putting
photovoltaic
cells
in
all
the
the
roofs,
for
example,
that
where
it
would
benefit
most
of
all,
are
you
using
any
ground
source,
heat
pumps
or
any
other
technology
of
that
elk?
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
council.
In
terms
of
your
first
point
about
those
few
people,
maybe
these
days
that
haven't,
got
wi-fi
and
have
gotten
access
to
an
internet
either
through
parents
or
daughters
or
something
or
what
it
may
always
be.
You
can't
possibly
get
to
100.
K
You
have
to
accept
that,
but
the
extensive
consultation
process
would
have,
I'm
sure,
have
picked
up
99
of
those
people
that
wanted
to
make
comments
about
this.
You
will
also
see
there
are.
There
are
two
very
vigorous
local
community
groups,
it's
not
just
the
west
arctic
aston
group
there's
also
the
group
which
is
entitled
save,
hey
woods
as
well,
who
are
very
diligent
on
social
media,
and
perhaps
I
could
just
repeat
again:
all
of
that
is
voluntary
by
redrawing.
K
So
I
think
the
criticism
led
today
is
singly
unfair,
particularly
given
the
pandemic
as
well
following
the
the
chance
for
us
all
to
get
out
and
about
there's
been
two
meetings
with
those
representatives
of
the
local
community,
and
these
are
the
guys
have
been
making
all
most
of
the
substantive
submissions
to
the
to
the
planning
authority.
So
we
thought
it
right
to
meet
them
and
we
did
that
and,
as
they
say,
one
of
the
meetings
was
three
and
a
half
hours.
K
So
I
think
that
just
shows
the
commitment
on
red
rose
behalf
can
just
pick
up
the
point
as
well.
You
didn't
ask
about
the
world
members
suggesting
we
weren't
speaking
toward
members
a
bit
little
fatter
about
this,
but
perhaps
what
I
might
say
is
that
some
of
the
suggestions
to
us
about
meetings
were
to
not
allow
some
particular
ward
members
to
attend
and
we
decided
that
would
probably
be
unfair.
K
Having
said
that,
the
technical
director
at
redrock
has
spoken
to
all
the
three
ward
members
in
robin
hood,
I'm
not
sure
about
morally
south,
as
councillor
finnegan
referred
to
earlier,
there's
a
very
small
part.
Obviously
it's
morally
south
in
the
past.
It's
largely
a
patch.
That's
sorry,
if
you
just,
let
me
finish,
I'm
not
saying
you
don't
count
at
all
what
I'm!
K
What
I'm
saying
is
that
the
three
local
ward
members
of
robin
hood
have
been
involved
in
this
particular
development
over
many
years,
and
we
thought
it
appropriate
to
make
sure
that
they
were
involved
in
terms
of
bungalows,
and
I
noticed
the
comments
about
the
estate
and
to
say
we
need
bungalows
and
we
need
this.
We
need
that.
The
state
agents
will
tell
you
you
need
everything
in
a
locality.
K
There
has
been
a
very
detailed
housing
mix
report
submitted
as
part
of
this
process,
and
that
shows
that
the
scheme
that
is
being
provided
in
terms
of
one
two,
three
four
and
a
couple
of
five-bedroom
houses,
it's
just
what
the
demand
is
for
and
what
the
need
is
for
in
the
locality
in
terms
of
bungalows.
I
often
get
asked
questions
about
bungalows
at
planning
committees
in
this
area.
There
are
lots
and
lots
of
bungalows.
K
K
If
that
was
a
specific
requirement,
I
don't
know
is
it
the
applicant
would
look
at
that?
I
don't
know
it's
possible,
they
may
look
at
one
and
two
bundles,
but
that's
why
we
came
up
with
that
solution
in
terms
of
energy
efficiency,
I'm
no
great
experts.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
just
refer
to
mr
peatfield
from
red
row
today,
who
is
in
charge
of
retro
keeping
up
to
speed
with
the
government's
approach
to
energy
efficiency,
carbon
reduction
and
also
the
building
regulations
which
are
coming
on
stream
month
by
month.
E
J
Fuels
on
roofs
so
that
people
can
generate
the
energy,
keep
it
for
themselves
or
put
it
back
into
the
grid
if
they've
been
over
over
producing,
so
that
there's
not
actually
a
cost
to
them.
If
you
put
them
the
photovoltaics
on
this
on
the
roof,
these
people
can
then
use
the
energy
themselves
and
not
cost
them
anything.
So
it
makes
it
in
my
view,
make
sure
you're
you're
offered
even
more
attractive.
If,
if
they're
not
having
to
pay
for
some
of
the
running
costs,
I
mean
have
you
thought
about
that.
E
Thank
you
question.
We
do.
We
have
experience
of
using
photovoltaics
on
other
developments
elsewhere
within
the
region.
Our
approach
to
the
carbon
reduction
targets
is
that
we
are
is
something
that
we
are
looking
at
from
a
national
basis
of
how
how
these
carbon
reductions
work
and
we're
finding
that,
by
introducing
air
source
heat
pumps
and
by
increasing
fabric
approach
of
the
buildings,
that's
probably
the
most
efficient
way
of
producing
the
carbon
reductions
required
to
meet
or
exceed
the
building
regulation
requirements.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
as
well
just
following
on
regarding
the
photo
about
the
solar
panels.
Is
it
not
true,
though,
that
you
give
the
purchasers
the
opportunity
to
actually
buy
solar
panels
that
you
will
install
for
them?
That's
one
question
and
then
the
second
question
is
this
question.
That's
come
up
today
about
housing,
need
housing
mix.
C
You've
had
some
accusations,
leveled
at
you
that
I'm
taking
with
a
pinch
of
salt,
but
it
might
be
useful
to
to
know
how
you
actually
came
up
with
the
the
plan
for
what
size
properties
are
going
on
to
this
site
and
then
the
final
question
regarding
hagwood
and
the
future
maintenance
of
that.
I
did
read
in
the
report
that
you're
putting
a
significant
amount
of
money
into
hagwood
and
you
will
be
setting
up
a
a
company
to
manage
it.
But
what
happens
in
10
years
time,
20
years
time?
C
Who
who
will
be
funding
that
management
company?
Will
it
come
from
the
home
owners?
I'm
just
curious
really
more
than
anything
else.
E
K
In
terms
of
getting
back
to
the
housing
mixed
up,
how
do
we,
how
did
red
raid
come
up
with
that?
Well,
it's
based
on
policy,
but
it's
based
on
developer
requirements
as
well,
what
they
think
they
can
sell.
They
won't
sell
for
stuff
that
they
don't
think
they've
got
a
demand
for,
but
it's
policy
compliant
with
h4
in
your
course
strategy,
and
so
there
is
a
mix
between
one
two,
three
and
four
and
five
bedroom
properties
across
the
site,
and
that's
come
as
a
result
of
that
policy.
K
K
K
It
could
end
up
with
the
council,
that's
subject
to
a
payment
yeah
or
it
could
end
up
being
paid
for
by
residents
or
it
could
end
up
being
held
by
the
land
owners
but
still
paid.
But
the
terms
of
the
legal
agreement
agreement
are
that
it's
to
be
done
in
perpetuity.
So
there's
some
confidence
there
that
the
thing's
not
going
to
get
trashed
after
10
years.
G
G
G
G
Taking
it
that
lead
city
council's
view
is
that
we
do
need
more
bundles,
regardless
of
what
you
say
at
that
particular
point,
taking
into
account
the
old
outer
area
at
this
particular
point
why
that
was
excluded,
that's
one
fit
you
could
sell
in
terms
of
the
environmental
man
in
terms
of
the
biodiversity,
you
claim
an
extra
10
improvement
on
that
has
that
been
endorsed
or
confirmed
by
natural
england.
G
Has
your
report
been
passed
or
run
through
them
at
that
particular
point,
so
that
those
figures
can
be
confirmed
and
in
terms
of
the
renewable
energy
en1
puts
out
an
obligation
need
to
generate
10
percent
from
renewable
sources?
At
this
particular
point,
how
are
you
going
to
do
that?
How
much
electricity
is
that
taking
into
account
I'm
sure
you
must
have
done
your
figures
at
that
particular
point
and
how
many
of
these
fault
of
a
panels
are
going
on
the
affordable
homes,
thanks
jeff.
K
Thank
you,
I
think
we'll
be
answering
those
between
us
again,
probably
mr
siberia.
Next,
to
me
we'll
deal
with
the
the
biodiversity
points.
The
renewables
will
go
back
to
chris
peatfield,
again
he's
looking
at
me.
If
that's
okay
in
terms
of
the
housing
mix,
johnson
mower,
who
you
know
you
may
know,
councillor
finnegan,
who
have
been
representing
various
landowners
and
applicants
through
the
site
allocations
plan
course
strategy,
produced
a
report
to
substantiate
the
mix.
That's
now,
provided
it
is
regarded
as
being
appropriate
for
this
area.
K
G
K
B
M
C
Guidance
in
with
reference
to
version
3.0
of
the
metric
that
would
be.
I
K
Just
before
it
goes
to
mr
pinkfield,
just
a
quick
comment
on
biodiversity.
Members
will
probably
know
that,
although
the
act
has
now
been
imposed,
legislative
there
are
still
no
statutory
instruments
to
secure
biodiversity
net
game
through
schemes
and
there's
no
provision
through
the
terms
of
the
outline
planning
permission
to
seek
any
gain
whatsoever.
E
Yes,
so
in
terms
of
the
volume
of
photovoltaics
on
the
site,
it
is
something
that
gets
assessed
should
should
the
application
be
deemed
approved,
that
we'd
have
to
look
at
the
orientation
of
the
dwellings
and
the
actual
property
types,
and
so
that's
something
that
gets
assessed
elected
later
today
to
maximize
the
solar
solar
gain
on
the
properties
that
would
gain
from
it,
the
most
in
terms
of
whether
they
would
be
on
the
affordable
dwellings.
E
That
is
something
we
could
consider
subject
to
a
housing,
a
housing
association
being
willing
to
look
at
that.
Thank
you.
E
A
E
Slide
the
last
third.
A
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
with
regards
to
the
mature
trees
that
are
there,
I
believe,
they're
going
to
be
removed
when
it
comes
up.
A
Right,
yes,
okay,
so
we're
stood
here,
we
were
stood
here
and
those
mature
trees.
There
are
going
to
be
removed,
I'm
asking
if
you
could
bring
if
it
was
approved
that
you
could
bring
the
houses
forward,
bring
the
houses
forward,
leave
those
mature
trees
and,
on
the
other
side,
take
take
the
houses
back
a
bit
further
away
and
in
order
to
keep
the
the
tree
line,
the
mature
tree
lines
there
and
probably
the
woodlands
we
can
lose.
A
Maybe
a
couple
of
those
in
the
woodlands,
because
the
mature
tree
as
the
three
offices
and
here
sheamus
would
would
explain
how
how
beneficial
they
are
and
how
much
carbon
etc.
They
they
capture
and
produce
for
us.
So
it's
just
going
back
on
there
with
regards
to
keeping.
Could
you
look
at
keeping
the
mature
trees
in
that
row,
bringing
the
houses
forward
and,
on
the
other
side,
take
the
houses
a
bit
further
rather
than
then
remove
those
mature
trees?
A
That's
what
that's?
What
I'm
asking?
If
you
could
look
at
that
and
if
it's
possible,
which
is
possible
to
retain,
retain
the
mature.
O
So,
in
terms
of
the
the
trees
are
in
on
the
site,
I
have
red
iron
plant
indicated
here
has
been
removed.
O
Now
the
mites,
as
I
I've
mentioned,
to
members
onside,
there
might
be
a
whole
host
of
reasons
for
that
poor
quality
of
of
the
trees
in
terms
of
the
health
there's
conditions
on
the
outline
that
require
the
developer
to
ensure
that
full
details
of
agricultural
statements
are
provided,
and
these
were
this-
this
indicative
layout
at
the
the
outline
stage
was
was
always
this
entrance
at
the
access
was
always
approved
on
the
outline.
K
A
A
F
Sorry,
chad,
just
to
clarify
this
I've,
got
a
suspicion,
we're
talking
about
a
different
set
of
trees.
