►
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).
B
B
B
I
would
like
to
start
the
meeting
today
by
confirming
that
this
meeting
of
the
north
and
east
plans
panel
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
Even
though
members
are
in
remote
attendance,
today's
items
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual.
Remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes
as
to
how
I
manage
the
debate.
B
B
When
requesting
your
vote,
I
intend
to
systematically
go
around
each
plan
panel
member
asking
how
they
wish
to
vote,
and
I
ask
for
your
assistance
and
patience
while
I
go
through
this
process
in
order
to
avoid
any
disruption
of
them
to
the
meeting.
Should
I
lose
my
internet
connectivity,
I
propose
that
we
appoint
a
deputy
chair
who
could
step
up
in
my
absence,
and
I
move
that
councillor.
Elizabeth
nash
is
that
deputy
chair
and
invite
another
member
to
second
that
motion.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
everybody
and
thank
you
again,
councillor
nash.
Hopefully
you
won't
be
needed,
but
never
know
or
deal
with
these
technical
problems
that
we.
B
Okay,
so
I'll
start
by
inviting
members
and
officers
to
introduce,
so
please
mute
your
microphone
will
once
you've
introduced
yourself.
Counsellor
anderson,
please.
F
Good
afternoon,
councillor
david
jenkins
from
killing
beckham
seacroft
award.
A
Good
afternoon,
councillor
trish
smith,
representing
the
pudgy
ward.
B
Thank
you
and
welcome.
It's
council
almas's
first
north
and
east
plans
panel,
so
welcome
to
the
panel
council
almas
moving
on
to
offices.
Do
we
have
jonathan
carr?
Yes,
we
do
jonathan.
G
Good
afternoon,
david
newbury
lead
planning
officer
for
the
plans
panel.
B
Okay,
lisa
brennan.
B
Thank
you,
hannah
and
debbie
hold
them.
E
B
You,
okay,
thank
you,
okay,
so
we
move
on
to
the
agenda
and
I'll
ask
debbie
to
go
through
agenda
items
one
to
five.
Please.
A
A
I'll
take
silence
as
they
run
on
and
agenda
item
five.
There
are
no
apologies.
Today.
Counselor
anderson
has
informed
me
that
he
needs
to
leave
the
meeting
at
four
o'clock
today.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you
for
letting
us
know,
council
anderson
right
so
on
to
item
six,
which
are
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
18th
of
january.
So,
first
of
all,
do
we
accept
them
as
a
true
and
correct
record
I'll,
let
I'll
assume
correct
unless
I
hear
otherwise
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
matters
rising,
I
seen
your
hands
so
we'll
take
those
as
correct
and
agreed.
B
Again,
I
see
no
hands
so
we'll
move
on
to
a
gender
item
number
seven,
which
is
our
first
substantive
item
and
that's
the
demolition
of
the
neighbor
nails
of
the
saint
mary's
church
to
be
replaced
by
the
extension
and
the
new
apartment
block.
So
we'll
move
on
hannah's
going
to
be
very
busy
today.
It's
got
both
presentations
so
when
you're
ready
hannah
over
to.
I
You
okay,
so
this
is
an
application
that
members
previously
saw
it
went
to
a
panel
in
december
as
part
of
a
position
statement
I'll
be
going
through
the
application
again
and
for
members
that
to
remind
them.
So
this
is
an
application.
Martin
mary's
church,
it's
martin,
mary's
church
itself
is
a
great
to
star
listed
church
and
we've
got
the
presbyter,
which
is
grid
two
listed
next
slide.
Please.
I
So
here
you
can
see
the
exact
location
plan
for
mounts
and
mary's
church.
The
application
itself
is
to
provide
a
residential
development
comprising
of
175
apartments
in
two
buildings,
including
62
residential
units
within
the
existing,
an
extended
church
and
113
residential
units
within
the
proposed
separate
apartment
block
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
Again,
you
can
see
a
further
sort
of
overview
here
of
what
the
site
probably
looks
like
next
slide.
Please.
I
So
here
you
can
see
some
photographs
of
mars
and
mary's
church
as
it
is
currently
now
the
church
hasn't
been
occupied
since
19
1989.
I
and
is
in
a
considerable,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
photographs,
a
considerable
state
of
disrepair.
We've
had
a
number
of
historic
applications
on
the
site
and
the
last
full
application
was
granted
planning
permission
and
listed
building
consent
around
2008.
This
was
extended
in
2011,
but
there
are
no
extents
permissions
on
site.
I
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
you'll
see
some
photographs
of
the
inside
of
the
building.
So
here
again
you
can
see
this
is
the
inside
of
manson
mary's
church
itself.
The
grade
two
star
listed
element
of
the
proposal
next
slide,
please
so
where
I
was
talking
about
having
quite
a
lot
of
demolition
here,
you
can
see
as
part
of
the
proposal
the
elements
shaded
in
orange
are
the
elements
proposed
to
be
demolished
and
just
the
element
in
turquoise
is
to
be
retained.
I
I
So
here
you
can
see
a
broad
overview
of
the
site,
so
we
have
here
62
residential
units
within
the
existing
and
extended
church.
That's
to
the
south
here,
as
you
see
the
application
and
we've
got
113
residential
units
within
that
new
apartment
block
and
that's
to
the
top
of
the
site
adjacent
to
the
dwellings
on
richmond
hill
close.
I
So
you'll
see
here
the
element
to
the
end
of
the
church.
That's
the
the
bit
that's
being
retained
of
the
grade.
2
stylistic
church,
so
that'll
be
retained
and
restored,
but
the
presbytery
itself,
as
you
can
see
here,
will
be
demolished
in
its
entirety.
I
You
have
along
the
left-hand
side
of
the
site,
as
you
looked
in
the
presentation,
the
reinstation
of
the
the
reinstatement
sorry
of
the
public
right
of
way
that's
running
from
church
road
to
the
the
houses
there.
That's
this
public
right
of
way
has
not
been
open
for
for
a
very
long
time
as
the
access
is
being
blocked,
and
so
we're
going
to
reinstate
that
and
the
remainder
of
the
site
will
be
a
landscape
with
a
and
with
a
pedestrian
linked
to
the
city
centre.
I
Next
slide,
please,
in
terms
of
external
face
materials,
the
proposed
apartment
block
will
have
gray
and
silver
cladding
for
the
for
most
of
it,
as
well
as
right.
White
render
both
brick
and
feature
corners
and
balconies,
as
you
can
see,
bronze
render
is
proposed
to
the
large
proportion
of
the
church
extension.
I
So
would
you
go
back
to
the
slideshow
in
the
site
plan?
Please
turbo!
Thank
you.
You
can
yeah
so
just
to
go
back
to
the
access
here
momentarily.
So
you
can
see
the
access
is
proposed
from
richmond
hill
approach.
I
Various
other
options
were
proposed
as
where
this
access
might
be
located,
but
we've
come
to
the
conclusion
that
this
location
is
probably
the
best
access
into
the
site
and
to
that
end,
no
objections
being
raised
from
highways
as
part
of
the
what,
as
part
of
the
site,
the
developers
not
proposing
to
make
any
contributions
for
affordable
housing,
public
open
space
or
any
other
contributions,
ordinarily
required.
I
They
provided
a
viability
statement
which
has
been
confirmed
by
the
district
failure
to
show
that
the
site's
not
not
viable
in
terms
of
providing
those
contributions
and
again
from
the
from
the
previous
time
this
application
went
to
plans
panel
you'll.
Remember
that
we
discussed
providing
a
viability
clause
as
part
of
the
section
106.
So
I'll
just
move
on
to
that
briefly
now,
so
we've
got
some
contributions,
which
are
not
thank
you
to
we've
got
some
contributions
that
are
not
part
of
the
review
clause.
I
So
these
contributions
are
the
city
car
club,
so
the
provision
of
two
spaces,
the
tiara.
So,
as
mentioned
previously,
we've
got
a
neighborhood
parking
scheme,
so
that'll
be
twenty
thousand
pounds
prior
to
occupation
for
a
residence
parking
scheme
for
richmond
hill
approaching
richmond
hill
close
and
the
lead
city
council
travel
plan
review
fee
of
3660
pounds
will
be
paid
as
part
of
the
section.
106
will
also
also
include
phasing
details,
as
outlined
in
the
planning
conditions,
to
ensure
that
the
most
important
elements
of
the
scheme
are
retained,
I.e.
I
The
grade
two
style
listed
element
will
also
include
a
delivery
plan
for
the
long-term
maintenance
of
the
site,
in
particular
the
grade
two
stylisted
element
of
the
church.
I
So
since,
since
this
application
was
last
at
panel
with
I've
had
quite
a
lot
of
discussions
with
the
applicant
as
well
as
ward
councillors
in
terms
of
the
viability
clause
which
would
be
in
place
if
mine,
if
members
were
minded
to
approve
so
board,
members
have
been
involved
in
discussions
ordering
the
priority
of
which
off-site
contributions.
I
We
would
ask
for
first
so
you'll
see
that
as
part
of
the
application,
there'll
be
a
mid,
an
early,
mid
and
late
stage
review
at
each
of
these
stages
of
review.
We'll
ask
for
a
full
viability
statement
to
see
if
it's
viable
for
us
to
get
these
contributions
back.
I
The
off-site
contribution
would
amount
to
one
million
one
hundred
and
sixty-nine
thousand
six
hundred
and
four
pounds
on-site
provision,
as
per
our
policy,
will
be
the
first
preference
here
as
the
applicant
can't
provide
a
public
open
space
on-site.
We
would
then
ask
for
an
off-site
contribution
for
the
provision
of
public
open
space
within
birmingham
richmond
hill
of
thirteen
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
nine
pounds.
I
apologize
here.
There
is
a
discrepancy
later
in
the
part
report
where
a
different
figure
is
quoted,
but
the
213
339
is
the
correct
figure.
G
I
can
I
can
message
hannah,
but
in
the
meantime,
if
you
would
like
me
to
just
take
over
and
run
through
the
update,
as
I
know
it
for
the
position
statements,
I'm
happy
to
do
so.
Chair.
B
G
Yeah,
okay,
I'll
do
that.
I
was
just
conscious,
as
we
were
going
through
the
slides
there
chair.
There
might
be
a
couple
more
slides.
I
haven't
seen
the
presentations
yet,
but
there
looked
to
be
a
couple
more
slides
on
the
presentation.
So
if
we
could
go
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
toby.
G
And
and
the
next
one
thank
you
just
wanted
to
put
those
slides
up,
because
I
know
members
raised
concerns
last
time.
If
sorry,
if
we
could
go
back
a
slide,
please
toby.
Thank
you
raised
concerned
last
time
just
about
the
pallets
of
materials,
and
I
understand
this
is
a
revised
plan
just
to
hopefully
give
a
more
accurate
representation
of
the
materials
that
are
proposed
and
to
highlight
the
contrast
between
the
retained
listed
building
and
the
extension
to
listed
building
and
to
the
new
apartment
block
go
to
the
previous
slide.
Please
toby
as
well.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
so
you
can
see
that
there
there
is
a
contrast
between
the
two
buildings
and
hopefully,
in
that
way,
the
the
idea
is
that
the
listed
building
as
such
is
distinct
and
stands
proud
as
it
were,
and
the
apartment
block,
despite
its
massing,
appears
as
a
distinct
and
subservient
element
to
the
listed
building.
G
Now,
if
I
just
go
through
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
go
for
the
report
from
pages
14
to
well
actually
finishes
on
page
18,
and
this
is
the
position
statement,
update
and
I'll
just
go
through
each
of
those
just
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
detail
for
members,
because
these
were
the
key
issues
that
members
raised
when
the
application
last
came
before
them.
G
So
the
first
issue
was
on
housing
mix
and
members
requested
further
information
respective
housing
needs
in
this
locality
and
how
the
accommodation
proposed
has
passed.
This
application
sits
against
the
identified
need,
and
also
members
raised
a
question,
a
detailed
explanation
as
to
why
the
numbers,
the
units
posed
as
part
of
the
application
is
greater
than
that
set
out
and
the
housing
allocation
of
the
site
just
dealing
with
that
latter
point.
First,
if
I
may,
the
housing
allocation
for
the
site
is
generally
formed
or
informed
by
the
planning
history.
G
So
if
there
is
a
planning
history
to
decide
which
there
is
in
this
particular
instance,
then
when
they
were
in
the
local
plans
team
formulating
what
the
capacity
for
the
site
would
be,
they
were
referring
back
to
the
to
the
history
to
see
what
had
been
achieved
and
what
had
been
granted
planning
permission
previously
in
terms
of
the
housing
mix.
G
G
The
the
applicants
has
explained
this.
I
suppose
there's
two
factors
really.
The
applicant
has
pointed
to
the
fact
that
what
they're
really
doing
is
looking
towards
the
city
center
market-
and
this
is
it's
obviously
the
edge
of
city
centre,
location
and
this
proposal
has
been
designed
to
to
meet
that
particular
market.
G
Hence
the
number
of
the
preponderance
of
numbers,
one
bed
and
two
bed
units,
but
it's
also
being
dictated
by
the
form
of
the
development
and
what
the
development
is
trying
to
achieve
in
terms
of
the
extension
to
the
listed
the
listed
building
mixed
with
the
need
to
produce
a
scheme
which
is
not
necessarily
viable
but
deliverable,
so
those
factors
have
resulted
in
us
having
a
scheme
which
doesn't
meet
the
housing
mix,
policy
h4
in
terms
of
providing
a
broad
mix
of
housing,
but
doesn't
also
necessarily
strictly
align
with
the
housing
needs
for
birmingham
and
richmond
hill.
G
The
second
point
members
raised
significant
concerns
previously
about
demolition.
Those
comments
have
been
noted
and
that's
obviously,
one
of
the
core
issues
which
is
dealt
with
in
the
report.
G
So
I
won't
repeat
that
now
the
third
issue
related
to
materials-
and
hopefully
the
slide
here
and
the
slide
that
follows
this-
will
give
members
a
greater
understanding
of
the
materials
that
are
proposed
and
what
the
scheme
ultimately
would
look
like
if
planning
permission
listed,
building,
consent
granted
and
the
scheme
is
delivered.
G
Secondly,
oh
sorry,
this
is
probably
fourth
or
fifthly,
affordable
housing
and
green
space
and
significant
concerns
were
raised
about
the
failure
to
deliver
any
of
those
sort
of
major
planning
policy
obligations.
G
G
Obviously,
we've
got
the
viability
aspect
and
the
advice
that
we've
received
from
the
district,
valuer
and
brian
mcguire
is
here
in
attendance
at
this
meeting
and
he
can,
if
you've
got
any
questions
when
it
comes
to
questions
for
officers,
brian
will
be
more
than
happy
to
address
those
as
best
as
he
can
so
there's
that
element
of
it
and
the
summary
the
executive
summary
of
his
report
is
attached
to
these
papers
and
then
the
second
element
is
that
we've
gone
away
or
hannah
has
gone
away
and
discussed
this
matter
with
the
applicant
and,
as
part
of
the
section
106
agreement
has
negotiated
a
three-stage
review
process
which
hella
did
briefly
outline
earlier
on.
G
So
we've
got
the
early
stage.
If
no
development
has
taken
place
within
24
months,
then
the
applicants
have
granted
planning
permission.
Then
the
applicant
has
to
come
back
with
a
full
viability
statement
for
us
to
review
and
we'll
go
through
the
same
process
of
seeking
the
appropriate
expertise
and
experience
from
district
valuer
to
inform
us
on
that
and
guide
us
on
that.
G
So
that
would
be
as
as
part
of
that
as
part
of
that
assessment
and
hannah
has
already
identified
if
there
is
a
priority
to
be
placed
I.e.
If
the
development
can
stand
some
contribution,
but
not
all
of
the
contributions
where
that
contribution
should
be
focused
and
members
of
outlet
and
the
ward
members
preferences
that
affordable
housing
comes
top
of
that
list
and
then
green
space
comes
second
and
the
other
matters
following
follow
on
after.
G
G
Okay,
if
we-
yes,
sorry
if
just
go
back
one,
that
would
be
really
helpful.
Thank
you.
We
do
have
a
speaker
who's
speaking
against
the
application.
Julia
mchale
and
miss
mchale
is
objecting
to
proposal
by
reason
that
the
impact
that
the
development
has
on
her
property
and
I'll
leave
it
for
ms
mikhail
to
explain
precisely
her
objections.
But
if
you
look
at
the
probably
the
clearest
one
is
the
bottom
slide
there.
G
The
key
impact
is
on
those
properties
which
appear
to
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
bottom
part
of
the
slide,
as
it
were.
That's
the
properties
of
richmond,
close
adjacent
to
that
immediately
to
the
left
of
that,
you
see
the
five-story
apartments.
