►
From YouTube: Leeds City Council - Development Plan Panel - 11.12.20
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Excellent
good
morning,
everybody
welcome
to
this
remote
meeting
in
the
development
plan
panel.
My
name
is
councilman
walsh
and
I'll
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
Hope
you,
like
my
festive
backdrop.
This
is
a
do
you
like
to
confirm.
As
usual,
I've
got
my
preamble
to
go
through
the
legal
niceties
or
observe,
so
this
meeting
of
the
development
plan
panel
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
A
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
remote
attendance,
while
items
today
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
slight
changes
to
how
you
manage
the
debate.
I
know
you've
all
heard
this
quite
a
few
times
now,
but
bear
with
me
therefore,
can
all
attendees
mute
their
microphones
unless
they
invite
them
to
speak.
This
will
avoid
disruption
from
background
noise.
Can
all
participants
please
keep
their
cameras
on
during
the
meeting,
unless,
obviously,
you've
got
internet
instability
and
then
let
us
know
in
the
chat
that'd
be
great.
A
A
Members
wishing
to
ask
questions
I'll
make
comments
to
do
so
by
using
the
raised
hand
facility,
and
I
will
endeavor
to
keep
my
eyes
peeled.
So
I
can
see
you
all
do
that:
ask
your
assistants
and
patients
while
I
go
through
this
process
in
order
to
avoid
any
disruption
to
the
meeting
I
should
I
lose
internet
connect
connectivity
I
propose
an
appointed
deputy
chair
could
step
into
him
absence
and
I
move
the
council.
Richie
beat
up
deputy
chair
and
invite
another
member
to
second
the
motion.
So
let
me
bring
my
screen
back.
A
And
abstention.
Sorry
silence
is
agreement
as
they
say
so:
brilliant
right,
okay,
so
I'll
now
do
the
introductions
for
members
and
officers
so
we'll
start
in
usual
fashion
with
councillor
anderson.
A
Next
on,
my
list
is
council
aries,
but
we've
received
apologies
from
council
arab
for
this
morning.
Fortunately
something's
coming,
she
can't
attend
councillor
campbell
has
councillor
campbell
joined
us,
or
is
he
giving
his
apologies?
I
know
he's
got
some
issues
today.
A
Okay,
thanks
very
much
and
councillor
carter,
we've
had
apologies
from,
and
council
wadsworth
is
attending
as
a
substitute,
so
council
wildlife.
You
want
to
introduce
yourself
at
this
point
yeah
good
good
morning,
everybody
I'm
councillor
paul
woodward.
Thank
you
very
much.
Council
collins.
F
Bruin
councillor
caroline
grew
and
hello,
everybody
I
represent
bramley
and
stunningly.
Thank
you
very.
A
And
adam.
I
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
So,
let's
turn
to
our
regular
agenda
tash.
If
you
want
to
go
through
items,
one
two,
five,
please.
C
A
Great
thanks,
tash
right,
so,
let's
move
swiftly
along
to.
We
have
no
minutes
to
approve.
So,
let's
move
on
to
a
gender
item,
six,
which
is
the
lease
allocation
plan,
a
consultation
on
the
middle
of
the
37
policies
to
the
secretary
of
state,
which
is
a
great
mouthful.
So
I
understand
it's
janet
and
matthew
to
provide
the
update
and
then
we'll
do
questions
and
comments
in
our
usual
fashion.
C
Thank
you,
chair
I'll
start
off.
Members
will
recall
the
previous
report
to
dpp
on
the
8th
of
september,
which
provided
a
briefing
on
the
relief
ordered
by
the
high
court
on
the
20th
of
august.
C
These
are
36
housing
allocations
and
one
mixed
user
allocation
for
housing
and
employment
uses
a
list
of
the
sites
are
provided
at
appendix
one
and
a
plan
shown
their
location
at
appendix
two.
The
remainder
of
the
sap
remains
adopted
and
is
unaffected
by
the
remittal
process.