Here
I
don't
know
whether
mr
saddler
can,
but
I
think
the
trees
we
were
talking
about
actually
aren't
impacted
by
the
housing.
It
surely
is
relationship
to
the
to
the
access,
so
I
think
we're
slightly
across
purposes
here.
Did
you
know
mr
sadler?
Wear
these
trees?
No.
Okay,
sorry,
council,
council
hamilton
could
mark
pass
you
the
red
pointer
to
actually
identify
where
these
trees
are
specifically.
Please.
A
That
is
why
I
ask
the
officer
on
the
site
visit
and
that's
why
I
brought
it
brought
it
up
so
that
we
can
see.
F
K
O
A
Okay,
I
know
what
you're
saying
because
saying
that
it's
being
approved,
but
this
we're
looking
at
the
design
etc.
Aren't
we
so
they
can
real
orientate
and
bring
them
up
a
bit
and
over
on
the
other
side
in
order
to
keep
that.
But
you
said
it's
been
approved.
C
K
It
may
be
that
the
three
the
three
at
the
northern
end
are
under
pressure
because
of
the
access
and
I'll
be
honest
about
that,
but
there's
little
more,
you
can
do
about
the
access
it
might
be.
One
of
those
can
be
can
be
kept.
I
think,
as
well
as
the
group
of
25
trees
as
well
as
it
goes
into
the
public
open
space.
I
think
almost
inevitably
you're
going
to
lose
some
trees
here
and
there
with
the
configuration
of
the
site
and
getting
accesses
into
it.
A
Just
that
mature
trees
to
compare
new
ones
being
planted
as
a
massive
benefit
to
us,
we've
heard
earlier
about
trees,
110
years
old,
etc
and
and
planting
a
new
tree
and
by
the
time
they
they
mature.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
carbon
we've
lost
by
then.
K
Look,
I
really,
I
really
understand
the
point,
but
I
think
it
really
has
to
be
seen
in
the
context
of
what
we're
actually
doing
with
hagwood
and
the
incredible
public
benefit
that
we
are
providing
as
private
landowners
in
terms
of
protecting
all
of
the
trees,
improving
the
quality
of
some
of
the
trees
and
making
it
publicly
accessible,
whilst
increasing
its
biodiversity
value.
So
I
absolutely
understand
the
point,
but
I'm
afraid
sometimes
in
development,
one
or
two
things
like
this
have,
I
think
it's
distinguishable
to
the
the
tree.
K
We
were
looking
at
earlier
with
the
house
extension
to
be
honest
because
in
this
particular
case,
there's
a
massive
public
contribution
towards
what
we're
doing
with
hagwood.
I
always
thought
it
a
bit
of
a
misnomer
that
one
of
the
local
campaign
groups
would
say
was
was
called,
save,
hey
woods,
it's
exactly
what
this
scheme
does
sorry.
My
golf.
J
If
we
had
one
of
our
officers
called
glenn
garner
here
just
now,
he
would
be
able
to
tell
us
what
the
asset
value
of
those
individual
trees
are.
Have
you
calculated
the
individual
asset
value
of
those
trees,
because
if
the,
if
the
officer
was
present
he'd,
be
able
to
tell
you
about
99
of
the
council's
trees,
he'll
be
able
to
look
at
it
and
say
it's
worth
a
hundred
thousand
two
hundred
thousand
twenty
five
thousand
or
whatever
he'd
built
it
and
also
in
carbon
loss
as
well.
Have
you
carried
out
that
calculation.
K
J
Sorting
out
the
carbon
in
terms
of
the
climate
emergency
that
we've
signed
up
to
is,
we
need
to
be
satisfied
as
a
planning
committee
that
the
overall
climate
effect
of
this
development-
and
we
see
the
information
that
shows
it
rather
than
a
promise
that
sometime
down
the
line,
it
should
be
okay,
we
need,
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
council
finnegan
is
normally
very
good
at
is
policies
en1
and
en2
yeah.
He
asks
you
know
it's
just.
J
We
need
to
start
when
developments
are
coming
before
us
now
that
we
need
to
start
pinning
down
what
the
carbon
loss
is
going
to
be
in
terms
of
those
mature
trees.
Yes,
if
it
was
a
a
little
stick,
fine,
but
these
are
very
mature
years.
You've
been.
These
trees
have
probably
been
there
for
hundreds
of
years
to
be
quite
frank
and
the
amount
of
car
carbon
will
disappear.
F
Chair,
I
think
I
think,
depending
upon
the
outcome
of
the
discussion
today,
I
think
that's
something
that
mr
saddle
and
his
team
can
can
have
a
look
at
and-
and
it's
obviously
one
of
the
big
questions
that
we
have
is
we
don't
actually
know
the
condition
of
the
trees
either
at
this
point.
So
if
we
can
we'll
just
park
it
because
we
can't
fully
answer
it
and
I'm
sure
mr
suddenly
team
will
look
at
that
depending
upon
what
the
outcome
of
the
discussions
are
today.
J
F
No,
I'm
not
saying
that
at
all
counselor
anderson,
I'm
just
saying
that
to
move
the
debate
on
today,
there
are
variables
that
we
cannot
answer,
because
we
don't
know
the
actual
quality
of
this
tree's
offhand,
because
those
trees
may
be
in
such
poor
condition
that
the
loss
of
them
is
naked.
It
makes
no
difference
whatsoever,
but
then
again
it
might.
All
I'm
saying
is
depending
upon
the
outcome
of
this
debate,
it's
something
that
can
look
into
further
and
try
and
answer
that
question
properly.
C
Just
one
question
in
regards
to
the
affordable
housing:
is
that
pepper
potted
around
the
far
sides,
or
are
they
accumulated
in
one
area,
because
I
I
wouldn't
be
in
favor
of
them
being
accumulated
in
one
area,
because
we
we
need
to
get
out
of
creating
ghettos
and-
and
maybe
another
question
is
about
bringing
in
facilities
for
disabled
people
and
less
mobilized
people.
Have
we
have
we
got
that
on
the
site
as
well.
E
Thanks
for
your
question,
so
yes,
the
affordable
houses
are
in
each
of
the
four
parcels
and
our
paper
buttered
can
confirm
that
with
regards
to
the
accessible
housing,
so
there's
a
policy
requirement
for
forgive
me.
If
I'm
getting
percentages
wrong,
I
think
it's
30
need
to
be
to
an
adaptable,
accessible
percentage
which
we
are
compliant
with,
and
you
need
to
have
two
percent
of
disabled
use
housing
again
we
are
complying
with
that.
E
We
have
provided,
I
think,
it's
six,
two
bedroom
first
floor
and
accessible
dwellings,
and
there
are
no
three
and
four
bedroom
accessible
vans.
H
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
I've
just
been
doing
a
quick
calculation
because
we
we
did.
We
did
talk
about
this
on
site.
Didn't
we
this
morning
about
those
three
trees.
My
quick
calculation
is,
if
you
plant
the
like
for
like,
and
it
takes
25
years
to
mature,
which
is
the
given
figure.
We've
got
if
you
take
those
out,
you
lose
in
that
25-year
period,
3750
kilos
of
carbon
capture
and
then
that
doesn't
include
the
150
kilos
every
year
after
that
25
year,
which
they
will
be
there.
So
there's
a
significant
carbon
loss.
H
H
You
know
we
ex
we
assumed
when
we
did
the
outline,
because
I
was
there
and
when
we
did
the
sap
actually,
because
I
was
there
too,
we
assumed
the
access
would
be
at
this
point
reluctantly
actually,
but
we
assumed
it
would
be
at
this
point
we
assumed
they
designed
it
to
fit
the
point
rather
than-
and
I
I
have
to
say,
which
is
not
really
a
question
I
have
to
say.
H
Usually
we
get
a
situation
where
officers
tell
us
that
trees
are
of
poor
quality
or
diseased.
We
don't
usually
get
council
officers
doing
it,
it's
developers
who
usually
do
it
and
I'm
depressed
that
you're
actually
saying
that
to
us.
You
know
if
we
don't
know
what
condition
the
trees
are.
When
then,
we
shouldn't
be
speculating
in
life.
F
G
H
Questions
two
questions
right
in
relation
to
the
the
future
maintenance
of
hagwood
and
the
surrounding
green
space
throughout
the
estate.
H
I
I
think,
we're
all
slightly
concerned
about
the
potential
for
us
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
nobody's
looking
after
it.
So,
presumably
you
will
be
happy
to
accept
a
condition
which
says,
in
effect,
the
future
management
will
be
is
conditioned
in
such
a
way.
Now
that
might
be
a
management
company
or
it
might
be
the
council,
but
if
you
you'll
accept
a
condition
you
like
to
presumably
accept
a
condition
that
says
there
will
be
a
future
management
agreement
agreed
by
the
council.
Whoever
does
that
managing
all
right.
That's
question
one.
H
I'm
happy
with
that.
Can
I
just
ask
another
another
question.
The
the
plots
you're
talking
about
developing
at
the
moment
is
not
the
entirety
of
the
sap
site.
All
right.
Do
you
have
options
on
the
rest
of
the
sap
site.
H
H
The
final
point
relates
to
the
comment
this
gentleman
made
in
relation
to
effectively.
I
think
what
you
said
was
if
in
2023
there'll
be
you'll,
be
upgrading
the
building
regs
and
by
2025
we'll
have
the
future
homes
in
now.
It
seems
to
me
that
if
you
got
permission
tomorrow,
you
couldn't
build
out
all
these
houses
before
2025..
E
Thank
you.
So
the
changes
surrounding
parallel,
which
are
being
agreed
by
central
government,
are
they
have
the
future
home
standard
which
is
due
to
come
in
2025
and
the
transitional
arrangement
which
you
do
this
summer
and
so
there's
kind
of
a
transitional
process
to
31
initially
and
then
up
to
the
75
of
the
carbon
reduction.
The
actual
the
actual
details
of
it
being
finalized
by
central
government
and
the
government's
own
software
for
measuring
the
cabin
reduction
is
yet
to
be
released.
E
So
as
a
result,
we're
unable
to
fix
exactly
what
our
camera
reduction
is
going
to
be
until
we
have
the
matrix
that
they
assess
it
on
to
provide
those
figures,
but
our
we
would
be
obviously
always
complying
with
building
regulations,
so
we
would
complying
with
the
transitional
arrangement
and
then
the
future
home
standard
when
those
properties
come
commence.
But
it's
our
aspirations
to
try
and
push
that
a
little
bit
further
and
project
provide
an
increase
and
increase
the
cabin
reduction
above
the
building
regulations
within
that
transitional
arrangement.
E
It's
it's
unachievable
in
the
sense
that
we
don't
know
yet
how
the
matrix
works.
We
don't.
We
would
never
provide
the
carbon
reduction.
That's
required,
there's
also
considerable
work
required
to
establish
supply
chains
and
implement
the
changes,
and
it's
not
something
that
can
be
done
very
quickly
immediately.
For
example,
if
we
were
to
introduce
airsoft
airsoft
heat
pumps,
it's
it's
a
new
type
of
technology.
E
It's
not
something
that
necessarily
has
the
existing
supply
chains
in
place
for
something
like
that,
but
we
would
be
committed
to
doing
it
either
by
the
building
regulation
state
or
before
that
now
aspiration
will
be
to
push
push
that
as
quick
as
we
can.
H
Sorry,
I'm
surprised
at
the
comment
that
air
source
heat
pumps
are
nude
effectively
new
in
the
supply
chain,
because
I
don't
know
what
it's
like
in
everybody
else's
area,
but
loads
of
people
seem
to
be
getting
fitted.
I
don't
seem,
I
don't
think
air
source
heat
pumps
is
new
technology.
You
could
fit
those
to
everything
tomorrow.
F
Thank
you,
hi
chair.
I
just
want
to
make
this
clear,
because
councillor
campbell
attributed
certain
comments,
we've
added
to
that
tree,
which
actually
were
incorrect.
The
council
members
obviously
do
like
to
be
precise
in
getting
the
correct
information
and
counselor
campbell
has
also
said
just
a
few
minutes
ago.