G
There's
probably
a
couple
of
points
to
to
note.
Well,
probably
three
points
to
note:
it's
it's
clearly
accepted
that
this
scheme
will
have
a
significant
impact
in
terms
of
the
change
of
outlook
from
the
residents
who
reside
in
richmond
hill,
close
they're,
going
from
a
position
where
many
of
them
were
looking
out
across
an
open
site
towards
the
listed
church.
Someone
will
have
the
gable
end
of
the
presbytery
to
look
out
to,
but
the
majority
will
have
an
open
aspect
and
that
open
aspect
is
going
to
be
replaced
by
a
five-storey,
a
five-story
block.
G
G
The
the
guidance
that
we
have
now,
which
relates
primarily
to
matters
of
privacy,
but
we
also
use
it
to
interpret
the
impact
in
terms
of
or
help
us
interpret,
the
impact
in
terms
of
the
matting
and
bulk
of
a
development,
is
that
there
should
be
a
separation
of
around
about
a
minimum
of
18
meters
between
the
two
facing
flank
walls
of
the
new
block
and
the
existing
residents.
G
G
So
those
are
matters
really
for
members
to
take
into
consideration,
but
obviously
you'll
have
a
greater
understanding
from
the
perception
of
the
impact.
When
you
hear
the
speakers
speak
against
the
application.
The
other
point
to
note
sorry
I
should
have
mentioned-
is
that
the
residential
properties
are
to
the
northeast
of
the
unit.
The
proposed
new
build
apartment
block
and
the
likely
impact
there
will
be
some
overshadowing
and
that
that
likely
impacts
will
have
happen
in
the
in
the
late
afternoon
evening
time.
G
It's
also
worth
noting
that
there
are
a
number
of
well
there's
a
2.5
boundary
rule
which
separates
the
the
application
site
from
the
back
of
the
residential
properties.
So
those
are
all
factors
that
have
been
taken
into
account.
There.
G
Next
point
was
in
respect
of
the
vehicle
access
which
hannah
has
already
covered,
but
there
was
a
point
raised
about
the
heritage
value
of
these
steps.
If
we
could
go
back
a
few
slides,
please
toby
to
the
site
layout.
G
G
Those
those
steps
actually
fall
outside
are
part
of
a
public
right-of-way,
but
they
fall
outside
the
application
site
and
are
not
in
the
the
ownership
of
the
the
applicant
when
we're
unclear
whose
ownership
they
actually
fall
within
they
are.
G
They
have
some
heritage
value
in
the
sense
that
we
understand,
they
form
part
of
the
path
which
has
existed
since
1888,
so
they're
part
and
parcel
of
the
historic
landscape
as
it
as
it
were,
but
it's
not
something
that
this
particular
scheme
can
can
influence
and
the
site
can
be
accessed
by
pedestrians
from
other
points
which
are
more
favorable
to
those
with
issues
for
mobility.
There
are
level
accesses
which
either
come
through
the
vehicle
access
or
to
the
southwest
of
the
site.
So
there
are
alternatives
there
to.
G
Access
the
site-
the
next
point
was
in
relation
to
how
we
can
deal
with
the
retention
and
conversion
of
the
grade.
Two
star
listed
element
of
the
the
building
that
the
two
aspects
to
this
we've
got:
conditions
on
the
planning
permission
in
respect
to
the
phasing
development
and
hannah.
Just
briefly
mentioned,
also
that
we
propose
to
add
a
clause
to
the
section
106
agreement
requiring
a
delivery
plan
to
be
agreed.
G
So
the
way
that
this
would
work-
and
those
two
would
work
in
practice-
is
that
each
phase
of
the
development
would
only
be
allowed
to
proceed
once
certain
works
have
been
carried
out,
and
this
is
a
matter
that
we'll
have
to
just
work
out
the
detail
with
the
applicant.
But
to
give
you
an
example
for,
for
example,
prior
to
the
commencement
of
the
first
phase
of
the
development,
it's
likely
we're
going
to
require
the
applicant
to
at
least.
G
Make
the
building
watertight,
carrying
out
the
repairs
to
the
to
the
listed
building
to
make
that
safe
and
secure,
and
then
the
refurbishment
may
flow
at
later
stages,
once
the
money's
become
available,
but
that's
something
that
we'll
have
to
talk
to
the
applicant
about
the
delivery
plan
itself
will
tie
in
with
that,
but
we'll
also
cover
matters
about
the
long-term
maintenance
of
the
listed
building
as
well.
So
it
protects
it
beyond
the
actual
refurbishment
and
restoration
works
that
would
be
secured.
G
On
the
back
of
this
planning
permission,
there
is
document
which
has
been
produced
by
historic
england,
which
is
entitled
enabling
development
and
heritage
assets
that
was
published
or
most
recently
republished
in
june
of
last
year
and
there's
guidance
contained
within
that
which
we
would
seek
to
follow
in
respect
of
delivery
plans
and
phasings
of
development
and
bringing
about
the
benefits
of
the
restoration
of
the
heritage.
Asset
next
point
was
about
all
alternative
funding.
G
I
understand
the
applicants
has
looked
at
all
time,
alternative
funding,
they're
available
to
speak,
but
my
understanding
is
that
there
are
no
additional
matters
in
in
in
terms
of
funding
independent
funding
coming
forward
that
are
available
to
them.
B
G
Might
have
been
used,
but
so
if
I,
if
henry
were
available
to
take
over.
I
Hi
members
unbelievably
power
cut
sir
sorry
about
that.
I
hope
you
can't
hear
the
house
alarms
going
off
in
the
background.
I
So
yes,
so
I
did
here.
Thank
you
very
much
david
for
taking
over
there
right.
So,
yes,
we
do
have
some
all
some
different
materials.
So
I
apologize
that
I
just
picked
up
at
the
end
of
what
david
was
saying
there,
but
if
tommy
would
go
to
the
slide
that
shows
that
yeah
there's
one
that
just
shows
the
materials
just
just
on
their
own.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
know
we've
got
cgi's,
but
these
these
have
sort
of
changed
slightly.
So
these
so
the
applicant
has
sought
to
to
really
clarify
what
materials
are
being
used.
So
they've
provided
this
this
further
detail
of
the
materials
that
perhaps
don't
quite
show
as
clearly
as
they
could
in
the
cgi's.
I
So
this
they're
cladding,
you
can
see.
There's
there's
zinc
colour
here.
This
is
for
the
apartment
block,
so
you've
got
that
batter.
I
The
bronze
clubbing
and
pretty
much
as
you
see
in
the
cgi
is
retained
on
the
extension
to
to
the
grating
stylistic
building.
But
here
on
the
apartment
block.
We've
also
got
a
zinc
cladding.
Now,
where,
on
the
cgi's,
it
looks
perhaps
a
little
gray,
which
is
what
you
would
perhaps
ordinarily
think
of
for
zinc
cladding.
But
actually
it's
got
this
far
more
bronzy
color.
So,
although,
although
the
palette
of
materials
is
similar
to
the
extension
to
the
church,
it
is
separated,
so
you
will
have
them.
I
You
will
have
that
visual
separation
and
between
your
proposed
apartment
block
in
this
is
this
zinc,
cladding
and
the
buff
brick
and
the
extension
to
the
church
itself,
and
I'm
I
think
david
was
was
going
through.
The
position
statement
update
is,
is
that
is
that
right?
Sorry,
that's
right.
I
Right:
okay,
sorry,
love
to
sort
of
a
rippy
elements
right:
okay!
Well,
I
suppose,
unless
there
are,
there
are
other
elements
that
have
been
missed
in
my
power
malfunction
and
which,
of
course,
you
can
come
back
and
and
and
ask
me
any
other
and
any
other
bits
and
bots
that
you've
got,
but
I
suppose
to
to
jump
to
the
conclusion
that
I
think
for
this
application.
I
know
that
you've
seen
it
before
and
there
are
some
elements
there,
they're
updated.
I
So
in
terms
of
balancing
exercises,
it's
really
the
balancing
of
whether
and
getting
to
retain
this
most
important
element
of
the
grade.
2
style
listed
church
to
provide
some
housing
in
the
area
which
meets
space
standards
and
our
own
accessibility
standards.
I
We've
got
a
separation
distance
and
from
neighboring
dwellings,
which
is
considered
acceptable
and
policy
compliant,
there's
no
objection
to
the
access
or
the
car
parking
provision
on
on-site
subject
and,
of
course,
that
neighborhood
residence
parking
scheme
on
richmond
hill,
close
from
richmond
hill
approach.
I
So
on
balance,
it's
considered
that
the
benefits
of
this
scheme
really
do
outweigh
the
harm,
in
particular
with
that
viability.
Clause
element
which
I
was
sort
of
part
way
through
and
that
way
through
talking
about
so
if
we
can
claw
back
some
of
those
and
almost
hopefully
those
contributions-
and
you
know
that
can
only
add
to
the
benefit
and
quite
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
because
I'm
afraid
I
know
there
was
a
bit
of
a
disconnect
there.
But
that
sort
of
brings
an
end
to
my
presentation.
Really.
G
There
was
sorry
there
was
one
element,
I'd
forgotten
to
mention
chair,
just
that
we
would
add
a
further
condition.
We
just
missed
it
off
just
about
compliance
with
policies,
en1
and
en2,
so
that
would
form
part
of
the
amended
recommendation
too.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
I'm
glad
you're
back
with
us
hannah
totally.
B
Power
cut,
he
must
have
been
panicking
for
a
while
there,
but
doesn't
it
doesn't
show
when
you've
come
back
to
be
fair,
so
we
move
on
to.
We
have
somebody
who's
objecting,
as
both
hannah
and
david
mentioned,
and
that's
julia
mchale
who's
with
us.
So
julia
welcome.
B
You've
got
four
minutes
to
present
your
case
up
to
four
minutes.
You
don't
have
to
take
the
full
four
minutes
when
you're
ready.
I
think
toby's
on
the
clock.
He'll
start
the
clock
when
you
begin
and
if
you
hear
the
buzzer
just
finish
the
sentence
you're
on
please
and
then
we'll
move
to
questions
for
you.
H
Lovely
thank
you
good
afternoon
panel.
I
live
on
rickman
hill,
close
number
15,
and
if
you
was
looking
at
the
slides
before
slide,
21
gives
a
good
idea
of
where
my
house
is
compared
to
the
new
set
of
five
story
block
of
flats.
H
Now
I've
listened
to
a
lot
of
council
things
which
I
don't
really
understand,
but
for
me,
I've
lived
there
32
years
this
year
and
they'll
be
taking
so
much
of
my
life
away
by
building
a
five-story
block
of
flats
outside
my
back
door,
basically
not
to
mention
the
privacy
or
the
air
quality
or
the
right
to
light
that
everyone
talks
about.
H
All
I've
really
heard
about
is
balancing
schemes.
Well,
it
doesn't,
at
my
end,
feel
like
there's
a
balance
at
all.
I
think
if
the
church
is
a
great
idea
with
building
sustainable
housing,
but
we
have
flats
being
built
up
all
around
and
richmond
hill
area
and
down
at
the
armouries,
I
think
there's
eight
thousand
dwellings
marshland,
which
is
the
old
railway
yard
over
a
thousand
plus
being
planned
to
be
built
on
there
and,
I
think,
there's
clearance
of
a
site
down
there.
H
I
think
it's
called
flax
place
down
near
the
ambulance
station
they're
planning
to
340
odd
flats
there,
and
they
want
to
build
on
the
other
side
of
the
ambulance
station.
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
many
flats
there
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
like
it's
going
to
be
a
neighborhood
anymore.
It's
just
flats,
you
know,
families
don't
want
flats,
they
want
houses,
they
do
want
green
spaces
which
is
getting
in
shorter
supply,
and
I
think,
if
anything
that
this
virus
has
shown
us,
we
have
to
look
after
ourselves.
We
have
to
get
fresh
air.
H
You
know,
we've
got
to
enjoy
life
on
a
daily
basis
and
just
instead
of
just
enduring
it-
and
I
think
that's
what's
going
to
happen
with
a
lot
of
people
that
face
onto
the
side
of
richmond
hill
close
where
I
live,
because
it
is
dark
in
winter
anyway,
because
the
houses
don't
have
very
big
windows
in
the
house
at
all.
H
H
The
the
higher
flats
that
are
being
built,
the
air
quality,
is
not
as
good.
It's
always
windy,
even
when
it's
a
lovely
sunny
day,
the
the
value
of
the
homes,
the
amount
of
people
that
have
bought
the
homes
around
there.
I
don't
think
that
will
stand
up
to
what
it
it
will
have
been
if
this
hasn't
been
presented.
H
If
you
lived
in
that
street
you'd
know
what
a
wonderful
street
it
is,
it
doesn't
feel
like
it's
on
the
edge
of
town,
it's
so
quiet
on
a
night,
the
traffic
that
this
is
going
to
come
into
richmond
hill
approach.
I
don't
think
the
actual
road
could.
H
Actually
I
just.
I
just
feel
that
I
just
like
to
thank
you
for
listening
to
what
I
have
to
say,
but
it
I
just
want
the
counselors
to
think
about
the
five
story.
When
you
say
a
five
star,
it
doesn't
seem
a
lot,
but
it's
going
to
be
the
length
it's
going
to
be
longer
than
the
length
of
the
church
and
it's
just
gonna
devastate
my
life
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
people
in
the
street.
There's
a
lot
of
older
people
as
well.
B
C
Yeah
just
getting
the
mute
off
well,
I
I
totally
agree
with
you
that
this
city
needs
more
houses
rather
than
flats
and
I'm
always
fighting
the
building
of
flats
in
my
own
ward
as
against
houses.
C
H
It,
oh,
is
that
a
question
for
me.
Sorry,
yes,
well,
like
I
say,
I
have
no
idea
how
the
money
would
work,
but
I
think
the
people
that
build
these
houses
they
build
it
to
make
a
profit.
They
don't
do
it
just
because
they
want
to
save
a
grade.
H
2
listed
church,
I've
looked
at
the
history
of
the
church
and
it's
quite
magnificent
when
you
think
of
how
long
it's
been
built
and
it's
a
cathedral-sized
church,
I
think
if
it
was
homes,
it'd
be
lovely
for
the
people
around
this
area,
but
I
don't
think
that
developers
would
put
money
into
that
because
they
wouldn't
end
up
with
a
bigger
profit
margin
than
they
would
be
already.
C
Well,
only
do
you
think
if
you
put
as
many
houses
as
possible
on
this
site,
do
you
think
that
would
pay
for
the
restoration
of
the
part
of
the
church
that
we
want
to
save.
H
Like
I
say,
I
wouldn't
know
that
I
think
it's
people
in
the
council
that
know
that,
but
it
just
would
make
sense.
There's
we
do
live
on
the
edge
of
town,
but
it
is
such
a
lovely
area
and
it's
full
of
history,
and
I
don't
think
adding
more
flats
would
help-
would
help
people
that
actually
live
there
already
and
they'd
want
to
stay
living
around
there
already.
F
I
am
I,
I
sympathize
with
your
situation
having
if
you've
been
living
there
32
years
and
you've,
you've
had
a
settled
environment
and
change
is
always
difficult.
I
was
I've
always
asked
in
these
meetings
whether
the
developers
have
come
made
any
contact
with
you
at
all.
I
know
there's
been
some
consultation,
but
did
you
get
a
chance
to
feed
your
viewers
back
and,
if
not,
do
you
think
you'd
welcome
that
and
do
you
think
there's
any
way
in
which
the
proposal
could
be
ameliorated
to
make
it
better
for
you.
H
I
haven't
had
any
contact
from
the
developers.
I
have
voiced
my
opinion
on
many
occasions
when
times
allowed.
I
think,
if
the
looking
at
the
site,
if
it
was
a
two-story
block
of
flats,
I
think
that
would
be
better
if
they
can't
build
housing.
It's
just
the
amount.
It's
just
the
thought
of
like
a
brick
wall
outside
my
back
wall.
That's
all
I'll
see.
I
won't
even
actually
see
sky.
If
I'm
in
the
house,
it's
it's
going
to
be
so
windy.
F
Yeah
you
you're,
you
allude
to
the
possibility
of
it
being
very
windy.
Is
that
because
there'll
be
a
sort
of
channel.
A
F
Wind,
like
brook,
is
it
broad
water
towers
or
whatever
in
the
city
center?
Is
that
what
you
feel
is
going
to
happen.
H
Yes,
I
I
do
feel
that's
what
happens.
I
think
if
you
walk
around
any
of
the
flats
around
the
area,
even
on
a
absolutely
beautiful
day,
it
is
like
a
wind
tunnel.