C
A
C
Yeah
at
september's
panel,
the
next
steps
for
the
sap
were
outlined,
namely
to
update
the
evidence
base
supporting
the
sap
and
to
identify
the
proposed
approach
to
the
37
sites
affected
by
the
remittal.
C
K
Thank
you
janet
morning,
everybody
and
members,
familiar
with
the
schleier
process,
will
be
aware
that
the
update
is
effectively
a
stock
taken
exercise.
Sorry.
K
K
That's
it.
Let
me
just
check
the
other
volumes
down.
Okay,
all
right
I'll,
speak
up
members
familiar
with
the
process
will
be
aware
that
the
update
is
effectively
a
stock,
taking
exercise
required
by
national
guidance
into
the
suitability,
availability
and
delivery
of
sites
across
the
plan
period
in
the
short,
the
medium
and
the
long
term.
So
it's
important
for
plan
making,
but
it's
also
important
for
decision
taking,
because
it's
the
source
of
the
five-year
housing
land
supply,
so
the
2020
update
brings
up
today.
K
The
pipeline
of
sites
in
with
planning
permission
and
allocations
and
construction
and
planning
activity
is
set
to
a
new
base
date
of
the
first
of
april
2020
and
members
will
be
aware
that
the
adopted
sat
based
date
was
the
first
of
april
2016,
so
there's
a
four-year
period
in
between,
and
so
what
we're
looking
at
here
is
what's
changed
since
then,
and
quite
a
lot.
The
the
picture
of
lunch
supply
has
changed
dramatically
within
this
period
and
that's
because
of
a
dual
process.
K
In
addition
to
that,
there's
been
a
lowering
of
the
buffer
required
by
the
housing
delivery
test,
because
the
council
has
begun
to
meet
its
its
completions
targets
in
the
last
two
to
three
years.
So
the
council
is
now
exceeding
its
delivery
targets
and
that
that's
a
real
shift
in
in
performance.
K
So
that's
real
shift
in
the
lowering
of
the
requirement
and
the
increase
in
supply
and
those
are
global
figures,
so
understanding
those
overall
numbers.
The
schla
assessment
then
turns
to
deliverability
and
the
capability
of
those
sites
to
deliver
and
the
likelihood
of
that
delivery
in
accordance
with
the
definition
set
in
national
guidance,
and
that's
where
the
importance
of
the
schla
process
comes
into
consultation
with
with
the
development
industry.
K
So,
in
order
to
provide
a
clear
and
accurate
picture
of
this
in
in
in
evidential
terms,
the
the
council
has
undertaken
two
consultations
at
the
same
time,
the
first
one
with
landowners
agents
and
developers
and
the
second
one
with
the
home
builders
federation
and
its
members.
What
the
council's
asked
for
is
for
respondents
to
provide
details
on
the
construction
programs
so
that
we
can
provide
an
accurate
picture
of
delivery
for
each
of
the
sites.
K
K
So
we
undertook
those
consultations
in
september
to
october
and
we
did
receive
a
good
response
and
what
we,
what
we
did
was
all
submissions
that
we
received
were
just
accurately
reflected
in
the
schla
record,
so
that
we
could
provide
the
schla
with
an
accurate
update
in
accordance
with
all
the
submissions
received.
K
So
we've
collated,
all
the
evidence
from
the
development
industry
from
landowners
agents
and
developers,
and
we're
simply
reflecting
that
as
part
of
the
schla
process
to
to
provide
that
up-to-date
and
accurate
picture
today
and
where
that
leads
us
in
in
the
final
schla
is
that
it
reveals
a
6.8
year,
housing
land
supply,
which
is
a
healthy
land
supply
position
which
is
overwhelmingly
made
up
of
sites
that
are
already
under
construction
or
have
a
detailed
planning
permission
in
place.
K
So
there's
some
security
there
in
terms
of
its
strength
of
the
five-year
housing,
land
supply
and
that's
the
strongest
position
we've
been
in
for
quite
a
number
of
years.