We
should
not
be
made
to
make
a
decision
unless
certain
what
we
are
doing.
F
B
Just
really
going
back
to
the
affordables
and
there's
no
four
or
five
bedroom
affordables,
and
I'm
just
wondering
you
know.
Certainly
you
don't
get
to
a
larger
family
officers
and
don't
need
an
affordable.
So
is
there
a
particular
reason
why
a
decision
was
made
not
to
offer
affordables
in
the
four
and
five
bedroom
properties,
because
I'm
sure
all
of
us,
as
well
councillors
knowing
across
the
entire
city,
some
certain
types
of
families
are
getting
larger
and
they're
a
more
multi-generational
household.
So
why
we're
not
offering
affordables
on
the
forum
five.
K
Thank
you,
councillor
ray
the
information
I
had
through
the
johnson
murray
report
was
this.
This
met
local
needs
for
this
particular
area.
B
So
would
you
consider
adding
affordables
to
the
foreign
fives,
because
I
I
think
we
can
safely
say
that
there
is
a
need
across
the
city
and
there
will
be
a
need
in
this
area
and
obviously
you
said,
as
you
feel,
this
is
an
exemplar
development.
So
is
it
not
worth
putting
your
best
foot
forward
and
offering?
What
is
actually
your
need?
Just
because
it's
not
in
data.
C
My
question
was
going
to
be
very
similar
to
council
of
race
actually
and
because
you
gave
us
an
excellent,
a
nation
as
to
where
you'd
come
up
with
the
housing
need
in
the
housing
mix
and
basically
you'd
adopted
lead
city
council's
policies.
So
I
I
didn't
understand
why
the
affordables
weren't
exactly
the
same
proportion
across
the
board,
because
these
are
affordable
homes,
they're,
not
starter
homes.
C
So
you
seem
to
be
using
whatever
day
to
suit
you
rather
than
being
consistent.
K
We
wouldn't
ignored
any
reports,
and
the
johnson
report
report
that
was
prepared
for
this
scheme
was
prepared
by
the
company
that
are
involved
in
housing
across
the
district
through
this
allocation
run
through
the
course
strategy
policies.
So
they
pick
up
latest
data
from
the
council
before
coming
up
with
an
appropriate
mix
for
the
site.
D
In
my
ward,
who
are
building
in
chesterfield
airtight
properties,
which
are
really
based
upon
a
modular
design
from
finland,.
C
C
The
third
point
is:
how
do
we
protect
developments
from
developers
who
have
no
attacks
and
levy
to
pay
for
from
yesterday,.
C
D
K
Thank
you,
council.
I
think
we
touched
on
bungalows
earlier.
Didn't
we
and
my
response
was
there,
are
lots
in
the
locality,
but
that
we
would
look
at
it
in
terms
of
modular
building.
That
would
be
a
sea
change
for
a
national
house
builder
like
red
row,
but
I'm
sure
I'm
sure
that
in
the
coming
years
that
there
will
be
various
attempts
through
the
industry
to
improve
efficiency
and
and
probably
to
use
modular
housing.
K
C
It's
it's.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
the
the
levy
and
tax
that's
going
to
be
imposed
by
on
developers
by
the
government
to
fund
the
disaster
of
cladding
at
grenfell,
and
how
do
we
make
sure
that
any
development
that
takes
place
is
protected
from
you
know,.
D
G
You
were
saying
to
council
reagan
that
the
affordables
are
pepper
potted
around
all
of
the
four
blocks,
but
41
of
your
affordables
or
either
one
bedroom,
a
two
bedroom
department.
So
I'm
curious
from
the
stand.
Now:
that's
gonna
be
pepper,
potted
across
the
whole
area,
when,
as
far
as
I'm
away
you're
not
doing
that
many
blocks
of
apartments
and
according
to
my
figures,
41
the
affordables
are
in
apartments.
E
I'm
not
certain
that
that
figure
is
correct.
We
are,
we've
got
six
affordable
apartments
in
the
standard
of
apartments
set
up
in
the
northern
parcel,
and
then
we
have
six
further
maisonet
type
affordables.
The
rest
are
two
and
three
bedroom
homes.
G
Well,
the
obvious
report
says
you've
13
one
bed,
apartments,
affordables,
five,
two
bed
apartment
affordables,
the
total,
affordable
homes
are
43..
Now,
unless
my
sums
are
bad,
that's
41,
but
perhaps
my
whole
little
mass
is
crumbling
after
all
of
these
years,
but
as
far
as
I
can
see,
that's
41
percent,
in
which
case,
isn't
it
it's
a
bit
puzzled
with
how
my
colleague
talked
about
pepper,
potting,
you're,
pepper,
potting,
all
these
apartments
in
across
the
whole
area.
But
those
are
the
figures
in
the
offices
report.
E
I'm
sorry,
no,
that's
that's!
That
is
correct.
The
in
terms
of
the
pepper
potting.
I
meant
that
there
are
affordable
dwellings
in
all
of
the
four
parcels
of
the
development
and
they're,
not
all
so.
For
example,
the
the
apartment
versions
are
within
northern
northern
parcel.
There
is
a
six
within
the
three-story
apartment
block
and
then
there
are
six
further
which
are
three
of
those
are
the
accessible
buildings.
So
six
of
those
accessible
villains.
B
Remember
the
question:
now:
it
was
just
to
really
clear
up
just
a
little
bit
on
the
intro
measures
in
the
government.
Forthcoming
measures
are
we
are
you
saying
that
you're
committed
to
doing
at
least
the
interim
measures
if
you
get
permission
today
or
that
you
would
start
to
do
that
for
buildings
that
was
commenced
after
the
introversion
is
coming,
because
I
think
it's
where
some
of
the
confusions
come
in.
We
get.
B
Obviously
you
don't
know
the
final
calculation,
but
we
have
a
vague
idea
of
where
the
intra
measures
are
going
to
be,
maybe
not
precisely
but
vaguely.
So
are
you
committing
that?
If
you
get
permission
today
any
of
those
buildings,
any
of
those
dwellings
will
meet
at
least
the
interim
measure
standards?
Are
you
saying
only
for
the
dwellings
that
start
after
the
interim
measures
come
in?
Could
you
be
really
crystal
clear
about
that?
Please.
E
The
interim
measures
would
be
they
will
be
coming
on
on
streams
from
july
2023,
which
is
in
line
with
the
building
regulations,
dates.
B
Sorry,
I
apologize
that's
not
answering
the
question.
The
question
is:
if
you
receive
permission
today,
no
matter
when
the
dwellings
start
construction,
will
they
all
meet
the
inter
measure
interim
measures?
Are
you
saying
you
will
only
apply
the
intra
measured
standards
to
those
dwellings
that
commence
after
the
start
of
the
interim
measures.
L
Thank
you
chair.
Can
I
just
urge
some
caution
with
regards
to
this
matter.
I
can
understand
why
members
won't
want
to
understand
how
it's
going
to
work,
but
actually,
as
we
know,
the
building
regulations
regime
is
completely
separate
to
the
plan
regime,
and
so
the
developer
will
need
to
comply
with
whatever
building
regulation
regime.
That
is
our
policies
with
regard
to
the
the
en1
policies,
etc.
J
B
B
G
G
Why
aren't
natural
england
endorsing
what
they've
said
in
terms
of
their
increase
in
biodiversity
in
terms
of
h3,
your
argument
is
15
over
the
density
that
is
agreed
in
h3
is
marginal.
How
is
that
marginal?
If
I
had
a
50
increase
in
my
majority?
I'd
be
overwhelmingly
pleased,
so
I
don't
think
15
is
marginal,
and
can
you
explain
under
age
five
the
affordable
housing
elements
of
this
one
and
why
apparently,
the
housing
mitch
and
the
affordable
housing?
G
Thirty
percent
of
it
is
one
bedroom
department
and
I'd
love
to
know
how
that
links
to
local
need
and,
of
course,
one
that
I've
asked
before,
and
I
always
will
ask
at
this
point.
This
site
is
absorbing
carbon
at
this
particular
one.
It's
absorbing
carbon
dioxide,
it's
a
greenfield
site
at
that
particular
point.
G
How
much
does
it
absorb
and
how
much
will
this
new
development
actually
release
so
that
we
can
consider
taking
into
account
that
we
have
had
a
climate
change
declaration
that
we've
all
supported
at
this
particular
point
that
we
can
comply
with
that
particular
policy,
so
most
of
its
policy?
Thank
you.
O
So,
with
regards
to
the
m1
the
in2,
with
regards
to
the
affordable
housing,
these
issues
are
covered
or
covered
at
the
outlying
content
and
conditions
were,
and
the
legal
agreement
secure,
the
affordable
housing
and
the
en1
and
en2
provisions.
O
With
regards
to
your
calculations
for
water
use
and
the
absorption
of
carbon,
I
haven't
got
those
figures
to
hand.
I
I'm
sure
council
finnegan,
have
you
got
those
figures
that
you,
you
usually
have
those
figures
to
hand.
G
I
always
rely
on
my
office
is
to
advise
me
on
these
particular
matters,
because
they're
telling
me
complies
with
the
n1
and
they're
saying:
no,
not
really
we'll
have
a
guess
now
and
perhaps
we'll
have
a
think
about
it
in
the
future.
To
be
honest,
chair
we've
had
this
discussion
for
the
last
two
or
three
years.
People
have
sat
with
me
on
plans
panel.
What
I've
said.
I
want
the
specific
figures
I
know
you're
going
to
deal
with
it,
they
get
being
told,
don't
worry
about
it,
we'll
condition
it.
G
G
This
is
what's
going
to
happen
that
we
will
comply
with
en1
and
we
get
the
same
thing
year
after
year
after
year,
pitch
it
into
the
future
and
hope
for
the
best,
which
is
disappointing.
I
asked
the
same
questions
panel
after
panel
after
panel
and
I
never
get
any
of
the
answers
in
terms
of
it's
unacceptable.
O
As
I've
just
previously
said,
the
the
condition
is
on
the
outline
for
en1
and
ent2
to
be
complied
with.
The
the
applicant
has
shown
there's
a
an
array
of
options
open
to
them
to
do
that,
and
that
will
be
dealt
through.
O
The
conditions
in
terms
of
that
was
dealt
with
outline,
as
was
the
affordable,
housing
in
and
is
clearly
covered
in
the
section,
106
and
and
the
conditions
moving
on
to
biodiversity,
as
it's
been
previously
mentioned,
that
the
landscaping
scheme
is,
is
a
comprehensive
one
not
only
within
the
parcels
of
land,
but
also
enhancement
and
management
of
the
woodlands
in
terms
of
the
the
natural
england
have
been
consulted
on
the
proposal
and
and
are
in
agreement
that
the
buffers
between
the
ancient
woodland
and
the
development
are
acceptable
in
insofar
as
the
the
biodiversity.
O
I
know
there
was
questions
earlier
on
about
have
natural
england
seen
these
and
as
as
one
of
the
one
of
the
applicants
has
outlined,
that
isn't
usually
the
case,
but
there
is
biodiversity
conditions
relating
to
biodiversity
and
enhancement,
and
I'm
sure
that
that
we
will
be
able
to
to
walk
into
further
in
in
due
course
and
the
last
point
on
absorption
of
carbon.
As
I
said
before,
I
don't
have
that
detail.
O
And
sorry,
apologies,
don't
the
densities
you
mentioned.
How
is
it
marginal?
As
the
chief
planning
officer's
recommendation
outlines?
The
area
is,
is
required
to
achieve
30
dwellings
per
hectare
on
westers
unless
there
is
overriding
character
reasons
why
a
higher
or
lower
density
might
be
acceptable,
and,
as
the
report
covers,
that
it
is
considered
to
be
compliant
in
terms
of
all
other
policies
and
the
the
density
is
an
efficient
use
of
land
that
enables
to
also
reflect
the
prevailing
characters
of
the
wider
areas.
L
Gold
thank
you
chair.
I
just
there's
been
quite
a
lot
of
discussion
about
quite
a
lot
of
things
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
as
you
would
expect
me
to
do,
that,
members
are
only
going
to
consider
material
considerations
in
relation
to
this
specific
application.