B
Okay,
I
think
that's
something
we
might
pick
up
with
officers,
councillor
jenkins,
okay,
a
technical
question:
isn't
it
any
more
questions
from
members?
I
see
none,
so
I
I've
got
a
question
for
you
julia.
How
much
value
do
you
put
on
that
church
compared
with?
If
it
was,
you
know
if
it
was
sadly
to
lose
it?
We
have
lost
grade
two
buildings
before
it's
in
a
bad
state
of
disrepair.
B
H
I
I
think
it's
wonderful.
We
talk
about
holding
on
towards
heritage
and
if
people
look
into
the
heritage
a
lot
of
it's
to
do
with
the
catholic
church
and
the
people
who
built
the
churches
at
the
time
now
something
that
size.
I
think
I
read
somewhere
that
it's
the
second
largest
cathedral
style
church
in
europe
now
shouldn't
we,
you
know,
be
making
an
effort
to
actually
keep
these
places.
I
know
it
is
in
a
derelict
what
shape
and
it's
an
absolute
shame.
H
I
think
I
moved
in
even
when
the
cross
on
the
the
top
of
the
church
was
still
lit,
and
my
my
youngest
son
at
the
time
says
god
must
be
home
because
the
cross
is
on
and
I
think
it
was
about
a
year
after
we
moved
in
everything
stopped
working
on
the
church
and
it's
a
great
shame.
I
think
we
need
to
learn
more
from.
H
F
Thank
you,
chair.
Just
a
quick
question.
I
probably
didn't
get
how
long
you've
lived
in
the
area
and
also,
secondly,
are
there
any
similar
houses,
you
think,
might
be
affected
due
to
the
wind
and
or
the
light
issue
that
you
just
raised
your
neighbors
and
if
so,
how?
Many
please
thank
you.
H
I
think
all
the
people
that
live
on
richmond
hill,
close
all
of
them,
will
feel
the
effects
of
the
wind
at
the
back.
I'm
not
quite
sure
about
further
down
the
street
onto
the
new,
this
spinny
housing
estate,
but
it
would
it
would
we
would.
We
would
know
about
it
and
we'd
feel
it
anyway,
but
all
along
that
street
would
be
affected
and
I've
lived
in
the
house
32
years
this
september.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
right.
I
see
no
further
questions
for
julia,
so
thank
you,
julia!
That's
your
slot
finish
now,
so
I'd
ask
you
not
to
you
may
be
tempted
to
join
in
at
other
stages.
If
you
hear
things
that
you
want
to
challenge,
but
unfortunately,
under
the
rules,
the
protocol
of
the
plants
panel,
you
can't
do
that
anymore.
B
So
with
that
we
move
on
to
our
speakers
who
are
going
to
respond,
and
we
have
a
number
here.
B
I
think
mr
henderson's
going
to
do
most
of
the
talking,
but
if
you
want
to
introduce
the
full
slate
mr
henderson
to
start
with,
and
then
your
four
minutes
will
start
when
you
begin
your
actual
formal
response,
as
I
did
for
julia
mchill
as
well
and
again,
if
you
hear
the
buzzer
go
at
the
four
minutes,
if
you
just
finish
your
sentence,
please
so
over
to
you
for
the
introductions
and
then
toby
start
when
the
presentation
starts.
J
B
J
As
you
will
be
aware,
this
is
an
area
of
leads
which
also
needs
investment.
Our
redevelopment
proposals
provide
a
link
back
to
the
wider
leeds
city
centre,
leading
the
saxon
gardens
development
and
the
newer
developments
which
are
proposed
on
march
lane
and
also
the
existing
richmond
hill
area.
J
We
have
believed
we
believe
we
have
responded
to
and
answered
all
of
the
consultations
that
have
arisen
during
the
planning
period,
such
as
public
rights
of
way,
access
to
the
site
and
the
amended
designs
that
we
have
produced
in
recent
months.
Addressing
some
of
the
concerns
that
members
previously
had.
J
Offices
and
members
will
likely
be
aware
that
the
site
has
been
has
been
the
subject
of
two
successful
planning
permissions
previously,
both
of
the
similar
scale
and
massing,
which
unfortunately,
have
not
been
delivered.
J
Our
proposals
have
been
developed
and
refined
over
several
months
to
give
this
building
the
chance
of
being
delivered.
The
sympathetically
and
aesthetically
striking
extension
to
the
nave
will
echo
the
language
of
the
existing
church
while
by
giving
a
contemporary
backdrop
to
the
chancel,
I
I
I
wonder
whether
there's
any
specific
questions
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
answer
about,
the
wind
which
have
been
which
has
been
brought
up
because
we
haven't
been
asked
to
provide
a
wind
study
for
the
development,
but
but
hopefully
officers
and
ourselves
could
answer
any
queries
about
that
should.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
mr
henderson.
Well,
well
within
time.
So
we
move
over
to
to
questions
for
you
from
members
just
before
we
do
that.
I
see
council
alma
cameras
gone
off,
so
I
assume
he's
having
connectivity
problems.
So
I
hope
he
can
still
hear
us.
E
Thank
you
chair
a
couple
of
things:
could
you
clarify
which
image
we
should
actually
be
looking
at
regarding
the
design
for
the
new
building?
I
actually
like
the
what
you're
proposing
for
the
church.
I
even
like
the
materials.
I
think
the
fact
that
there's
a
contrast
between
the
new
and
the
old
is
actually
quite
a
good
thing,
but
on
the
the
new
image,
the
new
building
on
page
17,
it
shows,
from
the
western
end
the
new
building
having
a
flat
roof.
E
But
then,
if
you
look
at
the
image
on
page,
where
is
it
22
21,
it
shows
that
you've
put
a
bit
of
a
gabled
end
feature
on
that
end.
That's
my
first
question
is
which
of
these
images
17
or
21
is
the
most
up-to-date
and
then
my
second
question,
which
I
know
chair,
that
we're
not
supposed
to
redesign
things.
E
But
if
you
look
at
the
image
and
that's
showing
the
layout,
is
there
no
opportunity
to
take
that
whole
middle
bit
of
the
new,
build
and
move
it
towards
the
school,
because
I
do
note
that
you've
put
absolutely
no
soft
landscaping
between
the
new
building
and
the
the
residents
who
already
live
in
that
area.
E
J
Thank
you
if
I
could
just
address
the
issue
regarding
the
images
I
think,
perhaps
of
unfortunately,
some
of
the
older
images
were
used
in
the
earlier
presentation
by
hannah.
Those
images
were
substituted
as
part
of
a
redesign
after
our
discussions
with
the
civic
trust
and
also
in
consultation
with
hannah
and
the
conservation
department.
J
J
J
I
think,
hopefully,
hannah
may
have
some
of
the
newer
images
which
she
may
be
able
to
share
online
with
you.
I
don't
know
whether
that's
possible
hannah
chair.
B
J
Yeah,
they
certainly
were
submitted
probably
about
three
or
four
months
ago.
But
the
longer
strip
elevations,
which
are
part
of
the
presentation,
are
the
updated
current
elevations
and
they
have
the
grey
grey
buff
brickwork.
J
J
E
Yep
so
so
at
the
moment,
the
north
of
the
the
north
of
the
image
you've
got
a
road
and
you've
got
a
row
of
car
parking
spaces
between
the
new
build
and
the
existing
residents.
There's,
there's
no
plan
for
any
green
or
soft
landscaping
between
those
two
which
I
think
is
is
very
unfair
on
those
residents
who
are
already
there.
So
my
question
is
you've
showing
a
step
in
the
middle
part
of
the
building
that
goes
north.
E
What
the
planning
officers
have
said
regarding
distances,
but
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
unfair,
that
you're
not
trying
to
put
some
trees
or
some
hedging
or
or
any
sort
of
green
infrastructure
between
this
new
building
and
the
existing
residents.
J
Yeah,
if
I
could
just
respond
on
a
couple
of
points,
I
think
officers
have
already
indicated
that
the
immediate
distance
from
our
proposed
building
is
certainly
in
excess
of
what
the
of
what
the
the
current
recommendations
are
in
terms
of
immediate
distances.
J
The
stagger
in
the
building
along
its
length
at
the
moment
is:
it
manifests
itself
in
the
elevations.
J
The
the
other
part
of
that
is
that
the
the
central
corridor
between
the
existing
church
and
the
new
extension
and
the
existing
building
has
a
significant
amount
of
immunity
space
between
the
two
which
will
be
enjoyed
by
residents.
We
have
produced
some
cgi
images
and
whilst
we
acknowledge
that
there
is
a
significant
off-side
contribution
for
open
space,
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
to
create
an
area
between
the
two
buildings
that
has
some
really
high
quality
landscaping.
J
Some
seating
areas,
some
trees
that
can
be
enjoyed
by
the
residents,
and
we
felt
that
maintaining
that
space
was
was
was
critical.
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
we
think
we've
demonstrated
that
we
have
the
offset
immediate
distances
from
the
existing
housing
again,
the
footprint
of
the
building
is
is
it
is
very
similar
in
location
to
what
was
approved
on
the
previous
application.
E
Yeah
and
it's
very
nice
that
all
of
these
new
residents
are
going
to
get
wonderful
green
space,
but
I
think
you're
missing
the
point
that
there
are
already
residents
living
in
the
area
that
are
now
going
to
be
looking
at
this
huge
building,
even
if
it
is
far
enough
legally
away
from
from
their
homes,
and
I
just
think
the
fact
that
you
haven't
put
any
trees
in
or
planning
to
lessen
the
impact
of
the
building
on
them
is
very
disappointing.
E
Just
regarding
this
wall,
then
that's
running
around
or
along
the
boundary
edge
who's
responsible
for
maintaining
that
wall
of
the
future.
Will
that
be
the
new
residents
that
are
moving
into
the
site?
Or
will
he
be
relying
on
the
existing
homeowners
to
look
after
their
bit
of
wall.
J
I
I'm
afraid
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
comment
who
currently
owns
the
wall.
I
would
suggest
it
is
probably
part
of
our
site,
but
I
would
have
to
go
back
and
check
that
with
our
our
client
in
order
to
clarify
that,
if
it
is
part
of
our
site,
the
maintenance
of
that
wall
would
fall
into
our
jurisdiction.
J
Obviously,
when
we're
carrying
out
or
hopefully
carrying
out
the
works
on
the
side,
that
wall
would
be
retained
and
protected
during
the
course
of
the
construction,
as
we
do
have
some
car
parking
up
against
that
wall.
So
being
the
intention
is
that
what
is
there
is
retained
and
maintained.
B
G
Is
it
yes?
Yes,
it
is
chair
if,
if
I
may
just,
I
thought
it
might
be
timely
to
to
mention
it
now,
rather
than
save
it
to
to
later
on,
but
just
picking
up
on
julia
mchale's
point
and
the
point
that's
made
by
council
collins
in
terms
of
the
landscaping
I
totally
accept.
What's
being
what's
being
said
on
that-
and
I
was
looking
at
the
plan
thinking
well,
is
there
something
that
we
can?
We
can
do
as
an
alternative
to
the
counselor
collins
point.
G
Obviously,
this
application
is
recommended
for
defer
and
delegate,
and
if
members
get
to
the
position
that
they're
minded
to
grant
planning
permission
listed
building
consent.
That
is
something
that
we
could
build
into
in
into
that.
So
I
just
thought
it
might
be
helpful
just
to
so
that
there
might
be
other
options
available
which
might
just
help
the
help
the
the
discussion
debate.
So
thank
you.
F
Yes
still,
I
I
think
I
would
like
to
follow
up
the
issue
at
the
wind
tunnel.
If
you
can-
and
it
may
be,
these
technicalities
haven't
been
looked
at
because
there
might
be
health
and
safety
issues
involved
and
also
know
that.
I
think
there
are
some
high-rise
blocks
going
up
in
saxon
gardens
which
may
or
may
not
impinge
upon
this
area.
But
I
think
it's
something
that
ought
to
be
looked
at.
J
As
part
of
the
statutory
council,
we
we
were
not
asked
to
provide
a
win
study,
as
we
have
been
on
several
other
schemes
that
we're
carrying
out
in
the
city
center
for
what
would
constitute
high-rise
developments.
J
So
those
probably
over
10
stories
and
above
I
guess,
the
rationale
behind
that
would
be
that
the
building,
even
though
it
being
of
five
stories,
wouldn't
constitute
a
high-rise
building.
So
so
it's
not
it's.
A
wind
study
has
not
been
part
of
the
consultation
or
request
for
us
to
provide
that
information,
and
we
wouldn't
have
ordinarily
access
expected
that
for
a
five-storey
building.
Obviously
richmond
hill
is
on
a
hill
and
is
relatively
high
up
compared
to
the
rest
of
leeds.
But
it's
it's
not
something.
B
Okay,
thanks
for
that
anything
else,
council
jenkins,
no
so
councillor
smith
and
then
I
see
council
collins
has
got
a
hand
again
so.
A
Sorry,
thank
you
chair,
so
so
I've
got.
I've
got
two
questions
really.
My
I
also
picked
up
on
on
on
the
residents
concerns
regarding
the
proximity
and
massive
building
and
looking
at
the
plans
wondered
if
there
was
some
scope
to
move
it
towards
the
church.
That
would
allow
some
soft
landscaping
in
behind
the
wall
and
the
parking
spaces.
A
Obviously
that's
a
different
delegate
decision,
but
I
wondered
whether
there
was
scope
for
that.
Please.
My
other
question
really
was
regarding
the
cladding.
We
all
know
that
a
lot
of
residents
in
this
city
and
up
and
down
the
country
are
in
a
world
of
pain
regarding
cladding
at
the
moment.
A
So
I'd
like
cast
iron
guarantees
if
they
were
available
that
the
cladding
that
would
be
used
would
be
the
best
available
and
absolutely
non-flammable
place.
Thank
you.
J
J
So
you
know
any
any
building
or
any
construction
project
that
was
taken
forward
as
well
as
this
one.
You
know
it
would
absolutely
be
100.
J
A
J
You
chair
yeah,
just
in
terms
of
the
landscape
buffer
on
the
on
on
the
highway.
One
of
the
reasons
for
the
the
road
running
down
there
and
the
car
parking
is
to
to
ensure
that
fire
tenders
can
get
round
the
whole
of
the
the
whole
of
the
building.
It
may
be
possible
to
adjust
the
new
build
block
slightly
in
order
to
put
some
kind
of
landscape
buffer
in
there.
J
I
think
we
would
have
to
go
back
and
work
on
that
with
with
officers.
I
know
there
has
been
a
comprehensive
landscaping
strategy
produced
for
the
for
the
development
and
there
is
the
intention
to
cover
over
some
of
the
car
parking
with
decorative
pergolas,
so
we
we,
we
could
certainly
have
a
look
at
that.
B
C
No,
my
question
was
answered,
but
I
I
was
particularly
interested
in
councillor
smith's
last
question
about
moving
the
new
block
slightly
towards
the
to
the
church,
because
the
distance
between
the
church
that
that
block
and
the
school
is
is
greater
than
the
new
block
and
the
boundary
of
the
houses,
so
that
that
would
assist
I'm
sure
in
more
than
one
respect.
J
I
I
think
again,
as
I
commented
previously,
if
you
could
leave
that
with
us
and
officers
it.
It
may
be
that
there
could
be
some
small
adjustments
to
the
location
of
the
the
new
build
block.
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
we
obviously
don't
want
to
impinge
on
the
immunity
and
the
adjacency
adjacencies
between
the
new
build
and
the
refurb
element.
But
we
we
would.
We
would
be
happy
to
look
at
that
and
see
whether
we
could
accommodate
a
slight
movement
of
the
new
build
block.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
see
no
other
hand
so
I'll
have
a
question,
so
mrs
mchale
pointed
out
about
developers,
profits,
etc
and
asked
if
we
could
have
a
smaller
building.
Maybe
two
stories
or
houses
on
that
section
of
the
land.
You've
obviously
got
a
viability
report
which
shows
a
massive
deficit.
So
would
you
just
like
to
explain
that
in
a
bit
more
detail
so
that
mrs
mchale
understands
the
position
in
terms
of
viability
and
we've
also
got
brian
maguire
with
us?
B
J
Yeah
at
this
point,
if
it's
possible
I'd,
be
grateful
if
I
could
hand
over
to
jeremy
sokol
from
a
state
aid
who
would
be
able
to
answer
some
of
those
questions
and
I'll
assist
jeremy
if,
if
need
be
as
well,
thank
you.
F
Thank
you
very
much.
Obviously,
we've
all
seen
that
this
site
is
not
viable
at
the
moment.
We're
hoping
if
we're
given
permission
today
and
there'll,
be
some
adjustments,
because
there'll
be
conditions
to
that
permission,
that
we
can
work
out
how
to
build
it
and
how
to
save
the
church
in
a
way.