L
So,
as
you've
heard
from
the
planning
officer,
matters
such
as
the
n1,
en2
and
affordable
housing
were
agreed
as
being
acceptable
in
principle
at
the
outline
stage.
Now,
where,
on
the
outline
stage,
conditions
of
being
put
on
that
will
deal
with
those
issues
that
actually
means
that
members
of
the
plans
panel
agreed
that
those
conditions
were
sufficient
to
mitigate
and
what
those
conditions
required
were
sufficient
to
mitigate
those
issues
and
therefore
were
acceptable
in
order
to
grant
the
outline
plan
and
application.
L
The
core
strategy
policy
actually
says
housing
density
and
leads
should
meet
or
exceed
the
following
targets.
So
actually
the
fact
that
it
does
exceed
whether
it's
marginal
or
not
meets
the
h3
density
policy.
So
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
I
think
there
are
all
the
points
I
needed
to
clarify,
so
it's
really
important
that
we
just
separate
out
what's
material
of
this
application
and
what's
already
been
settled.
Thank
you.
F
Well,
councillor
finnegan
asks
for
the
question
just
again
to
add
to
all
of
that
that
there
has
been
a
recent
appointment
or
they've
not
started
yet
an
officer
that
will
assist
us
when
we
are
actually
discharging
the
conditions
that
relate
to
the
carbon
reduction.
The
carbon
absorption
questions
that
council
fingers
referred
to.
G
Just
just
to
clearly
what
the
legal
officer
is
telling
us
at
this
point,
so
the
legal
officer
seems
to
be
implying
that
we
agree
to
outline
stage
that
41
of
the
affordable
housing
would
be
in
apartments.
Now
I
don't
having
sat
on
the
panel
that
initially
refused
it,
so
we
can
discuss
as
far
as
I
can
say,
the
housing
makes
in
terms
of
the
affordables
and
the
housing
makes
overall.
G
Have
I
understood
that
correctly,
because
if
that's
the
case-
and
it
is
a
relevant
discussion,
like
we've,
been
having
with
my
colleagues
about
pepper
potting,
it's
a
relevant
discussion
about
the
fact
that
there
are
no
four
and
five
bedroom
affordable
houses.
It's
a
relevant
discussion
that
41
of
this
the
affordable
homes
are
crammed
into
apartments
and
surely
the
legal
officer
is
not
suggesting
that
we
should
suppress
debate
on
these
issues
and
I'm
sure
she
will
confirm
that
it
is
open
to
this
panel
to
say
41
of
our
affordables
and
apartments
isn't
acceptable.
G
It's
not
acceptable
that
we
should
have
no
four
and
five
bedroom
affordable
houses.
Now,
unless
I'm
misunderstanding,
it
almost
sounds
like
an
attempt
to
suppress
our
ability
to
debate
the
affordable
homes
where
they
are
and
what
type
what
type
of
units
are
acceptable
and
I'd
add
along
with
that
there's
also,
a
discussion
about
housing
meets
because
at
this
particular
point,
if
you
think
the
local
area
needs
41
of
all
new
homes,
a
four
bedroom
detached
and
five
bit
and
detached,
and
that
that's
conditioned
at
the
outline
stage,
and
we
can't
actually
revisit
that.
G
L
Chad
just
for
absolute
clarification,
I
certainly
wasn't
trying
to
trying
to
curtail
debate
and
with
regards
to
where
the
affordable
housing
are
situated.
That
does
go
to
the
layout
of
the
scheme
at
finnegan,
so
you're
absolutely
right
to
be
to
be
discussing
that.
What
I
was
trying
to
trying
to
make
clear
was
that
the
deep
some
of
the
detail
that
was
being
requested
was
matters
that
would
need
to
be
dealt
with
under
the
other
application,
and
I'm
really
keen
for
members
to
be
clear
about
what
is
to
form
part
of
this
assessment.
L
And
what
is
not
one
thing
about
the
affordable
housing
is
that
in
policy
h5
it
sets
a
percentage
that
needs
to
be
delivered
and
that
has
been
secured
through
the
outline,
and
that
is
is
the
quantum
that
officers
have
confirmed
has
been
brought
forward.
L
And
again,
I
understand
why
members
want
to
want
to
know
or
see
what
that
split
of
affordable
housing
is,
but
there's
nothing
required
within
that
policy.
That
says,
that
split
needs
to
be
equally
split
across
the
house
and
mix.
But
I
understand
why
you're
asking
those
questions,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
what
the
policy
does
require
and
what
it
doesn't.
C
Yes,
please,
because
just
looking
at
the
papers
we've
got
paragraph
179,
affordable
housing
is
proposed
at
15
provision.
That's
what's
already
been
agreed.
I
understand
paragraph
178
policy
h5
states
that
the
affordable
unit
should
be
a
pro
rata
mix
in
terms
of
sizes
and
house
types
of
the
total
housing
provision
unless
there
are
specific
needs
which
indicate
otherwise
and
they
should
be
suitably
integrated
throughout
a
development
site.
C
O
In
terms
of
the
affordable
housing,
I
think
the
applicant
addressed
where
they'd
got
the
need
from
through
the
housing
need
assessment.
O
C
Looking
back
so
do
we
have
to
accept
a
report
that
the
applicant
gives
us
if
our
feeling
is
that
it's
totally
wrong,
or
can
we
go
back
to
policy
h5
that
states
the
affordable
unit
should
be
a
pro
rata
mix
in
terms
of
sizes
and
house
types
of
the
total
housing
provision?
Where
do
we
stand
legally
with
that?
Please.
F
C
F
That's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
counselor
colleen
is
that
the,
unless
there
are
specific
needs,
is
what's
actually
considered
in
the
housing
needs
assessment,
hence
it
being
policy
compliant.
So
the
housing
needs
assessment
says
that
that
is
the
extra
specific
needs
that's
required,
so
it
is
actually
policy
compliant.
So
what
you're
asking
the
applicant
to
do
is
to
provide
something
over
and
above
where
our
policy
actually
specifies.
It
has
a
caveat
there,
which
is
the
unless
there
are
specific
needs
which
indicate
otherwise
and
that's
in
the
housing
needs
assessment.
F
K
K
C
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
for
officers.
Please
so
yeah
again
we
you
know.
We've
got
a
volume
house
builder
with
a
report
saying
broadly
in
line
with
and
acceptable
which
you
know.
We've
come
to
just
accept
that
now
and
we
shouldn't
a
couple
of
questions.
So
we
we've
had
applications
in
the
past
from
smaller
developers
where
we've
had
reams
of
conditions.
C
We've
got
a
an
application
before
us
today
from
a
volume
developer,
with
literally
four
conditions
on
it.
O
Valuable,
thank
you
so,
with
regards
to
the
conditions,
the
outline
application
had
30
conditions
on
it,
which
related
to
the
principle
and
the
this
is
the
reserved
matters.
So
the
conditions
that
are
attached
to
this
permission
can
only
relate
to
the
matters
that
we're
looking
at
in
terms
of
the
appearance
layout,
and
so
that's
why
there's
significantly
less
conditions
on
there.
There
was
also
the
legal
agreement
which
was
extremely
comprehensive
in
terms
of
all
of
those
issues
that
we've
discussed
about.
O
O
So
that's
why
there's
not
as
many
and
as
many
conditions
with
regards
to
the
the
tree
value,
I
think,
as
as
the
outcome
right,
we
pointed
out,
you've
got
to
look
at
this
as
as
a
whole
insofar
as
the
the
improvements
and
the
landscaping
that
is
in
in
the
development
parcels
themselves,
but
also
the
enhancement
of
improvements
to
the
woodlands
which,
if
they
are
not
managed,
properly,
stand
to
lose
more
than
than
a
development
that
actually
does
provide
significant
means
of
maintaining
and
enhancing
the
wider,
the
wider
trees.
O
I
I
understand
where
you,
what
you're
referring
to
the
previous
application
and
and
what
is
the
as
we've
discussed
before
I
don't
have
information
in
front
of
me
regarding
the
the
tree
house.
There
is
various
other
reasons
why
that
layout
has
will,
you
know,
is
shown
to
impact
on
those
initial
trees,
and
but
there
might
be
various
reasons
why
that
that
is
and
in
order,
if
you
remove
all
of
those
allows
the
wider
development
that
then
allows
the
further
development
and
enhancement
and
all
those
significant
contributions
and
maintenance
of
the
woodland.
B
Hopefully,
this
is
a
really
quick
one.
Actually
it's
just
just
clarifying
it.
This
is
my
ignorance,
because
it's
been
a
long
day.
I
apologize
the
housing
needs
assessment.
Does
that
obviously
specifies
the
number
of
kind
of
tenure?
Does
it
specify
what
needs
to
be
affordable,
though,
because
I
think
this
is
the
crux
point
we've
got
to
actually
does
he
just
say?
Actually
you
need
certain
amount,
one
bed,
sorry
my
two
beds
so
about
three
beds.
Certain
amount,
four
beds,
certain
five
beds,
I'll
just
go.
B
O
O
J
I've
got
a
number
of
questions.
The
first
one
was
one
that
I
did
highlight
when
we're
on
the
site
visit
this
morning,
and
I
think
jonathan
had
been
tasked
to
try
and
get
an
answer
on
how
at
development
plans
panel.
We
usually
talk
about
master
planning,
large
sites
together
to
make
sure
that
everything
fits
in
together.
J
Have
we
got
a
master
plan
for
this
location?
That's
question
number
one
and
in
terms
sorry
to
repeat
it
go
back
again
in
terms
of
paragraph
11.
I'll
be
quite
honest.
I
haven't
a
clue
with
all
of
that.
All
these
different
12
13
18
23
19
what
it
actually
means
it
just
absolute
gobbledygook
and
I
consider
myself
relatively
intelligent,
not
very
intelligent
but
relatively
intelligent.
J
Surely
the
housing
needs
assessment
came
in
with
minima
and
maxima
so
that
when
they
were
looking
at,
they
would
say
that
the
range
of
housing
in
one
bedroom
should
be
at
least
I'm
picking
figures
out
there
here
10,
but
a
maximum
I.e,
no
more
than
say
20
percent
and
of
those
some
of
them
a
certain
amount
need
to
be
affordable.
But
of
that
there
is
demand
for
social
housing.
J
Is
that
not
a
variable
that
we
should
be
looking
at
to
make
sure
that
that
is
meeting
the
needs
of
what
the
local
housing
manager
is
doing?
So
that's
on
that
one
they
other
one
that
I
had
hold
on
just
want
to
go
through
this
yeah
on
paragraph
94.
J
In
paragraph
94
under
nature
team,
it
says
the
interpretation
panel
should
show
all
blah
blah
blah
questions
details
regarding
the
management
company,
which
is
secured
through
the
section
106
agreement
now
the
way
I've
interpreted.
That
is,
that
the
nature
team
have
got
questions
about
the
content
of
the
section
106
agreement.
Am
I
correct
in
saying
that
that's
what
that's
saying
or
if
I'm
wrong?
What
is
that
paragraph
actually
saying.
O
So
maybe
to
deal
with
that
one
first,
I
think
the
consultation
have
misunderstood
what
was
actually
dealt
with
at
the
outline,
and
so
that's
I've
er.
The
chief
on
an
officer's
recommendation,
obviously
has
to
put
the
the
summary
of
what
their
comments
are,
and
but
in
terms
of
that,
that
is
perhaps
something
that
they
have
well
have
misunderstood.
There's
also
the
the
details
that
they're
looking
at
will
also
be
covered
in
the
conditions.
O
With
regards
to
the
master
plan,
question
that
you
asked
out
on
the
site
in
terms
of
mark
during
the
sap
adoption
there
were
was
suggestions
that
master
plans
were
were
drawn
up
for
various
sites.
This
particular
one.
There
is
no
record
of
that
being
a
requirement
of
this
site.
However,
the
outline
application
did
give
an
indicative
master
plan
of
how
this
development
could
could
work
to
make
sure
that
members
were
at
the
outline
planning
application
stage
could
see
that
it
was
a
feasible
this.
O
J
O
Think
this
is
a
question
that
I
can't
answer
without
input
from
our
policy
team.
F
Obviously,
bringing
an
application
like
this
to
to
to
a
panel
involves
an
awful
lot
of
work
and
there's
a
lot
of
questions
to
address.
There's
a
lot
of
material
considerations.
There's
a
lot
of
information
to
assess
and
at
some
point
officers,
particularly
including
ourselves
around
this
table,
have
to
rely
upon
other
officers
to
provide
us
with
information.
And
that's.
Why
mark
simply
can't
answer
that
question?
No,
no.
Can
I
because
we
we
pass
that
information
to
our
policy
colleagues
and
they
then
tell
us
whether
it
complies
or
not.
F
F
I'm
not
sure
how
it
serves
a
particular
purpose,
because
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we're
actually
discussing
at
this
meeting
is,
as
nicole
has
pointed
out
and
mark
has
pointed
out
repeatedly
previously
being
considered
at
the
outline
stage,
and
we've
made
comments
about
the
housing
need
assessment.
It
does
feel
like
we're
actually
trying
to
take
apart.
The
original
outline
application
to
some
degree
to
be
fair
because
we
keep
saying
that
and
nicole's
made
it
very
plain
as
to
what
what
elements
they're
actually
in
front
of
members
for
consideration.
F
J
On
a
number
of
plans
panels
and
when
we
know
that
there
are
going
to
be
strategic
questions
coming
up
from
members
and
knowing
the
members
of
this
panel,
you
know
who's,
probably
going
to
ask
which
question
well
in
advance.
Certainly
the
members
know
who's
going
to
ask
which
questions
well
in
advance.
You've
actually
invited
policy
strategic
policy
to
come
along
to
clarify
those
particular
points.
When
we
know
it's
happening,
it's
the
same
as
if
we
were
discussing
education,
the
chances
are,
you
would
have
an
education
officer
present.
J
So
it
just
what's
concerning
me-
is
that
we're
being
asked
to
make
a
decision
today
and
we've
not
got
access
to
all
the
information
that
either
all
of
us
want,
or
at
least
some
of
us
would
like
to
have
further
details.
That's
all
I'm
personally
asking
for
is
that
if
glenn
gorner
can
work
out
the
asset
value
of
a
tree,
surely,
and
as
one
of
the
major
developers
in
this
country
have
the
capacity
to
work
out
the
carbon
asset
value
of
trees,
because
leeds
can
certainly
do
it.
J
If
we
invited
glenn
here,
glenn
would
probably
be
able
to
have
a
look
at
that
tree
and
we'd
be
able
to
give
us
a
good
estimate
by
just
looking
at
a
picture
of
it
never
mind
going
out
and
doing
what
else
he
needs
to
do
with
it.
It
just
I'm
concerned
that
we're
not
being
given
all
of
the
information.
So
what's
the
relevance
in
terms
of
housing
numbers
well,
we
need
to
know
whether
or
not
the
number
of
three
four
and
five
bedroom
is
at
the
maxima.
J
That
was
suggested
by
johnson
moot
or
it
was
at
the
minimum,
because
we
could
then
argue
and
say
well,
if
you
take
another
five
percent
of
this
one
and
put
it
into
that,
one
that
will
be
more
to
our
liking.
That
will
meet
the
needs
of
the
local
community
and
it
will
meet
the
needs
of
everybody
else.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
do.
I
thought
our
job
here
today
is
to
come
up
with
the
best
deal
we
can
for
the
local
residents,
because
the
whole
issue
of
the
outline
has
been
the
lost.
J
You
know
the
agreement
as
to
whether
or
not
the
application
should
go
ahead
has
been
lost.
The
application
has
to
go
ahead
and
our
job
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
the
best
we
can
for
the
city
and
for
the
local
people
as
well,
and
I
don't
think
we
are
and
when
it
comes
to
comments,
I
am
going
to
suggest
that
we
defer
this
till.
We
get
some
further
information
on
it
myself,
but
I've
had
my
say
and
I
apologize
above,
but
it
just.
F
Those
strategic
issues
were
considered
at
the
city
and
strategic
plans
panel
when
they,
when
the
reserve,
when
the
reserve
matters
application,
was
considered.
That's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make,
therefore,
when
we
actually
come
here
with
a
detailed
application,
which
is
a
deserved
matter
for
the
more
detailed
points.
F
That's
what
we're
considering
the
strategic
issues
of
already
being
decided
and
captured
when
the
reserve,
when
the
outline
application
was
considered
at
the
city
and
strategic
plans
panel,
that
that
that's
the
simple
point.
So
what
we're
concentrating
on
here
is
the
more
localized
detail.
Hence
it
coming
back
to
the
outer
area
panel
nicole's
made
that
point
mark's
made
the
point.
I've
done
it
and
I
suspect
jonathan.
They
want
to
do
it
as
well.
I
I
just
hope.
That's
clear.
F
Because,
because
the
the
issues
that
are
being
considered
and
debated
now
and
within
this,
you
can,
if
you
want
to
use
that
word,
but
but
but
but
that's,
but
no,
it's
small,
it's
more
local
and
we're
looking
at
the
actual
local
impact
that
the
design
and
layout
of
this
application
has
on
on
the
the
community
around
it,
but
not
the
strategic
issues
which
have
already
been
considered
by
the
previous
application
way
back
whenever
it
was
considered
by
by
city
plans
panel.
Do
you
want
to
well
well?
F
No,
because
the
council's
made
a
decision,
because
this
is
a
more
localized
element
that
is
very
bright
and
proper
to
be
dealt
with
by
the
outer
area
panel
that,
under
normal
circumstances,
deals
with
applications
in
that
area.
You
could
turn
that
argument
around
and
say:
should
it
ever
have
gone
to
city
and
strategic?
L
Again,
just
for
clarification
and
for
procedural
reasons,
the
role
of
the
panel
members
is
to
decide
whether
the
application
before
them
is
acceptable
in
planning
terms
when
looked
at
against
our
development
policies
or
whether
any
other
material
considerations
outweigh
those
policies.
I
do
understand
that
you
want
to
get
the
best
for
the
area.
It's
a
very
big.
L
It
is
a
very
big
and
major
development,
but
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
because
of
because
of
the
words
that
council
anderson
use-
and
I
know
what
he
means,
but
actually
your
role
is
to
look
against
our
policies
to
decide
whether
this
application
is
acceptable.
It's
not
about
to
make
it
better.
If
you
think
something
isn't
acceptable,
you
can
put
a
condition
on
require
certain
things
to
make
it
acceptable,
but
you
have
to
look
at
the
application
before
you
not
what
you
wished
had
come
before
you.
A
J
On
now,
11,
I'm
still
waiting
for
an
explanation,
because
what
does
it
actually
say,
paragraph
11?
Can
someone
put
up
on
the
screen
what
it
should
say
rather
than
the
way
it's
been?
It's
probably
because
of
the
way
it's
been
laid
out
in
the
spreadsheet
or
in
the
boxes.
When
it
was
done,
it's
gone
into
the
wrong
lines.
I
think
that
it's
a
formatting.
J
O
L
H
O
F
The
pre,
the
prefix
numbers
which
go
sequentially
from
12,
13,
14,
15,
etc.
It
shouldn't
be
in
that
box.
So
if
you're
reading
down
that
first
column,
whether
you've
got
14
market,
you
would
ignore.
The
14.
market
is
zero
in
the
next
box
down.
So
it's
the
it's.
The
numbers
that
run
sequentially
to
be
fair.
We've
had
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
computer
systems
recently
and
one
of
one
of
the
ones.
A
F
It's
it's
counted,
it's
counted
the
boxes.
Now
I
mean
that
you
will
notice,
there's
also
some
formatting
errors
towards
the
end
of
the
report.
I
think
after
paragraph
100
and
we
did
try
desperately
to
correct
them,
but
for
whatever
reason,
the
computer
systems
that
we're
running
now
make
it
incredibly
difficult
to
do
so.
F
So
it's
quite
challenging
when
you're
bringing
a
report,
we've
trust
me
counselor
hamilton
the
number
of
times
I've
contacted
it
about
issues
about
issues
within
our
department,
about
all
sorts
of
things
and
jonathan
meets
regularly
with
them,
and
at
the
moment
it
continues
to
be
a
particular
problem.
So
I
do
apologize
for
that.
But
again,
that's
not.
Actually
our
fault.
H
So
I
can't
help
but
feel
we're
in
a
pretty
deep
hole
here
at
the
moment.
I
I
don't
think
if
we're
talking
strategic,
I
don't
think
any
of
us
are
arguing
about
the
principle.
I
mean
that
the
sap
was
clear.
There
was
a
process
gone
through,
not
all
of
us
liked
it,
but
we
we
stuck
with
the
sap
and
there
was
an
outline
application
on
this
site
because
I
sat
on
the
city
plans
and
we
discussed
it
at
some
length
and
there's
an
outline
application.
H
Actually,
under
those
circumstances,
you
wouldn't
be
putting
any
five
bedroom
houses
on
this
site
at
all,
and
so
I
think
our
policy
and
our
stand
corrected.
I
think
our
policy
in
relation
to
affordables
should
reflect
what
the
housing
assessment
says
for
the
entire
site,
and
I
think
that's
that's
reasonable.
I
don't
think
with
it
certainly
within.
H
H
Then
it
seems
to
be
that
this
is
an
issue
because
we're
all
concerned
about
it.
The
development
plans
panel
ought
to
look
at
because
obviously
there's
a
fault
in
policy
somewhere
I'll
I'll
leave
that
one
in
can.
Can
I
ask
you
a
favor:
can
we
go
back
to
the
site
plan
and
I'll
ask
a
very
specific
question.
H
Can
you
for
out
for
everybody's
benefit,
outline
on.
H
N
I
just
wonder
if
it's
just
easier
to
say
what
what
isn't
included
in
the
two
sap
sites,
which
is
this
middle
section
here
right,
plus
these
two
very
large
gardens
these
two
properties.
Everything
else
which
is
allocated
as
housing,
is
a
subside
with
the
exception
of
a
small
bit
down
here,
which
is
identified.
It's
like
not
allocated.
H
So
the
northern
part
of
the
the
northern
part,
the
northern
part
of
the
sap,
only
includes
the
bit
with
the
housing
on
so
the
fields
on
either
side
are
not
included
in
the
south.
I
think.
H
Right
second,
second,
second
question
second
question,
and
that
refers
to
drainage
and
I
notice
there's
a
there's.
A
reference
towards
the
end
of
the
report
in
relation
to
there
hasn't
been
any
further
drainage
plans
proposed.
H
O
It's
a
it
is
a
condition,
but
our
drainage
have
been
consulted
on
the
application
to
and
agreed
that
the
overall
principles
are
acceptable,
but
until
the
actual
numbers
of
houses
are
approved,
then
the
finer
detail
of
drain
diameters
of
pipes
etc
cannot
be
the
be
given
up
front.
So
there
is
a
condition
and
the
the
overall
drainage
strategy
is
considered
to
be
an
acceptable
one.
J
Can
I
just
say
clarification
on
that
point?
Are
you
are
I
I
wouldn't
sit
on
that
original
one
you've
not
included
on
this,
this
application,
the
conditions
that
are
on
so
some
of
us
are
making.
You
know
we're
we're
asking
good
round
circle.
For
example,
are
there
any
proposals
for
suds?
Are
there
any
proposals
for
tanks?
What
what
are
the?
What?
Where
are
the
proposals
for.
J
H
It
just
a
minute
if
you
read
189,
if
you
read
189,
it
says
the
outline
planning
consent
was
subject
to
some
several
conditions
relating
to
drainage
and
service,
water
and
runoff.
Fine,
we
don't.
We
expect
that
conditions
require
developers
and
for
approval
details
of
the
drainage
of
surface
water
runoff
from
the
development
together
with
the
details,
etc,
etc,
etc.
Have
they
done
that.
O
O
So
that's
why
there
isn't
a
condition
on
here,
but
in
terms
of
the
strategy,
has
been
agreed
as
being
an
acceptable
one
and
yorkshire.