That
means
that
we
don't
as
developer,
don't
lose
money.
F
F
This
means
that
the
amount
of
money
that
we
could
get
on
sale
would
be
very
significantly
reduced
and
off
the
top
of
my
head,
and
we
did
do
the
numbers
and
we
looked
at
lots
and
lots
of
different
schemes.
We
would
get
perhaps
two-fifths
of
the
revenue.
If
that
was
the
case,
this
scheme
is
totally
unviable.
F
So,
in
order
to
get
the
project
off
the
ground,
the
idea
was
to
build
apartments.
The
two
previous
schemes
that
were
approved
were
also
apartments
on
the
same
footprint,
approximately
the
same
height.
What
we
have
done
this
time
is
to
very
much
try
and
get
a
really
good
design,
and
we
worked
with
the
leads
council
planners
heritage,
england
and
everybody
else,
and
everybody
seems
happy
with
the
design
that
we've
got
without
being
able
to
build
a
certain
volume.
We
cannot
renovate
the
church.
We
cannot
start
there's
no
purpose
to
it.
B
Okay
and
brian,
could
I
just
bring
you
in
to
explain
the
differences,
so
we
were
given
three
different
valuations
for
three
different
proposals.
I
think
or
possibly
four
the
lowest
being
a
deficit
of
seven
million
pounds
based
on
the
proposal
in
front
of
us.
Could
you
just
tell
us
what
your
figures
come
to
brian,
please,
on
this.
D
Yes,
if
I
can
I'll
just
give
you
an
overview
for
members
and
any
of
the
public
that
are
listening
in,
but
as
the
as
dvs,
we
review
the
we
review
the
liability
appraisal,
that's
submitted
by
the
applicant,
we're
wearing
we're
independent
of
the
council,
and
that's
the
reason
why
you
ask
us
to
look
at
it.
We
have
to
assess
whether
the
applicant's
viability
appraisal
is
fair
and
reasonable.
D
It's
difficult
in
these
circumstances
to
say
whether
various
inputs
are
absolutely
correct,
so
my
role
is
to
say
whether
they're,
fair
and
reasonable.
So
we
looked
at
the
viability
appraisal
submitted
by
the
applicant
by
their
consultant
and
you're.
Quite
right,
it
included
a
number
of
scenarios
and
every
scenario
that
they
presented
lost
money.
D
So
we
reviewed
each
of
them
and
we
challenged
the
applicant
on
a
number
of
assumptions
and
it
varies.
It
can
be
construction
costs,
the
value
of
the
completed
units
and
also
some
of
the
other
associated
associated
costs
in
terms
of
professional
fees
and
advisors,
and
we
always
seem
to
disagree
with
applicants
when
it
comes
to
the
level
of
profit
which
is
reasonable.
D
You
know
for
the
developer
to
derive
from
building
this
ski
now
in
very
simple
terms.
As
councillor
richie
said,
the
worst
case
scenario
for
the
applicant
was
minus
seven
million.
We
challenged
a
lot
of
the
inputs
and
we
actually
managed
to
get
this
scheme
to
be
more
viable
but
not
sufficiently
viable
to
provide
affordable
costs.
D
So
we
managed
to
model
the
development
and
do
an
appraisal
which
showed
the
site
effectively
lost
a
million
pounds,
but
that
was
the
best
case
scenario
that
we
could
come
up
with,
and
it's
important
to
add
that
it
wasn't
just
myself
that
looked
at
this,
I
looked
at
the
value
side
of
things
and
the
council
also
engages
a
quantity
surveying
consultant
who,
independently
reviews
all
of
the
construction
costs.
They
looked
at
those
in
each
scenario
and
they
also
agreed
that
the
costs
that
were
being
put
forward
were
fair
and
reasonable.
D
D
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
an
area
of
communal
space.
There
was
some
discussion
at
the
last
planning
meeting
that
it
might
be
used
as
a
pop-up
art
gallery.
I
I
can't
quite
recall,
but
in
summary,
I've
managed
to
get
it
more
viable,
but
not
sufficiently
viable
to
contribute
towards
affordable
housing
and
section
1,
106
costs,
and
the
crux
of
the
matter
is:
is
that
the
retention
of
the
important
historic,
historically
important
chancel
and
the
cost
associated
with
doing
that
is
arguably
the
single
biggest
thing
that
makes
it
unbiable?
B
It
does
help
greatly
and
minus
a
million.
You
know,
there's
prospects
of
it
happening
more
than
being
minus
seven
million.
I
do
know
that
you
agree
on
the
abnormal
cost
for
the
chancel
refurbishment,
but
that's
been
really
helpful.
Counselor
jenkins
has
got
his
hand
up
now.
F
Yes,
sir,
last
time
I
asked
about
the
irish
government.
I
just
wondered
whether
you've,
particularly
jeremy,
has
been
in
touch
with
the
catholic
church,
which
I
think
is
still
quite
rich
and
either
thought
might
really
be.
If
we
try
to
say
that
this,
the
viability
of
this
project,
you
know,
depends
upon
a
contribution
from
the
catholic
church,
maybe
regarding
the
chancel
issue
that
might
be
worth
looking
at
yeah,
and
thank
you
for
that
comment.
It's
a
very
important
point.
F
What
we've
found
is
we've
approached
a
number
of,
let's
call
them
grant
organizations
or
charitable
organizations,
and
none
of
them
are
willing
to
talk
to
us
properly.
Although
a
lot
of
them
have
indicated,
there
may
be
funds
available
until
we
have
got
planning
and
we
can
go
to
them
with
more
detailed
construction
details.
F
F
It's
the
church
is
the
most
important
thing
to
viability,
so
we'll
be
working
very
closely
with
with
leeds
council
and
with
all
these
organizations
to
see
how
we
can
do
it,
because
it's
an
iconic
site-
and
I
think
you
know
it's
so
worthwhile
saving
it
and
making
it
if
you
like,
a
tourist
attraction
or
something
so
we'll
do
our
best,
and
we
will
be
talking
to
all
these
organizations
as
soon
as
we
can
when
they
take
us
seriously.
F
B
Thank
you
for
that.
Any
more
questions
I
see
none.
So
thank
you
to
mark
henderson
and
jeremy
circle
there
for
answering
those
questions
and
again,
as
I
said
to
mrs
mchale,
your
work
here
is
done
now,
unless
we
specifically
come
back
on
a
technical
question
that
the
officers
need
help
answering
or
clarification
on.
B
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
I
brought
this
up
last
time.
The
steps
I
appreciate
that
this
is
outside
the
red
line
boundary
of
the
applicant
now
and
that
public
rights
of
way
are
have
not
objected
to
the
proposal
for
opening
this
right-of-way
in
these
steps
again.
But
is
anybody
going
to
survey
them
and
just
check
that
they
don't
need
any
remedial
works?
Who,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
going
to
pay
for
anything?
If
these
steps
do
start
to
move,
or
there
are
issues
with
them?
E
Have
officers
discuss
this
amongst
themselves?.
I
I
mean
I've,
the
steps
are
not
the
easiest
to
walk
up
and
I
think
that
that's
putting
it
quite
lightly,
I
wouldn't
say
because
there's
it
doesn't,
it
appears
that
they've
been
that
way
for
a
very
long
time,
and
the
applicant
has
pointed
out
that
you
know
they're
not
within
their
ownership.
I
I
have
to
say
there
doesn't
seem
currently
like
there's
any
there's
any
reason
why
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
walk
up
them
and
onto
the
public
right
of
where
they'll
be
reinstated,
but
there
are
no
further
works
proposed
to
those
steps
you
know
by
way
of
grampian
condition
or
anything
from
the
applicant
public.
The
public
rights
of
wayne's
are
sort
of
they're
very
happy
with
the
application
that
it
reinstates
this,
but
I
suppose
I
might
have
to
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
your
question.
I
I'm
afraid
I'm
not
sure
if
they
started
becoming
an
issue.
Obviously
if
it
was
something
dangerous
that
would
be
addressed
by
our
building
control
team.
But
aside
from
that,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
anything
obvious
to
do
at
the
moment.
B
G
Okay,
thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
thinking.
Yes,
we
know
your
point,
council,
collins
and
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
talk
to
public
rights
away
and
get
some
direction
just
to
make
those
sure
that
they're
safe
to
safe
to
use
and
if
any
remedial
action
is
required
and
who
the
appropriate
bodily
is
to
do
that.
But
yes,
we
can
certainly
pick
up
on
that
point.
E
That,
okay
yeah,
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
to
officers
is
we.
We
have
public
rights
of
way
in
in
horsworth
where
a
style
will
become
out
of
use
and
you
can
well.
You
can
probably
imagine
the
amount
of
effort
to
try
and
find
out
who's
responsible
for
the
style.
Who's
got
the
money
to
replace
the
style.
It
can
actually
be
a
nightmare,
and
I'm
just
worried
that
these
steps
are
going
to
cost
an
awful
lot
more
than
a
style
if
works
ever
are
required
on
them.
B
D
F
That
we'd,
so
it's
called
our
question
to
mr
newberry:
can
we
put
a
condition
on
that
if
they
do,
if.
F
G
Sorry
counselor
and
some
I'm
not
quite
clear
what
you
mean
about
the
sharing
mechanism.
D
K
G
I
think
it's
something
counselor
anderson
would
try
and
pick
up
through
the
viability
clauses
and
the
review,
so
it
would
form
part
of
that
part
of
that
assessment.
B
Yeah
excellent,
I
thought
I
thought
that
would
be
the
opportunity
there,
because
there's
a
three
if
you
recall
as
a
three-stage
viability
review
so
councilman
midgley.
E
Oh
good
good,
thank
you.
I
just
wondered.
I
know
there
was
some
talk
about
whether
it
be
possible
to
move
the
new
building
slightly
nearer
to
the
to
the
church,
to
create
more
space
behind
whether
near
the
wall
in
the
car
parking.
E
If
that
was
possible,
would
that
have
much
of
an
impact
on
the
shadowing
on
the
on
the
properties
the
existing
properties
there
already,
which
might
help
for
the
residents
that
are
currently
obviously
residing
there?
Thank
you.
I
I
think,
I
suppose,
for
the
existing
residents.
Naturally,
if
these
buildings
are
moved
further
from
them,
increasing
that
separation,
distance
they'll
be
a
further
reduced
impact,
but
as
you're
reading
the
report
and
it's
being
sort
of
discussed
by
officers,
we
do
consider
the
impact
at
the
moment
to
be
one
that
is
acceptable
in
terms
of
separation
distances.
I
But
I
think
the
the
applicant
did
sort
of
say
that
they
might
review
some
of
their
building,
sightings
and
and
location,
and
I
suspect
that,
if
looking
at
the
constraints
of
the
site,
so
I'm
on
the
site
plan,
I
wouldn't
think
there's
much
opportunity
to
to
move
them
very
far.
So
I
suppose
just
to
reiterate
that
what
we've
got
there
in
terms
of
separation
distances,
it
is
sort
of
policy
compliant
for
us
and
we
in
terms
of
leads
as
policies,
and
we
consider
that
acceptable.
At
the
moment.
B
F
Okay,
I'm
sure
you're
our
old
hand,
counselor
anderson,
so
I
just
feel
obligated
to
just
ask
the
issue
about
the
wind
tunnel
whether
a
five-story
building
could
possibly
cause
any
issues
around
wind.
Thank
you.
I
Yes,
I
have
to
say
when
this
question
came,
so
this
was
something
that
was
considered
by
officers
very
early
on
in
the
process.
You
know
it
being
sort
of
a
block.
Flats
are
on
top
of
a
hill,
as
I
think
the
applicant
mentioned
before
it
is
yeah
at
the
top
of
the
hill.
I
It's
already
quite
a
windy
spot,
but
we
did
look
into
leads
as
guidance
on
tall
buildings
and
it
doesn't
what's
proposed,
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
to
be
considered
a
tall
building
in
that
we
would
ask
for
a
wind
survey.
So
it's
something
that
we
did
have
a
talk
about
and
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
in
terms
of
stories.
So
whilst
we
acknowledge
that
it's
a
sort
of
windy
location
already,
it's
not
considered
that
their
proposal
would
add
to
that
to
a
degree
that
a
survey
would
be
required.
B
Thank
you
any
further
questions.
I've
seen
on
just
a
question
from
me
that
something
that's
cropped
up
and
that's
the
potential
of
putting
some
buffer
planting
in
between
the
new
block
and
the
the
houses.
Do
you
think
that
would
actually
benefit
the
current
houses
in
any
way?
I'm
just
thinking
conscious
of
the
two
and
a
half
meter
wall.
B
If
you
had
any
planting
that
came
above
that,
that
would
possibly
create
even
more
shadowing.
Would
it
not
so
while
I
accept
buffering's
good
for
greening
the
site
itself,
do
you
think
it
would
actually
benefit
or
alleviate
anything
for
the
residents
in
the
current
housing.
G
So
it
would
have
to
be
very
carefully
designed
and
the
the
species
of
tree
very
carefully
chosen
to
and
the
main
impact
would
be
really
would
be
to
break
up
the
elevation
and
filter
the
views
filter.
G
The
views
through
in
part,
that's
why
I
suggested
that
maybe
one
of
the
options
might
be
to
look
at
the
configuration
of
the
car
parking
to
see
if
spaces
can
be
created
in
between
gaps,
some
of
the
spaces,
so
that
the
tree
planting
is
off
the
wall
as
it
were
set
just
back
from
the
wall,
which
would
lessen
the
impact
of
the
trees
in
terms
of
their
dominance
on
the
rear
gardens,
but
would
also
help
with
with
filtering.
So
it's
something
that
we'd
have
to
look
at
very
carefully.
C
Yeah
I
I
you'd
have
to
look
very
carefully
at
the
species
of
tree,
something
like
rome.
Trees
are
my
favorite
winter
flowering
cherry,
but
I
don't
think
you
have
to
have
trees
coming
up
above
the
height
of
the
wall.
There
are
other
trees
like
dwarf,
faces
or
shrubs,
which
greens
up
the
area,
but
you
only
need
about
a
meter
and
a
half
away
from
the
wall,
so
have
that
green
buffer
straight.
F
B
I
think
that
didn't
require
quest
response.
Does
it
really,
I
think,
I'm
sure
that's
noted.
So
thanks
for
that,
and
I
see
I
thought
the
councillor
collins
were
moving
towards
this
hand
button,
and
she
has
indeed
so
over
to
you.
E
Quick,
quick
one
could
officers
look
into
the
ownership
of
this
wall
as
well.
Please,
because
I'd
like
to
know
that
it
was
clear
as
to
who
was
responsible
for
it.
If
it
is
the
applicants,
then
I
think
that
will
reassure
the
residents
if
they
know
they're
going
to
maintain
it.
Thank
you.
I
You
want,
I
guess
it
was
just.
It
was
just
a
sort
of
say
that
I
do
believe
the
the
wall
is
within
the
applicant's
ownership
and
so
that
we'd
look
to
we've
got
a
clause,
a
section
within
the
within
the
section
one
to
106,
for
maintenance
of
the
site,
so
we'd
hope
to
include
that
within
the
general
maintenance
of
the
site.
B
Excellent,
thank
you.
So
that
looks
it
for
questions.
So
now
it's
members
comments
so
just
particularly
for
councillor.
Al
massey's
benefit
who's
not
been
here
before.
I
I'd
like
members
to
give
their
comments,
give
us
how
they're
feeling
about
the
application,
whether
they're
inclined
to
move
a
motion
alternative,
but
just
give
everybody
an
opportunity
if
they
want
to.
They
don't
have
to
comment
on
on
what
they've
had
before
them.
A
Thank
you
chair.
I
am
delighted
to
see
my
request
for
some
monies
being
potentially
handed
back
to
the
to
the
ward
through
the
the
viability
clause.
I
think
that's
an
absolutely
brilliant
way
forward
and
my
thanks
to
to
everyone
involved
for
taking
that
on
board.
A
I
also
think
it's
lovely
to
see
the
prowery
opened,
although
obviously
the
steps
are
a
concern
yeah
and
if
you
know,
if,
if
we
can,
if
we
can
just
look
at
helping
the
existing
residents,
then
you
know
I
don't
see,
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
this.
I
actually
think
it
looks
a
very
good
scheme.
C
Well,
I
think
the
the
new
build
and
the
extension
to
the
church
is
very
attractive,
but
I
did
raise
at
the
last
meeting
that
the
extension
to
the
church
was
too
dominant,
not
because
of
the
design,
but
because
of
the
color.
I
think
this
time
it
I
I
get
the
impression
that
the
color
has
been
muted
a
bit,
but
I
think
the
situation
would
be
improved
and
I
didn't
raise
this
in
questions
because
it
has
to
be
thought
about.
I
think
the
the
pugin
building
ought
to
be
cleaned.
C
It's
a
dirty
gray,
color
at
the
moment
and
so
immediately.
Anything
which
is
tucked
onto
it
is
dominant,
and
I
think
if
it
was
a
lighter
stone
colour,
I
think
it
would
not
only
improve
the
the
the
view
of
the
church
that
would
make
the
extension
less
dominant.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
see
no
other
hands
at
the
moment,
so
I'll
indulge
in
in
my
thoughts
and
comments.
So,
first
of
all,
it's
always
disappointing
when
a
application
comes
that
doesn't
meet
any
of
our
planning
gain
requirements,
but
accept
the
viability
statement.
That's
before
us
and
the
fact
that
the
district
valuers
mark
gives
me
some
hope
that
we
might
be
able
to
realize
some
of
that
some
gain
when
the
reviews
take
place
should
it
be
approved.
B
I
am
sympathetic
to
the
mrs
mchale
and
the
neighbours
and
the
impact
they're
having,
but
I
just
can't
see
how
a
smaller
building
or
houses
would
be
viable,
and
I
was
keen
to
hear
her
view
on
that
on
returning
the
church
which,
like
I
think
all
of
us,
was
that
it
should
be
returned
and
it's
a
heritage
asset
that
we
should
be
proud
of
and
looking
to
keep,
because
I'm
always
conscious
that,
sometimes
perhaps
in
a
bit
of
a
counsellor
civic
type
bubble
that
we
we
think
we
know
better
than
the
communities
about
what
we
should
keep
and
what
we
shouldn't
keep.
B
So
I'm
pleased
that
that
community
wants
to
keep
that
building
too
so
yeah
overall,
I
think
I'm
moving
towards
towards
support
of
it
with
some
slightly
additional
conditions
that
david
spoke
about
so
david
councillor
jenkins
is
coming
now
for
comment.
B
F
I
I
think
it's
a
a
potentially
great
idea
and
proposal,
and
I
just
hope
that
if
we
can
say
that
you
know,
we'd
encourage
english
heritage,
the
catholic
church
and
anybody
else
who
any
place
based
investment.
Pension
funds
could
put
some
money
into
this.
It
would
be
a
great
idea
and
great
for
the
city
and
great
for
east
east
end
park,
the
east
end
of
of
leeds.
So
I
I'd
formally
move
this.
B
B
G
Thank
you
chair.
Of
course,
there
are.
There
are
two
recommendations
in
front
of
plans.
Panel
members
will
have
to
vote
on
the
two
proposals.
One
is
to
grant
planning
permission
and
one
is
to
that's
subject
to
the
section
106
being
agreed
and
one
is
to
grant
listed
building
consent,
so
there'll
be
two
separate
votes,
as
it
were
in
terms
of
the
section
106.
G
What
we'd
do
we'd
add
a
clause
in
there
in
respect
of
a
delivery
plan
to
be
produced.
This
is
to
include
the
restoration
of
the
listed
building
and
the
long-term
maintenance
as
part
of
the
to
sorry.
We'd
also
add
a
condition
on
the
planning
permission
to
require
compliance
with
our
policies,
en1
and
en2
other
matters
that
we
would
pick
up
on
as
part
of
the
defer
and
delegate.
G
We
would
look
to
at
the
boundary
in
relationship
to
the
neighboring
residential
properties
to
see
if
we
can
provide
some
planting
there
to
soften
views
of
the
building
from
the
houses
of
the
new
build
from
the
houses.
G
We
would
speak
to
public
rights
away
in
respect
of
the
steps
that
they're
safe
to
use
and
whose
responsibility
is
for
me.
Making
good
and
maintaining
we'd
also
look
into
the
ownership
of
the
wall
and
the
maintenance
responsibility
for
the
wall
and,
as
part
of
the
restoration
of
the
listed
church
to
retain
listed
church,
the
cleaning
of
that
building.
So
we
would
pick
up
on
all
those
matters
in
respect
specific
regard
to
the
listed
building.
G
What
we
would
do
also
is
just
review
those
conditions
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
all
the
appropriate
conditions
on
there,
so
it
may
be
necessary
for
us
to
to
refine
that
list
of
list
of
conditions.
Okay,
thank
you.
Chair.
B
Okay,
so
on
just
going
up
briefly
to
philippa
for
legal
on
the
papers,
it's
down
as
one
recommendation,
do
we
have
to
split
them
as
david
advised
there.
E
H
E
Get
them
through
as
the
existing
recommendation
so
for
permission
and
for
the
development
and
also
proposal
for
the
listed
building
consent.
But
in
view
of
the
fact
that
there's
such
extensive
conditions
attached
to
that,
the
primary
consent
might
be
worthwhile
doing
each
as
an
individual
vote
so
proposal.
Today.
Each
sec
separate
recommendation
before
panel
to
be
voted
on.
B
Okay,
thanks
for
clarifying
that,
okay,
then
david
so
back
to
you,
do
you
want
to
move
from
conformally.
B
C
B
Thank
you,
councillor
nash,
so
I'll
now
move
to
the
votes
on
whether
we
grant
permission
for
the
listed
building
consent
with
the
conditions
as
as
outlined,
and
I'm
going
to
go
in
alphabetically.
B
B
B
B
B
Okay,
well
thanks
members
and
clearly
both
motions
have
been
carried.
I
don't
think,
there's
any
need
to
repeat
those,
and
while
I
offer
my
sympathies
with
mrs
mchale
and
the
residents-
and
we
do
understand
the
issues,
but
I
think
this
is
the
best
deal
on
offer
really
to
protect
that
listed
building
and
also
get
the
site
developed
and
open
up
that
public
right
of
way
once
again
and
to
the
developers.
B
I
do
hope
that
you
can
get
get
on
with
the
job
and
that
the
district
value,
our
independent
district
values
figures
more
accurate
than
yours,
and
you
find
that
you
can
access
grants
and
deliver
some
of
the
planning
gain,
which
is
really
vital
for
that
local
community.
B
Excellent,
so
thank
you.
I
think
we'll
have
a
10
minute
break
now.
So
we'll
come
back
at
half
past
conscious,
counselor
anderson
needs
to
leave
at
four,
so
he
may
wish
to
get
off
now.
I
don't
know:
let's
stay
for
the
first
half,
but
I
don't
think
we'll
get
through
the
full
item
in
half
an
hour.
B
All
right,
then
so
I'll
see
you
back
in
10
minutes.
So
if
you
knock
off
your
cameras
and
your
videos
for
10
minutes,
oh
well,
that
same
thing
in
it.
F
A
B
F
A
F
F
Yes,
I
went
to
a
couple
you
know,
but
this
is
my
first
one
to
be
on
on
a
panel
per
literally
so
yeah
I've
got
a
bit
of
bit
of
a
back
pain.
That's
why
I'm
just
off
on
on
my
chair
and
moving
a
bit.
You
know
and
all
that
that's
why
I've
put
my
picture
on
so
at
least
I'm
not
sorry.
B
F
B
A
B
B
All
right,
sorry,
okay,
that's
just
to
sign
up
the
adjournment,
then
is
it
yeah?
Okay,
all
right,
then
welcome
back
everybody
and
we
move
on
to
a
gender
item
number
eight,
which
is
the
outline
application
for
the
residential
development
on
killing
bret
land
off
york,
road
killing,
beck
bridge
and
selby
road.
C
I
So
yes,
here,
we've
got
an
outline
application
for
the
residential
development
of
23
dwellings,
and
it's
outline
so
details
of
access,
appearance,
layout
and
scale
are
to
be
considered
today,
including
the
provision
of
a
new
access
onto
killing
back
bridge
via
diadem
drive.
To
be
clear,
landscaping
is
a
reserved
matter
next
slide.
Please.
I
So
here
you
can
see
the
red
edge
of
the
site,
so
you've
got
the
dwellings
at
diadem
drive
in
that
semi
circle
to
the
north
and
to
the
other
side,
to
the
northwest.
You've
got
the
highways
flats
and
some
mace
nets
next
to
it.
So,
in
terms
of
the
site
itself,
the
application
site
is
a
brownfield
site
in
a
sustainable
location,
and
it
is
the
redevelopment
of
the
of
a
vacant
and
disused
highway
depot
and
it's
an
allocated
housing
site,
so
puzzle
for
housing
on
the
site
is
considered
to
be
acceptable
in
principle.
I
There's
been
a
lot
of
planning
history
on
this
site,
so
the
previous
application
was
refused
sort
of
in
the
middle
of
last
year
and
that
one
was
for
25
dwellings
and-
and
it
was
considered
that
that,
for
that
application,
that
was
an
overdevelopment
of
the
site
and
by
a
virtue
of
that
over
development
would
be
a
natural
impact
detrimental
impact
on
the
mean
immunity
of
future
occupiers,
as
well
as
harm
calls
to
trees
adjacent
to
the
site
next
side.
I
I
So
here
we
see
the
site
layout
subject
of
this
application
and
it's
the
latest
layout
includes
23
units
is
proposed,
so
that's
14,
two
and
a
half
starry
dwellings
with
the
second
floor
in
the
roof
space
and
a
three
terrace
row
of
two
story:
dwellings
and
six
flats
in
again,
two
and
a
half
and
two
and
a
half
story
apartment
blocks
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
proposed
access
is
off.
I
Killing
back
drive
now
just
want
to
clarify
an
error
made
in
the
report,
counselor,
which
said
that
what
members
didn't
object
to
the
application,
in
fact
councillor
die
ward
councillor.
I
objects
to
this
application
because
of
reasons
to
do
with
the
access
and
the
noise
and
disturbance
and
sort
of
general
disturbance
it
might
have
to
residents
of
diadem
drive.
I
So
we
did
look
at
alternative
access
points
of
in
just
in
discussions
with
ward
councillors.
So
what
we
sort
of
discussed
was
an
alternative
access
straight
along
killing
back
bridge
to
joining
your
throat
at
the
other
side
that
wasn't
considered
a
suitable
route
of
access
and
the
other
opportunity
was
to
go
across
the
highways
flats,
the
site's
opposite.
This
application
site
contains
two
large
blocks
of
flats
which
are
to
be
demolished
and
that
site
will
be
master
planned.
I
So
it
was
sort
of
discussed
as
to
whether
there'd
be
the
opportunity
to
incorporate
another
and
access
road
through
that
site
to
serve
this
application
site.
Now.
Not
only
are
there
two
sites
in
different
ownership
and
as
in
highway
site
is
owned
by
us.
Lee
city,
council
and
this
site
is,
is
owned
by
a
different
and
it
is
not
not
owned
by
us.
The
applicant,
but
also
the
highways
class,
is
currently
partly
occupied,
and
so
it
isn't
considered
that
that'd
be
an
appropriate
and
inappropriate
avenue
to
explore
at
this
time.
I
Could
we
go
back
to
their
site
plan?
Please
thank
you.
So,
in
terms
of
the
access
for
this
site,
it's
considered
that
the
access
is
appropriate.
It's
safe
in
terms
of
highway
safety
and
amenity.
There
are
so
onto
the
site
itself.
First
dwellings
meet
lee
city
councils,
accessibility,
standards
and
space
standards
and
the
gardens
meet
and
the
standards
set
by
neighborhood
for
living
and
delay
off
the
site,
as
you
can
see
here,
would
form
a
t-shirt
with
the
apartment
blocks
cited
along
killing
back
bridge
and
they
set
the
cement
attachment.
I
Terrace
dwelling
sighted
either
side
of
this
straight
stretch.
A
total
of
44
car
parking
spaces
are
proposed,
including
three
visitor
spaces,
as
you'll
be
able
to
see
on
the
site.
Although
there
is
a
landscaping,
a
landscaped
area
there
to
the
song
east
of
the
site
and
there's
no
public
open
space
or
affordable
housing
proposed
on
this
site.
I
The
next
slide,
please
sorry,
next
slide
again
so
here
you
can
see
so
an
example
of
the
design
of
the
house
types.
So
it's
a
quite
a
modern,
a
modern
design.
It's
considered
that
it
assimilates
well
within
the
character
of
the
area
and
there's
no
objections
raised
on
design
grounds.
Next,
five.
I
Please
so
when
we're
we're
looking
at
the
site
itself,
so
it's
a
development,
unallocated
housing
site
and,
although
they've
been
previous
refusals
of
this
scheme,
it's
considered
now
that
the
revised
number
of
units
is
acceptable
in
terms
of
residential
immunity.
This
is
significant
enough
separation,
distance
between
this
site
and
neighbouring
dwellings,
so
that
no
overlooking
shadowing
or
other
impacts
raise
concerns
and
there's
no
residual
register.
Residential
mec
concerns
within
the
site
itself.
I
I
It's
acknowledged
that
there'll
be
the
loss
of
some
trees
to
accommodate
the
access
to
the
site,
but
overall
there'll
be
a
biodiversity
net
gain
because
the
site's
just
just
a
level
area
at
the
moment,
nothing
on
it
and
a
three
to
one
landscaping.
A
three
to
one
ratio
of
trees
to
be
planted
will
be
incorporated
in
the
landscaping
as
part
of
reserved
matters.
I
So
although
it's
acknowledged
that
no
contributions
are
made
for
affordable
housing
in
public
open
space,
it's
considered
that
the
benefits
of
the
development
outweigh
any
home
created
and
that
their
planning
balance
was
in
favor
of
granting
permission.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
hannah
right.
So
we've
got
speakers
who
are
wishing
to
speak
an
objection
to
the
application
and
they
are
counselor
katie
dye,
one
of
the
award
members-
and
I
hope
I'm
pronouncing
this
right-
is
it
alex?
Do
you
say
gillies
or
julie's?
I
hope
I've
got
that
right.
B
Okay,
okay,
so
you
just
need
to
decide.
You've
got
four
minutes
between
you
who's
speaking
first
and
how
long?
How
are
you
going
to
divide
the
time?
So
if
you
don't
want
to
introduce
yourselves
counselor,
who
are
you
allowed.
B
Well,
it's
four
minutes
in
total.
Actually,
mr
gillis,
so
are
you
going
first.
A
Yeah,
can
I
just
comment:
hi,
it's
cated
eye
counselor
for
killing
beckham
seacroft,
I'm
more
than
happy
for
alex
to
go
first
and
and
make
his
statement
and
I'll
I'll
speak
to
any
remaining
time.
K
Yeah
alec
gillis,
I
live
at
31
item
drive
and
I
was
voted
as
a
spokesperson
around
about
242
2014.
As
this
representative.
B
Okay,
that's
helpful
so
when
you're
ready,
the
time
will
start.
K
Okay,
good
afternoon,
I
never
expected
that
would
take
so
long
to
receive
approval
to
build
23
dwellings.
Then
it's
the
city
council,
only
the
third
largest
city
outside
london,
it's
in
charge
for
all
new
councils
on
this
planning
committee
that
has
not
read
the
objections
signed
by
residents
in
the
22
dwellings
on
died
and
drive.
I
sincerely
hope
they
do
unfairness
to
the
residents.
K
I
don't
mean
the
four
applications
letters
from
august
2020.
I
mean
the
objections
from
2014.
Yes,
that's
how
long
this
charade
has
been
going
on
for
the
residents
of
diadem
drive.
Unexpectedly
in
august
2020,
the
application
reference
number
was
changed
and
earlier
applications
are
off
the
planning
apps.
There
are
two
issues
on
the
current
plan
in
front
of
the
panel
today.
That's
causing
the
resonance
of
dynamic
drive
concern
that
the
gulp
was
keep
removed
in
favor
of
the
developer.
K
In
all
previous
planning
for
the
x
highways
office
compound,
the
bollards
had
to
remain
on
killenbeck
bridge
to
stop
the
vehicles
accessing
the
west
side,
known
as
a
little
chef's
site
number
one
under
vehicular.
Access
in
the
future,
kill
and
break
bridge
could
eventually
be
upgraded
to
incorporate
a
partial
one-way
route
between
the
east
road
item
drive
to
the
west
at
halton
dial.
This
is
contradicting
the
only
objection
that
was
raised
by
the
residents
of
diadem
drive
at
the
outset
of
this
debacle
and
number
two.
K
K
K
The
resident
of
downtown
drive
were
never
informed
that
this
site
was
for
sale,
no
written
letters
and
no
notices
on
the
surrounding
lampposts
was
this
land
put
out
the
tender,
as
we
are
aware
that
this
is
the
law.
We
have
reason
to
believe
that
when
this
land
was
sold
to
dark
and
homes
limited,
it
included
the
road.
A
Okay,
so
my
main
objection
is
the
exit
road
and
I
know
hannah
showed
you
a
map,
but
what
I
think
is
particularly
important
is
that
the
highways
flats
are
due
to
be
demolished
and
when
that
happens,
it
gives
us
another
opportunity.