Water
have
agreed
that
that's
an
exception,
acceptable
drainage
proposal,
but
the
actual
fine
details
have
not
been
approved
because,
ultimately,
those
the
little
details
of
pipes,
diameters
the
exact
locations
of
those-
cannot
be
determined
until
this.
This
application
for
the
the
actual
houses.
F
Councillor
campbell,
I
mean
the
the
last
sentence
that
was
omitted,
says
the
conditions
remain
in
force
and
they
sufficiently
deal
with
the
issues
of
the
drainage
associated
with
this
proposal,
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
misunderstandings
that
started
when
councilor
smith
asked
the
questions
about
the
limited
number
of
conditions
on
this
particular
application,
because
the
actual
the
actual
conditions
in
the
main
on
the
out
on
the
outline
actually
are
carried
over
as
part
of
this
but
they're
not
part
of
this
report,
because
we're
considering
a
discrete
set
of
issues
rather
than
reinventing
the
wheel
a
bit
by
going
into
the
strategic
element
that
we've
talked
before.
F
H
F
I
I've
captured
only
actually
out
of
all
this,
and
I
don't
mind
corrected
about
this
about
five
points,
and
one
is
that
so
it's
a
because
I
I
think
you
need
further
information.
So
I
accept
that
in
terms
of
that,
so
the
suggestion
here
is
about
referral
of
this
application
to
try
and
get
that.
But
in
terms
of
being
clear
about
what
that
applica.
That
information
is-
and
as
I
say,
I
might
be
about
to
open
up
a
whole
wish
list
here.
F
But
you've
got
to
accept
that
some
of
the
many
of
these
issues
have
already
been
considered.
Obviously
by
the
original
outline.
Therefore
effectively
off
the
table
as
it
were.
So
all
like
all
I've
actually
captured
out
of
all
this
debate
is
that
the
the
the
the
applicant's
commitment
to
offer
photovoltaic
panels
or
to
at
least
look
at
that,
because
members
were
concerned
about
the
the
recovery
and
that
that
the
the
residents
should
have
the
opportunity
to
to
take
the
benefit
of
that
and
whether
any
of
it
might
go
back
into
the
grid.
F
So
you
can
see
if
the
applicant
was
prepared
to
consider
that
look
at
bungalow
provision,
even
though
the
housing
needs
assessment
suggests
that
we
don't
require
them.
But
again,
I
think
one
of
the
councils,
possibly
council
anderson,
said
well.
Is
it
okay
if
they
offer
it
yep?
Okay?
So
look
at
that.
F
Look
at
the
reasoning
for
the
loss
or
the
possible
retention
of
the
trees
at
that
particular
benz
that
we
referred
to.
We
got
sort
of
confused
about
and
whether
that
would
require
a
professional
redesign
because
it
would
affect
it.
I
now
understand
it
a
bit.
It
would
affect
possibly
four
or
five
dwellings
on
that
particular
corner
if
it
was
moved
to
protect
the
trees,
even
even
though
again
I'll
say
this
throughout
the
whole
of
this-
that
actually
you
have
to
look
at
this
in
the
round.
F
So
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
the
carbon
improvement,
it's
massively
going
to
be
a
significant
improvement,
but
whether
the
applicant
will
be
prepared
to
look
at
that
as
well
and
then
more
clarity
on
how
we've
come
to
the
conclusions
about
the
affordable
housing
and
the
scope
of
the
housing
need
assessments,
because
that
refers
back
to
council
finnegan's
question
about
whether
the
local
housing
manager
was
involved.
I
don't
know
we
have
to
rely
upon
policy.
These
things
are
so
complicated.
You
can
see
it
runs
to
190
paragraphs.
Does
this?
F
A
C
F
If,
if
if
when
the
report
comes
back
and
the
applicant
turned
around
and
says
no,
because
this
is
paul,
because
this
is
policy
compliant
what's
in
front
of
you
as
far
as
yeah-
well,
okay,
but
that's
the
point
of
actually
getting
the
additional
information
and
coming
back,
isn't
it.
But
we
think
this
is
policy
compliant
without
the
inclusion
of
four
to
five
beds.
Okay,
so
what
we
will
do
we'll
look
at
that
information,
articulate
it
better.
F
So
you
understand
it
better
and
we'll
also
talk
to
the
applicant,
whether
they're
prepared
to
go
above
policy
compliance
and
provide
four
to
five.
But
the
simple
matter
of
fact
is:
when
we
get
into
this
stage,
we
cannot
insist
upon
that.
So
if
they
come
back
and
say,
give
us
a
flat,
no
you've
then
got
to
make
the
decision.
Is
that
what
you
would
wish
to
refuse
this
application
and
that
and
then
we'll
get
into
an
interesting
debate?
F
Wouldn't
we
because,
of
course,
then
defending
an
appeal
where
we've
actually
got
the
applicant
to
provide
policy
compliant,
affordable
housing
and
you
make
the
decision
to
then
refuse.
It
leaves
us
in
a
bit
of
a
cleft
stick.
Doesn't
it?
I
think
you
understand,
where
I'm
going
with
that
without
giving
any
more
information.
So
is
that
that
clear
enough
counselor
thank.
H
Yeah,
I
I
think
it
more
or
less
captures
many
of
the
things
we
we've
we've
expressed
concern
about.
I
wouldn't
just
simply
refer
to
the
three
trees
that
you
know.
Look
like
they're
going
to
be
chopped
down.
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
start
talking
about,
what's
the
treat,
what
effectively
is
the
the
that's?
What's
the
tree
cover
of
the
area,
then
they
need
to
do
a
proper
survey
because
there's
actually
more
than
three
mature
trees
on
that
row.
Now.
C
H
I
am
mindful
that
the
people
who
are
behind
us
have
sat
through
this
meeting
and
at
the
first
part
of
the
meeting
we
spent
a
long
time
discussing
and
in
effect,
refusing
an
application
because
of
its
effect
on
a
tree
yeah.
Now
we
have
to
be
consistent.
H
H
Sheamus
went
really
it's
unfortunate,
but
I
think
I
need
to
understand
about
the
current
tree
cover
the
quality
of
that
tree
cover
and,
quite
frankly,
why
there
isn't
an
alternative
way
of
getting
round
those
trees,
because
when
we
were
there
on
site
today
the
trees
that
they
told
about
when
we
were
there
on
site
today,
it
involves
moving
stuff
around.
As
far
as
we
could
see
that
that.
H
There
is
one
other
thing
that
in
among
all
this
healthy
debate
we
haven't
touched
on
and
that's
the
design,
I
have
to
say,
I've
looked
at
the
drawings
and
they
look
they're
a
really
good
pastiche
of
1930s
development.
Most
of
it.
H
I
appreciate
these
house
red
rose
house
types,
that's
what
you're
gonna
get,
but
I
look
at
this
and
I
think
to
myself:
do
I
get
a
feeling
there's
a
sense
of
community
here,
and
I
don't
I
get
a
feeling
that
this
is
a
housing
estate
with
long
roads
houses
off
now.
I
appreciate
that
you,
you
show
us
a
plan
and
the
plan
is
very
small,
but
I'm
looking
at
that
and
I'm
thinking,
I'm
not
actually
sure
that
conforms
to
street
design
guide.
H
If
we
look
at
our
street
design
guide
now,
which
is
very
positive
towards
pedestrians,
cyclists
separating
motorists
separating
houses
creating
safe
spaces,
I
don't
get
the
impression
from
looking
at
this
layout
that
it's
doing
that,
and
it
strikes
me
that
if
we
don't
mention
design
and
place
making
now
it
will
be
too
late.
H
C
I
am
completely
agree
with
council
campbell
because
I've
listened
to
most
of
the
debate
and
I
thought
we've
not
talked
about
the
layout
and
we've
barely
touched
upon
the
design
and
I
think
the
layout
overlays
the
comments
you've
just
made
about
design.
So
what
I'd
like
to
ask
you
is
the
four
patches,
the
split
obviously,
but
people
will
inevitably
transfers
between
the
different
sites
and
we
were
on
site
this
morning.
C
So
if
your
friend
lives
up
in
this
block,
you're
gonna
want
to
come
and
visit
and,
and
that
will
develop
what
is
the
community
grow?
So
two
questions,
one
are
you
proposing
and
I've
read
through
several
times.
I
can't
see
it.
How
are
you
proposing
to
do
to
develop
safe
pathways
and
I'm
saying
pathways
doesn't
have
to
actually
be
pathways
between
each
site
for
people
and
it
makes
reference
to
some
community
style
building
or
activities.
So
my
question
is
to
gel
the
community
together.
Where
will
that
be?
What
will
it
look
like?
C
How
or
will
it
be
there
it?
It
is
inferred
that
you
will
have
some
community
type
cohesion
building
in
somewhere
in
here.
So
where
will
it
be?
What
will
it
look
like
and
how
will
you
have
safe
passage
for
people
without
going
on
the
road
on
the
outside,
which
is
against
old
policies
between
these
different
sites?
G
Just
to
to
support
my
colleague
in
terms
of
the
connectivity
by
foot
and
by
cycle
weight,
we
haven't
explored
that
that
needs
to
be
absolutely
crystal
clear
because
they
seem
remote
from
each
other.
So
we
need
to
have
absolute
clarity
next
time
how
everything
connects
up
and
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
h,
fox,
I'm
not
sure
steve's
quiet
could
ask
what
we're
trying
to
say
at
this
particular
point
now.
G
If
you
look
at
the
infamous
table
on
page
61
according
to
the
developer,
there
is
the
reason
that
they're
offering
all
of
these
affordables
that
are
in
apartments.
Is
that
there's
overwhelming
demand.
Well,
it
does
seem
to
be
for
poor
people.
If
you
look
at
the
market,
which
is
the
one
next
to
it,
they're
offering
norton
naught
now
how
the
heck
they
can
have
an
h4
policy.
That
basically
says
we
have
a
separate
housing
mix
for
poor
people
and
we
have
a
different
housing
mix.
At
that
point,
the
housing
mix
is
the
housing
mix.
G
So
I
think
that
we
need
policy
here
next
time
about
h4
to
explain
why
it's
acceptable
that
those
on
lower
incomes
end
up
in
one
bedroom
and
two
bedroom
apartments,
but
according
to
this
lot,
they're
not
building
any
on
the
market
because
nobody
wants
them
and
then
they
tell
us,
but
there's
overwhelming
demand
for
it.
It
goes
all
the
way
through
to
include
the
four
and
five
bedroom
and
the
affordable
side
of
it.
G
At
this
particular
point
so
h4,
we
have
to
be
sure
that
it's
an
accurate
reflection
of
the
housing
mix
of
that
particular
locality
and
I
put
money
on
that.
The
housing
manager
hasn't
been
consulted
and
if
you
were
to
talk
to
anybody
outside
the
developer
about
it
that
they
just
laugh
at
this
particular
housing
mix
that
says
what
is
it
somewhere
in
the
region?
42
of
the
housing
demand
in
this
area
is
for
four
bedrooms
and
five
bedroom
detached
houses.
It
never
is
in
a
million
years.
G
I
know
the
community
well
that
can't
be
accurate,
so
we
need
to
be
able
to
have
the
policy
people
here
to
say:
why
is
it
different?
For
affordables,
I
mean
42
of
these
particular
properties
on
the
market
and
going
to
you
know,
people
who
can
afford
them,
but
there's
no
demand
for
the
affordables
for
the
lower
income,
people
that
just
doesn't
add
up.
We
need
to
drill
down
on
h4
to
make
sure
that
the
housing
makes
and
therefore
h5
the
affordable
homes
mix
is
appropriate.
G
At
this
particular
point,
you're
sticking
up
all
of
those
people
are
on
lower
incomes
into
apartments
and
you're,
offering
those
who
are
wealthy
enough.
Four
and
five
bedroom
detached
properties,
and
that
can't
be
acceptable.
That
can't
be
a
good
recipe
for
housing
cohesion.
It
can't
be
a
good
recipe
for
community
development.
G
We
need
to
have
somebody
from
policy
to
look
at
this
and
to
actually
critique
whether
their
net
assessment
is
accurate,
because
at
this
particular
point,
if
you
look
at
page
61,
the
tables
aren't
it's
either
housing
mix
means
41
of
these
particular
properties
are
affordable
in
apartments.
Well,
41
of
the
market
must
be.
Then,
if
that's
where
the
demand
is,
it
doesn't
add
up.
It
cannot
be
the
case
and,
despite
you
know,
getting
another
rollicking
from
the
legal
officer
about
what
we
can
in
cart.
Discussing
debate
at
this
particular
point.
G
J
A
O
I
can't
I
know
from
the
the
the
council
world
councillors
for
hardly
robin
hood
have
come
to
me
asking
questions.
I've
been
able
to
brief
them,
and-
and
I
know
I've
know
that
council
finnegan
has
been
involved
and
and
seen
emails.
I
know
that
through
there
is,
there's,
been
opportunities
to
to
come
and
and
and
ask
questions
of
officers,
and
so
that
that
we
haven't
sent
them
individual
notifications,
but
we
know
that
they
have
been
informed
or
know
about
the
proposal
and
had
opportunities
to
make
representations.
J
O
C
And
the
applicant
kindly
showed
us,
the
sap
drawings,
which
I
hadn't
had
a
chance
to
print
off
those
documents
that
show
where
the
site
allocations
currently
are
also
include
land
that
isn't
ring
fenced
here,
the
blue,
it's
not
in
the
blue,
it's
not
in
the
red,
but
it's
part
of
our
sap.
So
I'd
like
clarification
as
to
what
the
future
is
for
those
pieces
of
land
that
haven't
been
included
in
this
development.
Can
they
still
be
developed,
or
does
this
development
actually
cut
those
back?
F
C
C
A
L
Choice
chair:
I
can
clarify
that
for
members
now
the
sap
allocation
remains
a
sap
allocation.
This
application
relates
to
only
the
red
line
of
what
we've
been
discussing
today.
The
remainder
of
the
sap
allocation
remains
allocated
for
housing
and
it's
up
to
the
landowner.
If
they
want
to
bring
that
forward.
L
However,
as
you
know,
if
if
a
planning
application
is
permitted
and
then
another
one
comes
forward,
just
like
a
neighbor's
extension,
if
you
like,
one,
will
have
to
take
account
of
the
other,
but
to
for
the
plain
answer
of
your
question
that
still
remains
allocated
for
housing.
A
F
F
I've
caught
the
other
things
as
well
that
we
might
have
to
come
back
with,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say
there
was
a
question
that
was:
does
the
layout
comply
with
the
street
design
guide
that
might
be
quite
easily
answered
by
by
john
now
so
because
we
we
are
still
in
questions,
so
I
just
thought
I'd
give
him
the
opportunity.
There
was
also
a
comment
about
place.
Making
in
neighborhoods,
I
mean
mark,
might
want
to
comment
on
that
or
perhaps
the
applicant
might
want
to
comment
on
that.
F
I
don't
know
very
much
about
the
community
building.
To
be
honest,
I
don't
know
whether
mark
could
comment
on
that,
but
we
do
have
a
plan
that
shows
the
footpath
network
which
we've
not
got
to
yet.
So
I
think
those
three
things
we
could
perhaps
try
and
I
don't
want
to
go
obviously
make
this
longer
than
necessary,
but
we
are
still
in
question,
so
we
perhaps
could
actually
continue
to
discuss
those.
If
members
want
to
do
that,
so
the
first
one
will
be.
Does
the
layout
comply
with
the
street
design
guide?
John.
G
M
H
Sorry,
with
with
the
respect
I
I
thought,
we'd
got
the
end
of
this,
but
I
I
look
at
that.
I
you
know
I
I
owe
my
hands
up.
It's
a
very
small
drawing
it's
really
difficult
to
tell
that,
but
I
was
looking
at
the
street
design
guide
and
its
comments
in
relation
to
cycle
routes
through
through
estates.
H
I
can't
see
one
and
I
can't
see
on
along
the
main
spine
roads.
H
I
thought
the
whole
idea
was
we're
trying
to
separate
the
the
vehicle
traffic
and
the
pedestrian
traffic
and
so
notwithstanding
whether
it
might
I'm
not
sure
that
if
I,
if,
if
you
blew
this
up-
and
I
got
the
detail-
I
don't
I'm
not
sure
it
does,
and
so
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
discussion
about
that
because
from
my
interpretation
of
the
street
design
guide
sorry,
my
interpretation
is
that
at
the
moment
it
doesn't-
and
certainly
it
doesn't.
H
It
would
seem
to
me
that
that
that's
an
ideal
pi
piece
of
development
to
get
a
dedicated
cycle
ropes
through
to
move
pedestrians
and
cyclists
across
the
site
and
through
the
site
which
we
haven't
got.
As
I
say,
it's
just
a
standard,
old-fashioned
housing
estate
layout.
F
I
think
I
think
chair
then,
in
those
circumstances
I'll
add
that
to
my
list,
because
I
think
there's
a
slight
slight
misunderstanding
in
john's
response
about
section
38,
which
is
really
down
to
design
engineering.
The
specific
radii
junctions,
not
not
what
councilor
campbell
was
getting
out
in
terms
of
the
street
design
guide,
so
we'll
add
that
to
come
back
with
further
information
to
to
to
to
discuss
it
with
the
cloud
with
the
applicant,
if
it's
not
compliant
and
then
obviously
explain
if
it
should
be.
F
I
don't
know
whether,
because
we
didn't
get
this
far
and
I
think
councillor
burke
made
this
particular
point
about
place
making
and
neighbourhoods.
I
think
it
was
councillor
burke
mark
we
didn't
get
as
far
as
discussing
that
and
then
there
is
just
one
other
point
which
is
about
the
footpath
and
network.
F
So
I'm
going
to
ask
mark
if
you
can
also
explain
the
the
footpath
network
through
the
site,
because
there
is
a
plan
that
actually
shows
that
in
the
presentation
and
then
finally
there's
the
reference
to
the
community
building,
which
I'm
afraid
I
don't
actually
know
very
much
about
at
all.
Well,
it
was,
it
was
a
comment.
It
was
a
question
that
was
asked
by
one
of
the
members
whether
it
was
the
community
building
now.
C
It's
if
you
it
doesn't
actually
say
there
will
be
a
community
building.
What
it
says
is
that
there
will
be
developments
interspersed,
including
local
community
facilities.
So
I
it
was
me
who
put
the
word
building
in
there,
that
community
failed
facilities,
particularly
for
a
development
of
this
size,
would
go
further
than
a
couple
of
counter
shops.
C
You'd.
Think
there'd,
be
you
know
a
community
hub
village
hall.
If
I
want
of
a
better
term
where
people
can
go
and
it's
an
ideal
opportunity,
isn't
it
to
develop
something
that's
new
and
I.t,
and
people
can
go
so
when
it
comes
to
the
heart
of
the
community.
F
Councillor
berg,
which
paragraph
in
the
report
are
you
referring
to
there
please
69.
yeah,
but
that's
actually
referring
to
the
wider
area,
because
I've
got
the
the
because
what
it
actually
says.
It's
not
saying
that
the
the
development
itself
would
provide
those
facilities.
It's
a
commentary
that
says
the
area
surrounding
the
site
comprises
residential
properties
interspersed
with
local
facilities,
including
small
shops,
schools,
public
houses
and
other
local
communities.
F
So
it's
not
saying
that
this
application
will
provide
it's
just
saying
that
there
are,
but
there
is
those
facilities
in
the
surrounding
areas.
C
Is
fine,
so
what
I'm
saying
can
I
just
finish
ireland?
What
I'm
just
saying
is
in
terms
of
the
connectivity
between
the
the
far
sides
and
the
existing
properties,
and
I
appreciate
that
paragraph
69
is
about
the
wider
area.
Isn't
it
a
fantastic
opportunity
to
actually
do
something
for
the
community
that
would
enable
that
community
to
have
greater
connectivity
and
to
build
that
community
cohesion.
F
So
if,
if
mark
can
just
then
show
the
so
I
understand
that
the
question
now,
because
I
was
a
bit
confused
when
I
looked
yeah
mark.
Can
we
just
look
at
the
footpath
network
and
toby?
Could
you
bring
that
up?
Please
because
it
might
be
able
to
answer
that
and
deal
with
it
here
rather
than
taking
it
away.
O
O
These
are
going
to
be
two
metre
wide
put
footpaths,
so
they
they
they
do,
provide
a
good
upgrade
on
what
is
is
currently
there
in
terms
of
the
the
the
wider
area
has
that
does
recreational
spaces
inside
the
the
parcels
of
development,
and
there
is
proposed
to
have
things
like
trim
trails,
which
are
facilities
there
to
enhance
the
the
the
wider
sort
of
community
areas
and
and
the
design
and
the
layout,
I
think,
is-
is
explained
in
the
the
planning
chief
planning
officer's
report.
O
The
the
way
the
site
is
the
irregular
parcels
of
land.
The
shapes
of
the
land
provide,
together
with
the
topography
of
of
of
the
site,
provide
a
an
interesting
and
varied
layout
to
be
achieved.
So
when
we're
talking
about
creation
of
of
places
and
place
making,
this
is
a
development
that
has
an
identity.
It's
linked
together
with
the
the
variety
of
homes,
but
they
have
a
consistent
theme.
O
The
the
wider
the
open
spaces
are
in
in
a
logical
way,
sort
of
enhancing
where
these
public
footpaths
are
so
that
they're,
navigating
you
can
navigate
through
them
and
and
they're,
legible
and
the
site
is
legible.
O
It's
it's,
I
think,
quite
important
to
say
again
that
the
enhancements
to
the
woodland
have
been
looked
at
at
various
stages,
so
the
the
consultation
that
red
road
did
do
with
wag
raised
concerns
that
trim
trail
play
equipment
was
located
close
to
the
the
woodlands
they've
been
moved
so
that
they're
in
in
the
the
spaces
that
are
provided
within
the
parcels
of
land.
So
it's
been
it
the
the
layouts
are
considered
to.
O
If
you
look
at
current
development,
for
instance,
there
isn't
these
open
spaces
and
illegible
connections
to
the
wider
area,
so
this
development
does
have,
or
is
considered
by
officers
to
be
creating
a
sense
of
place
that
is
in
line
with
government
design
guidance
as
well
as
our
our
own
design
guides.
C
O
B
Oh,
where
to
start
so
look
I
I
think
fundamentally,
what
we're
actually
arguing
about
is
the
internal
health
actually
of
the
parcels
of
land.
We
know
where
the
entry
points
are
because
that's
been
decided.
We
know
the
totality
of
bills
because
that's
effectively
been
decided.
We
know
the
how
many
fodders
are
because
that's
been
decided,
we're
actually
fundamentally
arguing
about
the
internal
layout
and
whether
or
not
we're
happy
with
it,
which
is.
Do
we
like
where
the
roads
are?
Do
they
meet
the
the
standards
we
want.
B
Does
that
therefore
change
the
nature
of
the
layout
and
therefore,
where
properties
are,
what
type
of
properties
are
there
etcetera?
So
I
think
we've
gone
a
long
way
around
the
bushes
a
long
way
around.
Whatever
the
thing
is,
I'm
tired.
After
all
this
and
the
house
is
there
we
go
a
long
way
around
the
houses
to
basically
get
to
councillor
burke's
point
about.
B
Actually,
it's
about
that
yeah
about
the
fair
enough
about
the
design
and
the
place,
that's
actually
internal
to
the
parcels,
because
actually
that
will
determine
the
quantum
of
housing
in
the
end
that
will
determine
where
the
places
are
the
size
of
the
roads
and
the
whether
there's
active
travel
will
determine
the
actual
makeup
of
the
sites
internally
and
whether
there
is
a
communal
feel
to
the
area.
I
think
we
all
accept
that
it's
probably
no
disrespect
to
the
developer.
It's
their
standard,
formatted
build.
B
It
is
what
it
is
we're
not
here
to
negotiate
and
design
by
committee.
If
people
buy
it,
people
buy
it,
that's
ultimately
their
choice,
but
actually
how
the
network
plays
out
in
the
internal
parcels
will
actually
probably
answer.