So
I
would
like
this
to
be
deferred
and
so
that
we
can
look
at
a
different
exit.
We've
got
22,
I
think
houses
in
diadem
drive
and
this
proposal
is
for
another
23.
A
So
it's
significantly
increasing
the
traffic
on
a
small
road
onto
a
which
exits
onto
a
busy
road
like
york,
road,
and
I
just
think
there
are
so
many
better
options.
Alex
has
already
mentioned
the
the
previous
exit
that
went
on
to
the
roundabout,
and
that
was
a
safe
option,
but
there's
also
the
option
via
the
highways.
So
I
really
object
to
the
fact
that
we're
putting
double
the
traffic
onto
a
small
road,
that's
leading
onto
a
busy
road
like
york,
road
and
if
I've
got
any
time
left.
A
I
would
also
note
that
I
am
disappointed
and
that
the
affordable
houses
or
green
space
contributions
aren't
viable.
But
my
main
objection
is
the
exit.
B
Thank
you.
Both
alex
and
councillor
die
impeccable
time
in
there,
but
between
you.
Anyone,
I
think
you'd
rehearsed
okay.
So
we
move
on
to
questions
for
mr
gillis
and
counselor
die.
So
do
I
see
any
hands
any
questions.
F
Okay,
so
I
should
declare
an
interest
in
the
sec
in
the
sense
that
I'm
a
a
councillor
for
for
that
ward
and
for
the
this
area,
but
I
have
left
it
to
actually
die
to
take
up
the
interest
of
the
residents
and
the
the
issue.
F
Partly
is
just
a
factual
thing
that
there's
about
15
residents
left
in
the
highways
blocks,
which
a
council
council
owned
and
the
plan
is
for
those
blocks,
probably
to
develop,
develop,
be
demolished
later
on
this
summer
and
that,
as
councillor
dyer
says,
would
give
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
access
issues
in
a
wider
perspective.
B
B
In
your
a
couple
of
minutes
there
I
think
I
heard
you
say
that
you
were
concerned
about
the
bollards
and
there's
an
agreement
to
keep
them,
but
in
the
planning
report
there
is
a
commitment
and
a
condition
to
keep
those
bollards.
Are
you
aware
of
that.
K
K
The
thing
is,
the
residents
have
died
on
drive
from
day,
one
never
objected
to.
They
could
have
built
a
taj
mahal.
Therefore
we
would
get
all
we
wanted.
Was
it
no
access
and
exit?
That
was
all
we
wanted,
never
objected
to
anything
else
and
late
city
council
planners
have
not
listened
to
one
word
with
us
and
as
far
as
the
site
meeting
was
concerned,
I
was
supposed
to
come
to
one.
K
It
was
on
my
my
birthday
about
two
years
two
three
years
ago,
when
the
councilor
hyde
was
the
counselor
and
the
week
his
father
died.
He
texts
me,
and
he
says
you
don't
have
to
come
malik.
He
says
you
don't
have
to
go
to
the
same
main,
because
the
road
is
not
coming
through
to
item
drive
and
I
said
to
him,
I
said,
look
guys.
B
E
Sorry,
chad,
I'm
getting
confused
by
this
road
issue
now.
So
what
did
the
residents
want
regarding
this
site?
Are
you
asking,
then,
that
if
this
site
is
developed,
the
road
to
these
new
houses
should
actually
go
through,
where
the
current
highways
flats
are
rather
than
onto
diadem
drive
is?
Is
that
what
residents
are
asking.
K
Yes,
that's
what
resins
are
awesome?
They
should
they
actually
should
be
going
out
at
the
top.
You
know
and
there's
a
there's,
an
access
actress
on
the
yacht
road
at
the
top,
the
little
chef
site
and
there's
one
onto
the
shelby
or
the
a63
at
the
other
side,
controlled
by
traffic
lights.
In
fact,
they
even
put
the
new
cycle,
then
down
and
they've
been
turned
they've
incorporated
the
exits
and
axis
on
on
the
yacht
road,
so
they
access
and
everything's
available.
Now,
there's
no
need
whatsoever
for
that
traffic
to
come
out
of
dynam
drive.
E
Sorry,
sir,
but
we
weren't
able
to
do
site
visits
but
like
we
usually
do
because
of
coverage,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
the
little
chef
site
is
or
these
traffic
lights
are.
So
I'm
looking
at
a
google
earth
image
at
the
moment
that.
A
E
E
K
Well,
as
at
the
moment,
we
didn't
know
this,
I
I
didn't
know
these
irish
thoughts
were
coming
down
to
the
other
week
there.
By
the
way.
No,
we
said
that
that
they
should
go
at
the
top
part.
Whether
the
entrance
is
exits
are
in
existence,
but
where
they
were
for
the
restaurant
and
the
filling
station.
I
Yeah,
I
wonder
whether
toby
could
you
put
up
the
aerial
shot?
I
think
it
shows
a
wider,
a
wider
shot
off
the
side.
I
C
K
K
Then
this
goes
on
a
yacht
road
and
it's
further
up,
because
there's
one
goes
on
the
sub
road.
Now
anybody
that's
coming
from
town
that
wants
to
go
into
this
site.
We'd
come
down
york,
road
and
straight
in
from
selby
road,
and
anybody
coming
down
york
road
would
come
in
at
at
the
top
site
and
from
yacht
road.
You
know
that's
already
there,
but
now
the
highways
flats
comes
on
well,
the
alternative
is
there,
because
it's
just
actually
the
big
entrance.
It
comes
out
before.
K
B
K
It's
bulleted
up
because,
40
years
ago
we
were
having
the
rat
run.
The
people
that,
when
I
was
building
traffic,
was
building
up
this
sneaking
and
died
on
drive
to
shoot
straight
up
and
they
got
the
bullets
that
put
up
and-
and
of
course
I
mean
I
don't
know-
I
mean
I've
only
I'm
only
talking
for
40
years,
because
that's
all
I've
lived
and
died,
I'm
trying
40
years
and
the
highways
vehicles
and
I'm
in
the
big
vehicles.
They
always
went
out
the
top
and
come
in
and
come
in
and
out
from
the
top.
B
G
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
I
I
suppose
I've
just
been
listening
to
what
mr
gillies
has
been
saying,
and
I
know
members
will
be
aware
of
this,
and
this
is
really
just
for
the
benefit
of
those
who
are
for
the
local
residents
and
the
agents
who
are
attending
the
meeting,
but
clearly
there's
a
desire
for
from
local
residents
for
the
access
for
alternative
access
arrangements
to
come
to
this
site
to
avoid
diadem
drives
from
being
used
for
us
as
planning
officers.
G
As
for
members,
as
the
decision
makers,
our
starting
point
is
that
we
have
to
determine
the
application
which
is
in
front
of
them
in
front
of
us.
So
that's
we've
got
to
make
our
come
to
view
whether
what's
before
us
in
terms
of
the
development
in
the
access
arrangements
are
acceptable.
So
that's
that's
the
that's
the
starting,
that's
the
starting
point.
G
G
And
an
inspector
will
just
reach
the
view
that
we've
got
sufficient
information
in
front
of
us
to
make
a
decision
and
he'll
hold,
or
she
will
hold
that
a
council
refusing
to
determine
an
application,
because
they're
waiting
for
further
information
about
a
wider
area
to
come
forward
is
unreasonable
behavior.
So
we
would
be
at
risk
of
losing
not
only
losing
the
appeal
but
an
award
of
costs
against
us.
G
I've
got
a
question
for
toby,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
know
that
we've
got
problems
with
the
presentation,
but
I've
managed
to
get
up
on
my
screen.
An
aerial
photo
that
illustrates
the
alternative
access
that
mr
gillies
was
talking
about.
I
can
try
and
present
my
screen
if
that's
technically
possible,
but
I'd
need
guidance
from
toby
and
also
it's
a
question
whether
in
light
of
what
I've
said,
that
would
be
helpful
for
members
anyway.
B
I
think
it
would
be
helpful,
but
I
think
your
comments
about
determining
the
application
before
us
are
very
equally
helpful
as
well.
I've
got
councillor
collins
and
lisa
brennan
highways
officer
who
wants
to
come
in
councillor
collins.
Is
it
related
to
this
and
then.
B
E
Shall
I
come
in
here
then
so
for
this
application
there
is
no
proposals
to
remove
the
point
closure
on
killing
beckbridge
as
part
of
the
highways
initial
response
to
this
application.
You
know
there
was
you
know
some
of
the
response
included
that
sort
of
potential
for
changing
the
access
ranges
in
the
future.
E
However,
that
is
only
you
know
putative,
and
it
is
part
of
the
sort
of
master
planning
for
the
whole
area
now.
So,
if
you
see
it
on,
the
development
side
is
just
to
the
south
of
the
curved
item
drive
at
the
right
of
your
site
and
killing.
That
bridge
runs
through
to
houghton
dial
selby
road
to
the
roundabout
junction.
E
The
point
closure
is
just
to
the
west
of
this
development
site
and
the
highways
flats,
which
are
the
flats
that
you
can
see
directly
off
york
road
and
at
the
moment,
there's
no
highways
or
no
road
access
through
from
those
from
those
flats.
We
are
in
discussions
with
housing
and
planning
about
the
master
planning
for
those
in
the
future
and
there
is
potential
to
change
the
access
arrangements
in
the
future,
but
it
is
very
early
stage
discussions
at
the
moment.
I
hope
that
helps.
B
I
B
B
But
despite
that,
we've
heard
from
councillor
dying
count
and
mr
gillies
nearly
elected
you
there
without
even
having
to
vote
you
in
there,
mr
gillies,
but
the
access
their
reasons
why
they
are
opposing
it
and
we'll
have
to
determine
whether
we
agree
with
them
and
so
vote
against
or
or
support
the.
K
B
B
A
Sorry,
just
just
so
I
can
be
sure,
because
my
ward
runs
along.
E
At
the
bottom
of
killingbeck
bridge
is
that
the
access
that
used
to
be
the
city
lights,
public
house.
K
It's
that's!
That's
where
the
city
lights,
the
old
works
used
to
be,
and
on
selby
road
right
and
then
the
one
on
yacht
road
is
where
they
fill
in
station
and
their
little
chef
used
to
be.
F
Yeah,
I
I
I
still
find
it
a
little
bit
hard
to
understand
what
is
the
solution
that
mr
gilles
is
proposing.
Perhaps
she
could
explain
it
again.
K
Well,
I'm
proposing
that
there
should
be
no
vehicle
access
from
this
site
or
the
top
site
through
the
item
drive
because
things
are
already
in
situation
with
traffic
calming
and
everything
and
situation,
it's
more
dangerous
to
come
out
of
item
drive
and
the
and
the
highways
report.
By
the
way,
since
that
was
made,
there's
been
500
houses
about
300
yards
up
the
road
and
secret
street
field.
That's
all
I
have
been
built.
So
that's
more
traffic
coming
down
to
item
drive
there
down
your
road
which
coming
past
you.
K
K
B
B
My
screen's
gone
strange
again:
could
you.
G
Yes,
apologies.
I've
just
got
a
bit
of
a
technical
difficulty
with
that,
so
I'm
just
seeking
advice
as
to
actually
how
to
do
that.
B
Right
so
mr
gillies
and
and
counselor
die
again.
Your
contributions
to
the
meeting
have
finished
now
so
again,
I'd
ask
with
respect
that
you
don't
take
any
further
part,
but
just
listen
and
then
members
will
be
asking
searching
questions
of
the
applicant,
I'm
sure,
and
our
officers
to
address
some
of
the
issues
that
you've
raised.
B
So
with
that
we
move
on
to
the
speaker
in
favor,
the
applicant,
mr
g,
everett
and
again,
mr
everett.
Welcome
to
the
meeting.
You've
also
got
four
minutes
to
speak.
But
again,
if
you
just
want
to
tell
us
who
you
are
in
relation
to
the
applicant
and
then
your
four
minutes
will
start
once
you've
done
your
introduction.
L
Brilliant
good
afternoon
members,
my
name's
jay
everett,
I'm
a
planning
agent
acting
for
for
dirking
homes,
I'll
be
relatively
brief,
because
obviously,
you've
had
a
good
presentation.
You've
got
a
thorough
report
in
front
of
you
and,
I
think,
just
in
summary,
it
has
been
a
very
difficult
site
for
a
small
number
of
dwellings
to
try
and
get
right,
you've
heard
and
you'll
see
in
the
office
report.
I
think
that
the
previous
application
was
in
the
system
for
about
four
years.
L
That
culminated
in
a
refusal
last
april
with
a
single
reason
for
refusal,
but
that
single
reason
raised
quite
a
number
of
technical
issues
about
about
the
scheme
and
about
the
sign
sort
of
challenging
the
design,
the
immunity
issues
and
one
of
the
reasons
for
that
is:
there's
two
easements
that
run
across
the
site
that
make
it
very
difficult
to
sort
of
change
change
the
layout
very
anyway.
So
the
upshot
of
the
refusal
is
it.
L
So
we
were
very,
very
careful
in
this
application
to
try
and
make
sure
that
we
addressed
every
single
policy
requirement
of
of
leads
in
terms
of
the
design
and
the
immunity,
space,
etcetera
and
the
housing
mix,
and
we
and
we
feel
that
we've
done
that
and
that's
represented
in
in
the
officer
report
in
front
of
you
just
in
terms
of
the
access
I'm
not
going
to
label
the
point,
because
I
think
you've
had
plenty
of
debate
already.
L
But
in
the
previous
application,
one
of
the
first
iterations
of
the
access
was
to
was,
to
put
it
straight
on
to
diadem
drive
through
the
north
of
the
site
and
at
the
time
I
remember,
the
ward
councillors
were
very
concerned
about
that.
And
the
residents
were
very
concerned
about
that,
because
the
potential
for
cars
headlights
in
particular
shining
straight
into
into
living
room
windows
and
one
of
the
changes
that
were
made
in
the
last
application
was
in
response
to
the
residents
and
the
ward
councillors
was
to
move
the
access
onto
killing
back
bridge.
L
So
so,
actually,
what
we've
done
in
the
previous
application,
which
has
been
retained
in
this
application,
was
actually
response
to
the
concerns
of
the
ward
councillors
and
the
residents
to
ensure
that
the
access
was
moved
away
from
being
directly
onto
the
north
side
of
diadem
drive.
I
guess
the
only
last
point
is.
The
access
point
is
the
only
solution
to
this
site.
It
is
an
allocated
housing
site.
It
is
the
only
way
of
getting
into
this
site.
L
Now
it's
been
tested
with
your
highway
team,
it's
been
tested
with
our
transport
consultants
and
we
feel
it's
the
it's
the
right
right
thing
to
do
really.
So
so
I
guess
in
summary,
you
know
I'll
obviously
copy
to
field
questions,
but
you
know
we
hope
you
can
endorse
the
officer's
recommendation.
Thank
you.
B
E
Thank
you,
chair,
okay,
so
this
is
a
site
that
was
on
the
sap
has
been
looked
at
by
officers,
and
I
appreciate
you've
had
to
do
some
tweaks
to
the
layout
over
the
months
and
years,
but
I'm
seriously
concerned
that
you're
not
going
to
be
providing
any
affordable
homes
and
you're
not
putting
forward
any
green
space
contribution.
E
We've
got
other
brownfield
sites
that
can
do
that.
So
what
is
it
specifically
about
this
site
that
makes
it
so
expensive
to
develop
that
you
can't
actually
make
any
contributions
towards
those
two
parts.
L
Sure,
okay,
council
column
is
the
site,
has
got
quite
significant
constraints
and
it
probably
didn't
come
through
on
the
officer,
rep
presentation,
so
I
think
on
the
site
layout
plan,
I'm
not
sure
you
can
get
it
up,
but
there
are
two
significant
drains
that
run
under
the
site
that
have
big
easements
next
to
them.
So
it
makes
it
very
difficult
to
to
in
terms
of
the
level
of
construction,
about
how
you
actually
construct
the
houses
respecting
those
easements.
That's
one
issue
that
adds
to
adds
to
the
cost.
L
The
second
issue,
obviously,
is
brownfield.
We've
got
to
deal
with
the
remediation
in
terms
of
the
site
and
the
drainage
requirements
and,
secondly,
the
end
the
end
values,
which
are
the
things
that
drive
the
viability
assessment
are
not
quite
there
and
because
of
the
the
nature
of
the
area.
So
the
values
are
not
quite
as
high
as
maybe
as
some
other
parts
of
leads,
which
then
create
a
bigger
gap
between
the
costs
and
the
revenue
that
can
be
achieved.