B
Quite
a
few
of
our
questions,
with
the
exception
of
you
know,
can
we
actually
get
the
developer
to
be
a
bit
more
flexible
on
the
type
of
affordables,
because
I
think
what
we're
getting
confused
on
is
there's
what
sells
and
there's
what's
needed,
and
actually,
I
think
what
what
the
developer
is
saying,
they're
doing
for
what
cells
and
fair
enough
they're
a
business
there
to
make
money?
What
we're
saying
is
actually
what's
needed,
which
is
actually
some.
B
There
are
a
lot
of
families
that
are
larger
now
and
a
multi-generational,
and
it
would
just
be
nice
to
cater
for
it,
bearing
in
mind
the
size
and
quantum
of
profit
they
will
make
on
this.
But
ultimately,
we
are
confined
and
constrained
by
the
outline
planning
permission
which
has
tied
our
hand
and
what
I
would
say
all
night.
There
probably
need
to
be
discussion
between
the
chairs
and
the
development
plans
panel
about
whether
actually
something
just
decided
that
city
plants
should
really
go
to
another
panel,
because
it
causes
com.
B
Confusion
like
this,
where
we
go
around
the
circles
for
hours
about
something
we
did
not
originally
decide,
but
that's
a
separate
point,
but
ultimately
we're
not
arguing
about
the
principle
of
development.
We're
actually
arguing
about
the
internal
layout,
and
I
think,
in
that
sense,
by
the
sounds
of
it.
We
all
just
wanted
to
come
back
to
look
at
actually.
Is
there
a
better
layout
that
caters
for
active
travel,
caters
for
building
community
and
actually,
therefore
determines
the
density
of
development
and
where
some
of
those
affordables
are
ultimately,
in
the
end.
G
Thank
you
chair
a
bit
like
my
school
report
must
do
better
at
this
particular
point.
This
is
not
acceptable
in
its
current
form.
At
that
particular
point,
I
disagree
with
my
colleague.
Fundamentally
the
housing
mix
issue
is
still
open
for
discussion
and
debate
at
this
particular
stage
and
that
informs
where
we
go
in
terms
of
h5
and
the
affordable
housing
element
of
it,
this
particular
boat.
We
can
get
a
better
mix.
That
more
reflects
the
needs
in
our
community,
which
I
think,
we've
all
said
all
afternoon.
G
That
will
influence
what
happens
in
terms
of
the
affordables,
and
certainly
that
particular
point
he'll
not
be
asking
them
nicely
to
do
things
in
terms
of
the
affordables
it'll
be
directing
them
that
this
is
ours
in
need.
This
is
appropriate
policy.
At
this
particular
point.
We
want
to
see
x,
y
and
z,
sticking
all
of
the
low
income
people
in
one
and
two
bedroom
apartments
isn't
acceptable.
G
I
think
we'd
all
agree
with
that
at
that
particular
point
and
that's
down
to
the
housing
mix,
because
the
housing
mix
for
the
affordables
seems
to
be
entirely
different
from
the
housing
mix
for
those
who've
got
loads
of
money.
Now
the
housing
mixes
housing
mix
and
it
shouldn't
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
whether
yeah
they
are
wealthy.
G
The
connectivity
has
already
been
dealt
with,
but
that
needs
to
be
absolutely
clear
and
we
need
to
figure
out
how
we
connect
all
of
these
communities,
because
I
do
know
with
the
thing
that
we've
just
looked
at
in
terms
of
footpaths.
It
connects
those
two
parcels.
It
leaves
the
other
two
parcels
entirely
and
utterly
isolated.
Why
were
they
supposed
to
interact?
How
are
they
supposed
to
be
part
and
parcel
of
that?
Community,
greenways
and
cycleways
are
all
the
things
that
have
actually
been
covered.
The
housing
mix
needs
to
be
clear.
G
The
affordable
housing
needs
to
be
clear,
and
we
do
need
to
have
that
discussion
that
we
haven't
had
today
about
design
how
they
actually,
how
the
properties
actually
look
and
how
they
impact
on
the
local
area,
and
we
still
need
to
have
that
discussion
on
bungalows,
because
the
bottom
line
is
the
housing
need
across
the
city
is
includes
the
need
for
bungalows,
and
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
as
well,
but
that's
part
of
the
housing
mix
and
the
affordable
housing
issues
thanks
jeff.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
to
say
I
felt
like
I've
waded
through
tree
treacle
with
us
a
bit
today.
I
feel
as
though
decisions
have
been
taken
outside
of
our
hands
that
we
weren't
privy
to
we,
they
weren't
in
our
pack,
they
weren't
explained
to
us,
and
I
think
it's
caused
mass
confusion
and
to
a
great
degree,
it's
tied
our
hands
with
our
decision
today,
and
I
can't
say
that
I'm
I'm
very
happy
about
that.
I
don't.
I
don't
disagree
with
with
the
need
for
a
development
here.
C
C
You
know
I
I
I
agree
with
my
colleague
that
it
could
do
better
and
I
think
we
need
to
push
our
volume
developers
to
do
exactly
that.
We're
in
a
situation
here,
potentially
where
the
minute
they're
built
we're
retrofitting
yeah.
You
know
you
know
who's
paying.
For
that.
You
know,
and
I
just
I
just
I
feel
a
little
bit
deflated
by
all
chair.
Thank
you.
J
J
Despite
what
we
said
at
development
plans
panel,
it
is
disappointing
because
we
need
to
know
the
part
about
the
permanent
permeability
of
some
of
the
sites
that
are
not
in
this
allocation,
but
are
within
the
sap
allocation
in
terms
of
what's
going
to
happen
when,
when
the
developer
comes
up
against
a
hedge
or
whether
it
isn't,
they
can't
actually
go
through
that
edge
because
they
don't
own
that
land
so
that
we
can
see
how
things
are
going
to
happen.
J
I
think
you
get
enough
exercise
walking
to
and
from
your
house
to
be
quite
frank
because
of
the
the
topography
of
the
area
and
also
I
accept
that
a
lot
of
conditions
were
in
the
outline,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
if
we
really
looked,
we
could
put
more
than
just
four
conditions
here.
There
must
be
things
I
mean
one
of
the
things
I
always
ask
for
and
never
get
too
far
on
is
what's
happening
with
the
construction
management
plan.
What
what
are
we
stipulating
for
at
that
level
of
granularity?
J
Now
I
accept
that.
That's
we're
not
at
that
stage
yet,
but
that's
the
sort
of
thing
that
worries
local
communities
as
to
what's
going
to
happen
and
how
we're
going
to
work
through
these
things-
and
I
do
have
to
say
that
the
report
just
didn't
read.
Well,
I'm
not
in
terms
of
the
the
faults
that
have
been
identified.
I
do
think
we
need
to
go
back
to
whoever
it
is
nit
and
say:
look.
J
F
F
B
F
This
sorry,
if
you've
asked
me
to
do
this
an
hour
ago,
I
think
I
might
just
run
for
the
hills
to
be
to
be
fair.
Just
just
just
to
make
a
one
comment
and
then
I
will
go
through
it
because
I
think
I've
captured
it.
The
comment
that
council
smith
made
about
the
applications
for
the
details.
The
reserve
matters
coming
back
to
here
was
actually
a
decision
made
by
the
plans
panel
chairs
because
they
wanted
to
see
the
things
that
affected
the
local
communities
dealt
by
the
plans
panels
that
actually
covered
those
areas.
F
F
And
I
understand
that,
but
this
is
probably
one
of
the
first
of
these
and
of
course
the
concern
from
officers
was,
as
it
had
turned
out
anyway,
was
that
we
didn't
actually
get
involved
in
things
that
you
couldn't
actually
influence
yeah.
So
that
was
the
point,
but
anyway
just
to
go
back
to
what
we've
got.
So
what
had
been
suggested
was
to
to
defer
the
to
defer
the
application
to
defer
the
application
and
we've
got
to
consider
the
four
or
five
bed
affordables,
whether
they
can
be
provided.
F
Look
at
the
bungalow
provision,
look
at
the
reasoning
or
the
potential
retention
of
the
trees
that
we
discussed,
or
maybe
the
slightly
design
of
that
layout,
to
to
ensure
the
retention.
Perhaps
if,
if
there
were
worthy
of
retention,
more
clarity
on
affordable
housing
and
the
scope
of
the
housing
need
assessment,
provide
all
the
conditions
from
the
outline.
So
you've
got
more
clarity
of
what
was
on
there
full
tree
survey.
I've
taken
that
to
include
actually
the
quality
of
the
trees
on
the
site
what's
been
lost
and
carbon
capture
struck
enhancement
of
carbon
capture.
F
So
it
covers
both
points,
because
there
are
two
strands
to
that:
does
the
layout
comply
with
the
street
design
guy
to
say,
I
think,
there's
a
bit
of
a
confusion
in
terms
of
the
answer,
so
we'll
come
back
with
more
detail
on
that
when
we've
looked
at
it,
you
want
more
detail
on
the
placemaking
and
the
separate
identities
of
the
various
areas,
more
clarity
on
the
cycle,
segregation
if
it
could
be
provided
and
footpath
network
and
connectivity
between
the
various
sites
and
surrounding
communities,
bring
a
policy
officer
here
for
public
execution
to
discuss
to
discuss
policy,
h4
and
its
mix
and
to
whether
that
was
an
accurate
assessment
of
the
applicant's
table
to
associate
for
accuracy
and
then
finally,
to
ensure
that
we
could
comfort
the
panel
members
that
all
the
local
award
members
that
this
site
affects
actually
were
consulted
and
whether
they
wish
to
comment
or
not.
A
I
know
we
ask
about
the
trees
etc
and
to
do
a
survey,
what
about
pulling
back,
etc.
The
houses.
F
C
D
F
Sorry,
councillor
collins
in
terms
of
the
master
plan,
all
I
can
bring
forward
is
the
master
plan.
That's
already
been
drafted
up,
but
it
is,
it
obviously
is
indicative
and
we
can't
impose
something
on
the
parcels
of
land
and
not
within
the
ownership
of
the
within
the
ownership
of
the
applicant
or
within
the
scope
of
this
application.
F
Sorry,
what
was
the
latter
point
again?
Sorry,
there's
a
further
point:
I've
lost
it
or
was
that?
How
can
I
stop.
F
Again,
I
don't
think
we
can
provide
that
information
in
terms
of
the
total
number
of
houses.
For
that
I
mean
we'll
try
to
answer
it,
but
I
I
don't
think
we
can
actually
give
you
that
information,
because
we
don't
know
what's
going
to
be
built
upon
it
and
I'm
not
sure
how
it
was
covered
in
the
sap
map.
Unless
you
do.
O
We
can
give
you
the
area
of
land
and
then
explain
what
the,
because
the
sap
sites
have
a
maximum
and-
and
we
could
then
say
what
is
the
remainder
of
the
site
and
what
potential
they
have
in
in
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
So
I
can
try
and
work
out
to
answer
that
at
that
point,
but
I
can't
no
no,
no
it's
not
it's
not
what
would
be
it.
I'm
just
saying
about
densities.
O
A
F
We
can
do
that.
That's
fine
what
mark
said,
but
what
we
can't
what
we
cannot
do,
because
it's
not
within
the
applicant's
room,
it
is
imposed
anything
that
actually
affects
those
sites.
So
when
this
application
comes
back,
although
that'll
be
nice
information
to
have
for
whatever
better
description,
it
can't
be
any
way
incumbent
upon
the
applicant
to
to
to
fetter
the
consideration
of
this
application.
A
No,
it's
not
retiring
you'll,
be
before
we
say.
No,
it's
not!
No!
You!
You
will
be
seeing
andean
city
planned
panel,
so
it's
doing
a
transfer,
it's
moving
up,
yeah,
and
can
I
take
this
opportunity
also
to
thank
all
the
members
for
this
year
that
I've
been
here?
It's
may
coming
election.
We
don't
know
who's
coming
back,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
all
and
thank
the
officers
for
the
work
what
they
have
done
with
us
over
the
years.
Thank
you.