L
The
viability
on
this
side
has
been
tested
about
five
or
six
times
over
the
last
four
or
five
years
it
was
originally
tested.
I
think
in
2016
was
a
viability
report
by
the
applicants
that
was
tested
twice
by
the
evaluation
office
agency
and
it's
been
tested
another
twice
as
part
of
this
application
as
well.
L
So
I
think
the
this
final
report
shows
the
breakdown
of
the
costs,
which
are
perhaps
not
exceptional
in
relation
to
some
other
brownfield
sites
in
particularly,
but
just
because
of
that
combination
of
the
costs,
the
nature
of
the
constraints
of
the
sites
and
the
nature
of
the
end
values
that
can
be
achieved.
It
just
makes
it
a
very,
very
difficult
site
to
develop,
and
the
margins
even
now
are
still
you
know,
are
particularly
small.
So,
unfortunately,
that's
the
reason
why
it's
very
difficult
to
get
affordable
housing
into
that
viability,
assessment.
E
Thank
you
chair
just
one
question:
what
did
the
sap
actually
say
regarding
quantity
of
homes
on
the
site,
then.
L
L
Well,
the
the
absolutely
the
way
the
the
financial
viability
appraisal
works
is
the
it
plugs
in
the
costs
and
then
it
plugs
in
the
potential
revenues
that
could
be
achieved
based
on
advice
from
agents
that
in
terms
of
what
they
feel
the
end
values
will
be
when
it's
constructed.
So
those
values
are
tested
by
the
valuation
office
agency.
B
We've
got
brian
still
with
us
and
we'll
bring
him
in
later
after
questions.
I
think
just
to
again
develop
that
his
findings
on
that
evaluation
reports.
I
think
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
that
would
help
me
understand
it
a
little
bit
more,
so
I've
got
councillor
jenkins
next
then
councillor
smith,.
F
Yes,
can
I
ask
how
you'd
respond
to
the
question
raised
by
mr
gillies
about
the
development
from
keep
merge
and
strata
up
the
road
at
the
sacramento
hospital
site
about
500
extra
houses
and
whether
that
would
impact
upon
the
access
arrangements
onto
york,
road
from
your
site?.
L
Sure
I
can't
give
the
detail
of
the
answer.
Maybe
the
the
the
officer
for
the
highway
department
might
give
you
a
bit
more
background,
but
when
they
do
the
transport
assessments,
they
factor
in
elements
of
growth
that
take
into
account
either
consented
developments
or
committed
developments.
So
in
theory,
when
you
do
a
transport
assessment
schemes
that
are
in
the
pipeline
are
already
taken
into
account
in
terms
of
the
volume
of
traffic
that
they
will
add
to
the
network
as
the
baseline
for
assessing
the
impact
of
the
development
in
question.
F
And
just
to
say
that,
certainly
the
the
people
who
live
in
the
strata
and
keep
mode
houses
opposite
asda,
they
it's
it's
traffic,
light
controlled
and
the
amount
of
time
they
have
is
about
20
seconds
to
get
it's
one
car
at
a
time.
Almost
so
here,
there'd
be
no
traffic
lights.
Would
there
be
no
means
of
controlling
access
onto
the
main
york
road.
L
No
that's
correct.
Obviously
the
volume
of
housing
is
very
small.
Really
so
again,
I
don't
know
the
figures
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
maybe
the
highway
officer
might
be
able
to
help,
but
the
transport
assessment
will
will
predict
the
number
of
traffic
movements
associated
with
23
dwellings
at
peak
times,
and
I
would
think
normally
the
number
of
cars
on
the
prediction
model
will
be
something
like
four
or
six
at
a
guest
at
peak
time.
So
the
actual
volume
of
traffic
involved
with
this
proposal
is
actually
very
small.
A
Thank
you
chair,
so
I'm
going
to
come
in
and
ask
why
we
don't
have
another
viability
clause.
Please
chair.
I
feel
very
disappointed
for
the
residents
in
a
ward
and
the
ward
councillors
when
these
developments
come
forward
and
they
aren't
pushed
to
provide
anything
back
into
the
community.
A
I
understand
that
there
are
via
you
know
that
they're
saying
it's
not
a
viable
site,
but
you
know
we're
all
old
enough
to
understand
that
a
developer
doesn't
develop
for
altruistic
reasons
generally,
so
there
must
be
at
least
an
option
of
some
profit
at
the
end.
A
So
I
think
it's
only
right
and
fair
that
they
do
give
something
back
to
the
community.
So
I'd
like
to
see
the
option
of
another
viability
clause,
and
I
wondered
if
what
what
your
thoughts
were
about
that
mr
everett,
please,
whether
you
would
be
willing
to
talk
to
the
planners
and
try
and
set
something
like
that
up.
L
Yes,
well,
I
I
listened
to
your
to
your
debate
on
on
the
previous
application
and
read
the
papers
and
and
and
understood
the
clause
there.
I
think
the
difference
between
the
two
schemes
is
quite
vast
in
relation
to
the
one
you
just
considered,
it's
obviously
a
phased
scheme
with
a
lot.
You
know
a
much
larger
number
of
units
with
a
lot
of
unknowns
in
terms
of
revenues
and
grants,
etc.
Here
you've
got
a
much
smaller
scheme
with
a
much
shorter,
build
out
period.
L
That
would
effectively
be
let
by
one
design
and
build
contract,
for
example,
so
the
build
would
probably
take.
I
would
estimate
around
about
12
months
to
develop
23
hours.
You
know
12
18
months
or
something
of
that
description,
so
it's
actually
a
much
much
more
knowns
in
this
particular
case,
which
leads
you
to
the
conclusion
that
that
kind
of
clause
is
probably
unnecessary
or
not
likely
to
be
needed
really.
L
Is
they
they
base
their
viability
and
profits
off
what
the
site
has
a
notional
value.
If
you
like,
so
they
say
that
notional
value
is
220,
000
pounds
in
this
particular
case
and
by
the
time
you
packed
in
the
costs
and
the
potential
revenue,
they
say
that
that
site
would
be
worth
around
about
42
000
pounds.
So
it's
about
180
000
pounds
short
of
where
it
should
be
in
order
to
get
to
a
viable
scheme
that
a
normal
developer
would
want.
So
in
this
particular
case
to
get
a
swing
from
the
revenues
on
23
dwellings.
L
That's
going
to
get
past
180
000
pounds
is
probably
highly
unlikely
over
the
course
of
18
months
or
even
a
couple
of
years.
So
I
don't
see
the
value
of
a
claw
back
or
clause
in
this
particular
case,
because
it's
probably
unlikely
to
work.
For
those
reasons.
Really,
I'm
not
sure
if
I've
explained
that
very
well
but.
L
Well,
I
mean
these
are
marginal
sites,
and
this
is
a
this
is
a
you
know,
a
smaller
scale
developer
that
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
achieve
a
20
margin
to
give
it
a
go
if
you
like,
but
there's
always
a
balance
for
developers
and
these
type
of
developers,
they
do
they're
not
in
it
for
taking
unacceptable
risks
and
they
they
are
in
it
to
try
and
make
a
profit,
of
course,
and
the
degree
of
that
profit
and
what
they're
willing
to
try
and
make,
and
the
risk
that
they're
willing
to
take
is
down
to
the
individual
developer.
L
A
Okay,
so
why
not
give
two
percent
of
that
back
to
the
community?
I'm
sorry!
I
just
feel
that
you
know
it
needs
to
be
something
back
to
the
communities
that
the
developers
are
working
in
the
communities
are.
You
know
in
this
particular
community
feels
it's
adversely
affected
before
you've
put
a
spade
in
the
ground.
L
I
I
totally
appreciate
what
you're
saying
and
the
principle
of
planning
game
and
planning
obligations
is
an
absolutely
sound
one,
but
there
are
difficult
signs
and
these-
and
this
is
one
of
them,
and
I
think
you
also
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
leeds
also
has
a
community
infrastructure
level
that
will
be
levered
on
this
scheme.
That
does
generate
a
degree
of
finance
that
does
go
back
into
the
local
community.
L
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
think
we'll
bring
brian
in
at
this
stage,
because
when
I
hear
six
percent
and
we
normally
talk
about
a
20
margin
and
the
table
on
page
69
talks
about
20
and
then
17
in
another
column,
so
just
to
explain
what
that
deficit
is
there's
also
on
page
68.
B
D
Yeah
so
similar
to
the
earlier
liability
appraisal
that
we
reviewed.
D
This
is
a
little
bit
different
because
various
people
in
my
organization
have
looked
at
this
over
a
number
of
years
and
we've
struggled
to
struggle
to
get
reach
a
conclusion
that
tells
us
that
it's
viable,
it's
probably
useful,
to
add
a
couple
of
things,
a
bit
more
detail
into
the
value
of
this,
the
value
of
the
units.
D
I
think
the
I
think
it's
very
crude.
It's
crucial
to
the
viability,
the
number
of
houses
that
are
in
this
scheme.
D
It's
it's
on
the
margins
of
the
the
number
of
houses
I
think
23,
isn't
it
you've
got
23
houses
and
you're
on
the
margins
of
a
critical
mass
of
market
value
houses
that
can
subsidize
the
provision
of
affordable
housing.
So
the
first
part
I'd
like
to
make
is
that
it's
a
small
scheme
you've
got
what
we're
saying
is
we've
got.
D
The
other
point
is
this:
development
isn't
in
a
particularly
high
value
area
off
york,
road
close
to
the
dual
carriageway.
It's
also
got
an
elevated
railway
line
to
the
rear
of
it.
And
again
I
don't
want
to
sound
as
if
I'm
I'm
being
I'm
not
being
impartial,
I'm
just
being
entirely
objective.
Here
we
have
to
value
the
site
or
the
and
the
properties
on
it
reflect
the
individual
circumstances.
D
So
it's
got
a
small
number
of
houses.
It's
not
in
a
particularly
high
value
area,
and
I
don't
think
it
was
mentioned
earlier.
You've
got
that
elevated
railway
line
to
the
rear,
which
may
people
might
see
that
was
a
less
attractive
outlook.
I
don't
know
it's
not
for
me
to
say,
but
I
you
know,
I
think
it
was
it's
reasonable
that
they
probably
would
on
the
on
the
profitability
level.
I
think
the
original
viability
appraisal
submitted
was.
D
I
think
it
was
a
lot
of
arguing
that
it
should
be
20,
but
we
have
challenged
a
number
of
inputs
on
this,
but
you
know,
ultimately,
we
can't
get
it
to.
We
can't
work
with
the
numbers
and
get
it
sufficiently
profitable
that
there's
a
surplus
that
can
contribute
towards
contribute
towards
affordable
housing.
B
Well,
when
you
say
sufficiently
profitable,
because
obviously
the
last
one
were
quite
clear
that
it
wasn't
minus
one
million
pounds
to
to
break
even
basically
wasn't
it.
Oh,
we
say
yeah,
whereas
this
one
is
mr
everett
mentioned
180
000,
but
is
that
to
get
to
20
or
is
that
to
break
even.
L
Okay,
I
can.
I
can
endorse
that.
The
report
does
say
that
the
sale
contribution
would
be
paid
with
that
viability.
B
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
mr
mcguire
or
mr
everett
could
probably
answer
this
for
me.
I'd
like
to
know
if
a
developer
builds
an
affordable
home,
do
they
lose
money
on
it?
Do
they
break
even
on
it,
or
do
they
make
a
little
bit
of
money
on
it?
The
reason
I'm
asking
this
question
is
at
the
bottom
left-hand
corner.
We've
got
a
row
of
three
houses.
E
If
you
move
those
over
to
the
right
a
little
bit,
you
could
actually
get
a
fourth
one
in
there
and
I'm
just
thinking.
If
the
developer
doesn't
lose
money
on
building
an
affordable
house,
couldn't
one
actually
be
put
in
there.
It's
not
the
target
we
wanted,
but
it
it
is
part
way
towards
providing
some
affordable
home.
L
L
On
the
last
game,
when
we
had
25
units-
and
it
was
refused
one
of
the
reasons
was-
it
was
because
we
had
too
many
on
there.
We
were
trying
to
squeeze
too
much
in
and
it
was
just
really
really
difficult
to
make
it
work
in
terms
of
the
the
adequate
size
of
the
immunity
space
for
the
gardens
getting
the
access
in
the
turning
points.
L
So
that's
why
we
ended
up
at
23.
It
was-
and
I
guess
the
second
element
to
your
question
is,
in
my
experience
with
leeds
the
to
build
an
affordable
house.
Is
the
developers
lost
and
that's
because
of
the
transfer
values
that
are
imposed
so,
for
example,
if
it's
a
hundred
thousand
pounds
to
construct
a
house
at
75
square
meters,
the
leads
transport
value
is
less
than
the
thousand
pound
per
square
meter.
So
it
it.
It
works
out
as
a
subsidy
by
the
developer.
So
it's
my
understanding.
D
Okay,
I
I've
I've
got
an
answer
here,
for
you
now
ready
for
it.
Okay,
in
my
the
way
you
model
some
of
these
viability-
appraisals,
it's
quite
complicated.
So
what
you
have
to
do
is
you
have
to
you-
have
to
arrive
at
a
benchmark,
land
value
and
and
and
put
into
the
appraisal.
What
is
the
minimum
return
a
land
owner?
Would
it
would
accept
to
sell
this
site
to
enable
development?
So
so
what
would
the
landowner
sell
this
land
for
to
a
developer
and
release
it
for
housing
and
when
we've
run
an
appraisal?
D
Well,
first
of
all,
we've
said
that
that
target
is
220.
220
000
pounds,
we're
saying
that
at
220
000
pounds
it's
reasonable
for
a
land
owner
to
sell
this
site
to
a
developer
and
release
it
for
housing,
and
when
we
run
our
modeling,
we
can
only
get
the
land
value
to
40.
It's
43
000
pounds.
So
what
that
effectively
means
is
that
the
site
isn't
sufficiently
viable.
The
other
way
to
probably
put
it
is
that
the
difference
between
the
benchmark
land
value
and
the
land
value
that
we've
computed
is
177
000
bounce.
D
So,
theoretically,
the
site
is
losing
177
000
pounds.
It's
not
it's
not
even
marginal
in
terms
of
providing
affordable
housing.
It's
not
as
bad
as
this
case
that
we
discussed
earlier.
But
the
combination
of
low
house
values
is
about
350
000
pounds
worth
of
abnormal
costs
and
on
a
small
development
of
just
over
20
units
and
unfortunately,
it's
all
conspired
to
make
the
site
less
viable.
D
B
L
Is
it's
the
difference
between
the
appraisals?
One
is
a
residual
appraisal
which
gives
you
a
land
value
and
the
other
one
is
a
percentage
driven
appraisal.
So
again,
brown
could
probably
explain
that
in
a
bit
more
detail,
but
the
do
it.
Whichever
way
you
read
it
site
isn't
worth
very
much
if
you
want
to
get
to
that
level
of
profit.
E
The
land
value
then,
mr
mcguire,
no
sorry,
mr
everett,
are
you
saying
that
leads
charged
you
too
much
for
the
site.
B
F
Chair,
sorry,
mr
everett,
it's
my
first
ever
meeting
and
I
just
repeat
what
council
collins
sort
of
said
just
from
my
own
understanding
if
the
land
is
already
there
and
if
you
can
squeeze
in
an
extra
house,
if
you
know
what
I
mean
and
if
you
you
know,
so
how
much
are
you
actually
losing
on
that?
That's
that's
what
I'd
be
interested
to
to
to
know
because
affordable
housing
is
a
major
major
issue.
I
mean
you
know.
We
all
agree.
L
L
L
So
it's
a
bit
like
a
chicken
leg,
really
isn't
it
if
we
try
and
go
back
to
24
or
25
units,
we
we
have
the
same
problems
that
we
had
when
we
had
a
refusal.
So
really,
I
think
you
know
we
have
we've
really
tested
this
game.
We've
been
pushing
it
for
a
number
number
of
years
and
I
think
for
me
this
is
probably
a
much
better
solution
than
the
one
that
we
had
last
time
where
you
know
we
did
try
and
push
it
with
the
officers.
L
L
L
Usually,
so
that's
probably
you
know,
that's
really
the
reason
why
I
think
we'd
struggle
to
embrace
the
idea.
B
Okay
thanks
for
that
any
more
questions,
one
final
sweep
no
okay.
Well.
Thank
you,
mr
everett.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
answering
those
questions.
And
again
your
party
is
finished
here
unless
again
there's
any
clarification
required
in
some
of
the
offices
questions.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
we
move
on
to
offices,
quest
questions
for
officers
rather
any
hands.
C
Well,
I've
been
staring
at
this
plan
looking
at
the
layout
and
what
strikes
me
is
that
the
houses
are
very
small.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
width
of
the
double
parking
lots.
C
C
Do
these
plans
comply
with
our
space
standards.
I
Hi
counselor,
yes,
it's
the
space
standards
have
been
something
as
the
applicant
as
the
agent
mentioned
have
been
brought
up
previously,
and
the
current
plans
do
comply
with
space
standards,
including
as
you'll,
see
in
the
report.
One
of
the
rooms
in
most
of
the
housing
types
is
labeled
an
office
or
study
and
we've
also
calculated
if
that
were
to
be
used
as
a
bedroom,
to
see
if
the
the
figures
still
work
for
space
standards
and
we've
found
that
they
do
so.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I've
got
councillor
smith,
then
jenkins,
then
sharp.
A
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
afraid
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
offices
and
and
ask
them
to
to
consider
some
sort
of
profit
based
share
on
this
one
again.
A
I
don't
know
whether
they
can
figure
anything
out
or
not,
and
I
understand
all
about
margins,
but
the
fact
that
the
landowner
possibly
paid
more
than
they
ought
to
have
done
to
make
this
site
viable,
should
not
be
a
fault
of
the
community,
and
I
believe
that
you
know
we
we're
here
to
look
after
the
city
and
look
after
our
communities.
G
If
I
could
come
in
there,
chad-
because
it's
just
a
couple
of
points
and
because
council
collins
raised
this
issue
too,
about
the
the
price
that
the
developer
has
paid
for
the
land
and
we
we
heard
from
the
developers
agent,
saying
they'd-
probably
paid
too
much,
but
that
doesn't
actually
form.
We
need
to
be
clear
that
doesn't
form
part
of
the
viability
appraisal,
the
cost,
what
they've
actually
paid
for
the
land
is
disregarded.
G
Brian
mentioned
the
benchmark
value
and
that's
the
product
of
the
existing
land
value.
So
as
the
land
is
at
the
current
time,
its
last
use.
What
the
land
value
is
there,
plus?
What
would
the
land
owner
a
premium
as
it
were,
for
the
landowner
to
release
the
land?
So
it's
a
theoretical
exercise.
It's
not
based
on
what
land
has
actually
been
sold
for,
but
in
a
sense
what
the
land
in
its
current
state
is
considered
to
be
worth
plus
a
bit
for
the
for
the
sale
of
the
land.
G
Then
picking
up
on
council
smith's
points
about
introducing
a
review
clause,
it
is
difficult
for
the
reasons
that
that
jay
everett
has
set
out.
That's
really
a
short
build
time,
but
if
members
want
us
to
do
that,
of
course,
we
will
talk
to
the
developer
and
we'll
have
we'll
build
in
a
review
clause,
say
after
around
about
construction
of
50
percent
or
75
percent
of
the
of
the
dwellings
and
revisit
that
we'd
be
happy
to
do.
F
Okay,
is
there
a
master
plan
within
the
council
for
the
whole
site,
including
the
the
wild
west
side
and
the
future
of
the
highways,
and
would
that
impinge
upon
this
development.
J
I
I'm
I've
said
I
don't
know
a
huge
deal
about
the
master
planning
of
the
highways
flats.
I
have
spoken
to
officers
dealing
with
that
master
planning
and,
as
I
understand
that
that's
being
done
in
isolation
of
both
this
development
site
and
the
site
known
as
the
well
well
west
side
on
the
through
to
pass
killing
back
bridge
at
the
moment,
it's
something
that's
been
considered
in
sections
sort
of
piecemeal
fashion,
rather
than
all
together.
I
As
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation,
the
the
highways
flats
are
in
the
ownership
of
of
leeds
city
council,
whereas
this
site
and
the
site
that
we
call
the
wild
wild
west
side
is
within
the
ownership
of
the
applicant
and
at
the
moment,
there's
no
master
plan
that
I'm
aware
of
in
place
to
to
bring
out
the
scheme.
I
All
together
like
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is
perhaps
timing,
but
also
that
this
application
has
been
submitted
and
each
application
is
determined
on
its
merits
and
we're
obliged
to
to
look
at
what's
what's
in
front
of
us
at
the
moment.
So
I
don't
know
whether
that
quite
answers,
the
question,
but
not
at
the
moment
is
my
understanding.
F
I
mean
just
just
to
supplement
that
so
has
there
been
any
any
indication
that
the
developer
wants
to
build
on
the
wild
west
side.
I
The
applica
there
are
no
extant
permissions
on
that
site
at
the
moment,
so
we
have
no
applications
and
no
planning
applications
in
to
deal
with
that
site.
I
don't
know
whether
jay
is
the
agent.
If,
if
you
want
to
speak
on
this,
there's
nothing
formal
being
submitted
and
in
terms
of
a
planning
application
at
the
moment.
L
Well,
I
can't
be
very
helpful,
I'm
afraid
my
instructions
with
a
client
are
purely
in
relation
to
this
job
and
I've
not
had
any
discussions
with
a
client
about
his
other
land
holdings.
A
Thanks
chair,
my
questions
for
lisa.
I
agree
with
councillor
die
about
her
concerns
in
relation
to
access
on
diamond,
dire,
dumb
drive
and.
E
Hi
the
junction's
been
assessed
as
being
suitable
for
the
you
know,
the
the
amount
of
development
that's
proposed
and
it
is
working
right.
You
know
it
is
on
your
left
and
left
out
junction,
because
it's
on
a
dual
carriageway,
but
you
know
we
are
in
early
discussions
with
housing,
colleagues
about
the
highways
flat
site
and
the
potential
to
bring
a
road
in
through
there
through
you
know,
through
to
killing
vic
bridge,
but
not
lose
the
point
closure,
but
potentially
move
the
point
closure
east.
E
So
that
is
an
option
that
we're
actively
looking
at
at
the
moment
which,
but
it
it's.
You
know
it's
in
it's
it's
separate
to
this
planning
application,
but
the
actual
junction
onto
the
york
road
is
meets.
All
the
you
know,
requirements
in
terms
of
visibility.
Likewise,
the
junction
onto
killing
bike
bridge
for
this
development
meets
our
requirements.
E
Also,
the
at
the
moment
on
our
on
our
records.
There's
only
one
world
traffic
collision
on
record
at
the
diadem
road
junction
on
york,
road
and
it
was
a
slight
collision,
a
occlusion
with
a
I
think,
of
a
taxi
and
a
cyclist.
But
there
was
only
slight
injury.
So
we've
got
no
accident
record.
We've
got
no
evidence.
This
is
a
dangerous
junction,
also
the
the
point
that
was
made
about
the
seacroft
hospital
development.
E
Yes,
that
will
add
traffic
onto
the
network,
but
there's
there's
a
you
know:
big
signalized
junction
to
the
east,
which
will
create,
which
creates
spaces
in
the
traffic
to
allow
vehicles
to
exit
dive
and
drive
onto
york
road.
And
so
we
don't
we,
you
know
we
do
not
have
an
issue
with
this
development
and
the
impact
at
the
junction.
A
E
Collins,
sorry,
I
got
a
message
covering
my
unmute
button.
I
want
to
go
back
to
this
land
value.
Maybe
david
could
answer
this.
I
understand
what
you
may
mean
david
about.
E
The
viability
is
looking
at
what
the
land
value
is
now,
and
normally
this
wouldn't
matter
if
the
developer
had
purchased
the
land
privately,
but
but
this
land
was
bought
from
the
city
council,
so
I
would
like
to
know:
do
we
are
we
aware
of
what
the
difference
in
land
value
price
is
between
what
the
developer
paid
and
what
the
current
day
valuation
is
because
if
our
asset
management
team
sell
sold
this
cheap
to
the
developer
because
they
knew
of
all
the
constraints-
and
there
is
a
significant
difference
between
what
they
paid
for
it
and
what
it's
valued
at
now
in
a
positive
step,
then
that
is
different
to
the
case.
E
That
everything's
been
fair
and
unequal.
So
do
we
do
we
know
what
profit
they've
already
made
on
the
land
or
loss
that
they've
made
already
on
the
land.
B
J
D
I
I
I
know,
I
know
what
they
paid
for
the
site
and
I
can't
really
disclose
it
unless
the
agent
wants
to
disclose
it.
It's
it's
not
quite
privileged
information,
but
it's
not
for
me
to
tell
you,
but
I
can
tell
you
in
very
rough
terms
that
we've
lost
75
percent
of
what
we
paid
for
the
site
when
you
appraise
it
today,.
B
No
a
question
from
me:
if
I
may:
what's
the
value
of
green
space
that
we're
missing
out
on
because
I've
just
trying
to
get
in
my
head
what
the
shortfalls
are
and
what
the
pop
gains
are,
so
we've
got
49k
in
silk
coming
our
way
we
lose
just
three
affordable
houses
and
that'll,
have
its
monetary
value
and
there's
then
there's
a
lack
of
green
space.
What
would
that
contribution
be.
B
You
can
yeah
any
more
questions
members.
It
appears
not
so
again
we'll
move
on
to
comments,
so
please
use
the
racehands
facility
once
again
and
just
give
me
your
thoughts
on
where
you
are
with
this
application.
B
G
Sir,
it's
the
green
space
figure
chair.
I
think
I
found
the
answer.
It's
on
page
69
of
the
panel
papers
and
the
planning
policy
is
the
top
left-hand
square,
as
it
were
at
the
table
planning
policy,
stroke,
section,
106
total.
It
says
eight
square
meters,
green
space
per
unit,
on-site
contribution,
total
154
800..
B
I
I
haven't
had
that
that
calculated
as
a
sort
of
a
figure
in
pound
signs.
B
All
right,
okay,
then:
let's
move
on
to
comments,
and
just
before
we
do
I'll
just
draw
you
to
paragraph
45,
where
the
nppf
gives
specific
guidance
about
viability
and
from
about
fifth
line
down
about
the
way
to
be
given
to
a
viability.
Assessment
is
a
matter
for
the
decision
maker
having
regard
for
all
the
circumstances
in
the
case,
etc,
etc.
You'll
all
have
read
that,
but
we'll
just
hold
that
thought.
While
you
make
your
comments
so
I'll
await
some
hands
to,
let
us
know
how
people
are.
B
No
hands
appear
to
be
going
up:
okay,
oh
counselor,
collins,.
E
I
was
hoping
somebody
else
would
comment
before
me,
but
I'm
usually
not
at
all
happy
when
developers
bring
something
forward
that
doesn't
policy
compliant,
and
I
agree
with
councillor
smith
that
community
is
losing
out
enormously
here.
However,
it
does
seem
that
the
developer
has
already
overpaid
us
by
a
a
percentage
to
actually
procure
the
site,
so
I
can
understand
why
this
site
may
be
less
viable
now
than
it
might
have
been
if
they
played
paid
the
proper
market
value.
So
we've
already
effectively
had
a
bite
at
our
cherries.
E
So
at
the
moment
I'm
minded
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
development,
but
just
to
let
all
developers
there
know
that
we
have
policies
for
a
reason
and
people
should
be
trying
to
make
their
developments
compliant.
Thank
you,
chair.
B
A
Thanks
chair,
I
I
actually
like
the
development.
I'll,
be
quite
honest,
you
know
it.
It
brings
home
to
the
area
it's
on
a
brownfield
site.
I
don't
I
don't
dislike
it
at
all.
I
feel
disappointed
for
the
community
that
aren't
going
to
benefit
from
the
sums
in
our
policies,
but
I
understand
the
reasoning
behind
it,
so
I'm
I'm
more
yes
than
no,
but
no
I
I
don't.
I
don't
dislike
it.
I
just
dislike
the
fact
that
the
policies
aren't
being
followed.
C
C
It
may
not
be
acceptable
to
some
of
the
residents,
but
in
planning
terms
it
is
acceptable
as
regards
the
lack
of
affordable
housing,
I
don't
think
the
council
can
have
it
its
cake
and
it
and
and
eat
it
and
eat
it.
It
has
already
been
paid
a
considerable
sum,
I'm
quite
sure
that
if
we
turn
this
down,
it
would
go
to
an
appeal
and
we
would
lose
with
all
the
the
costs.
C
B
Thank
you
for
that
counselor
nash.
Are
there
any
other
comments
from
members?
I
see?
No,
so
I'll
just
give
give
my
comment.
So
I,
like
you,
all,
are
very
concerned
when
we
we
come
to
a
non-policy,
compliant
application.
That's
why
I
was
keen,
as
it
says,
in
the
introduction,
after
consulting
with
me,
that
this
came
to
panel,
and
I
thought
I'm
gonna
need
some
convincing
to
approve
this,
but
I
couldn't
like
you
all
with
an
open
mind
to
do
that
now
we
can
all
argue,
I
suspect
we
all
agree
actually
about
the
developers.
B
Agree,
sort
of
accepted
margin
of
circa
20
or
17
in
this
case
is
too
high.
Certainly
I'm
not
misquoting
council
andrew
carter,
who
agreed
with
me.
I
think
either
a
joint
plans
or
a
development
plans
panel
when
we
both
challenge
that
and
lots
of
other
businesses
don't
get
anywhere
near
that
margin
and
operate
successfully,
but
we're
not
here
to
judge
on
the
moralities
of
of
profits
margins
on
on
housing
developers.
B
The
the
sill
is
obviously
a
positive
contribution,
which
is
to
be
recognized.
The
lack
of
on-site
green
space
is
is
addressed
and
it
talks
about
nearby
green
space,
which
is
available.
It
is
very
disappointing
that
that
can't
be
enhanced
with
that,
so
150
000
pound,
which
on
a
viable
development,
would
be
made.
B
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
introduce
the
review
clause,
but
mindful
that
it's
unlikely
to
yield
a
significant
difference
if,
if
it's
built
out
quickly,
obviously,
if
the
wait
till
towards
the
three
years,
land
values
may
or
house
prices
will
raise
and
who
knows
where
we
are
so
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
that
in
so
with
that
in
mind,
if
the
emotions
put
to
support
it
with
that
extra
addition
of
the
club
review
rather
with
clawback
I'll,
probably
also
join
you
in
importing
him
further.
A
B
G
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
If
it
includes
the
review
clause,
I
suggest
that
it
probably
should
be
a
defer
and
delegate
approval
to
the
chief
planning
officer,
subject
to
the
conditions
set
out
on
pages
49
and
50,
but
also
subject
to
an
agreement
being
formed
with
the
applicant,
and
my
first
thoughts
are
that
this
will
probably
have
to
be
through
a
section
106
agreement
to
build
in
a
review
clause.
G
I
would
suggest
that
we
probably
set
that
at
around
about
75
of
of
sales,
to
give
the
maximum
chance
to
for
the
developer,
to
make
some
money,
but
also
to
a
proper
assessment
of
the
the
true
viability
of
the
scheme
to
be
made
and
maximize
the
chance
of
delivering
something
in
terms
of
affordable,
housing
and
and
green
space.
So
I
think,
that's
probably
where
we
are
at
chair.
Thank
you.
C
I'd
be
happy
with
a
move
deferring
delegates
to
officers.
B
So
then
we
move
on
to
the
vote.
Counselor
almas
first.
B
B
And
I'm
also
for
it.
So
if
debbie
could
just
summarize
the
numbers,
please.
A
B
I
do
hope
you
get
on
and
build
out
or
your
client
builds
out
mr
everett
quickly
and
then
hopefully
linking
with
the
advice
around
the
master
plan
with
the
other
site.
I
think
that's
in
your
clients,
ownership
and
the
other
land
that
the
council
is
in
because
that's
clearly
a
steer
that
would
benefit
the
city,
the
area
and
the
civic
trust.
Also
welcome
that
and
again
commiserations
to
the
objectives.
B
I
understand
you
won't
be
happy
with
the
decision,
but
we've
made
it
in
you
know
considering
the
evidence,
counselor
nash,
I
think,
put
it
really
well
how
we've
come
to
our
decision
making
this
afternoon
david.
I
don't
if
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that.
It's
kind
of
been
summarized
I
think
previously.
G
No,
thank
you,
chad.
The
only
thing
I
suppose
I'd
make
a
point
on
reflection
is
just
to
particularly
thank
members
in
respect
to
the
input
in
mount
saint
mary's.
I
think
that's
the
members
input
has
there
particularly
made
significant
improvements
to
to
that
scheme,
so
it's
been
of
great
benefit.
Thank
you.
Chair.
B
Okay,
thank
you
so
with
that
members
and
officers
and
the
thousands
that
are
watching
on
online,
oh
councillor,
collins
wants
to
jump
in
just
because
they're
not
just
now
getting
work
wound
up.
E
B
Okay,
excellent,
so
with
that
I'm
going
to
close
the
meeting.
The
next
meeting
is
on
the
18th
of
march,
which
is
probably
cheltenham
week.
Isn't
it
but
we're.