These
are
the
reporting
appendix
4.,
so
moving
forward
with
those
global
figures
table
1
in
the
report
shows
the
current
requirement
against
that
supply
for
the
period
2017
to
2028,
and
that
includes
completions
that
have
already
been
delivered
between
2017
and
2020.
K
The
base
day
of
this
new
schlaer
update
and
what
that
reveals
is
an
overall
surplus
of
some
11
268
units
in
excess
of
the
sap
requirement
to
allocate
so
in
pure
numerical
terms.
That
is
obviously
an
extremely
strong
position
and
that's
without
the
need
for
the
the
remitted
sites.
K
K
K
So
we
can
see
there
from
the
table
that,
in
the
balance
column
at
the
at
the
end,
there
seven
of
the
11
hmcas
are
actually
in
deficit
against
their
indicative
targets
up
to
2028
with
four
in
surplus
and
that
that's
that
surplus
it
comprised
largely
of
the
the
activity
that
we've
spoken
about
in
in
the
city
centre
in
the
india
area.
You
can
see
there
that
the
city
centre
has
a
surplus
of
some
well,
it's
over
8
500
units.
Isn't
it
so?
That's
that's
the
real
contribution
to
the
overall
figures.
K
So
what
we
can
see
is
a
global
supply
picture.
That's
risen,
but
the
re
some
disconnect
between
the
the
distribution.
The
council
is
clear
on
on
that
picture,
so
taking
all
the
evidence
into
account,
and
that
leaves
us
with
three
options
that
we've
identified
for
the
ritual,
plural,
assess
and
janet's
going
to
go
through
in
terms
of
planning
judgment,
those
reasonable
alternatives
and
and
lead
us
into
into
a
recommendation
so
I'll
hand
back
to
janet.
At
that
point,
thank
you.
C
Yes,
as
matt
said,
we've
looked
at
three
well,
we
considered
a
number
of
options
for
how
the
sap
should
be
progressed
and
of
these
three
options
are
considered
to
be
reasonable
alternatives
falling
within
the
scope
of
the
remetal
and
have
been
subject
to
a
sustainability
appraisal
which
is
provided
appendix
five
to
the
report.
C
Three
options
are
considered
as
follows:
option
one
to
propose
all
three
37
greenbelt
sites
as
allocations
in
the
sap.
This
option
would
achieve
the
distribution
of
housing
sites
across
the
outer
housing
market
characteristic
areas
and
would
broadly
align
with
core
strategy
policy.
Seven,
however,
the
schla
evidence
is
described
by
matt
shows
a
significant
over
provision
of
housing
land
above
the
core
strategy,
housing
requirements
set
by
sp6
for
the
sat
plan
period
to
2028.
C
It
would
also
result
in
the
deletion
of
five
sites
which
were
proposed
to
include
school
provision.
However,
the
need
for
this
school
provision
arose
directly
from
the
provision
of
the
new
houses
on
these
sites,
and
children's
services
are
advised
that
the
site's
deletion
would
not
result
in
a
school
short
school
place
shortage.
C
These
areas
of
shortfall
are
there's
seven
of
the
nine
outer
hmcas
this
option,
so
so
it's
basically
all
of
the
outer
hmca
is
excluding
the
outer
north
west
and
the
outer
west
areas
have
a
shortfall.
C
It
should
be
noted
that
sp7
is
intended
as
a
guide
rather
than
a
rigid
target
and
as
with
option.
One
demonstrating
exceptional
circumstances
for
the
release
of
the
greenbelt
sites,
for
this
option
would
be
difficult
to
justify,
given
the
district-wide
housing
land
supply
position
so
informed
by
the
updated
evidence.
The
preferred
option
for
the
sat
remittance
is
option.
Two,
but
none
of
the
green
belt
sites,
sorry,
that
none
of
the
37
sites
are
proposed
as
allocations
and
that
they
would
stay
as
green
belt
land.
C
There
is
now
sufficient
green
non-green
belt
housing
land
from
the
remaining
housing
sites
in
the
sap
and
from
new
permissions.
Without
the
need
for
greenbelt
release,
the
need
to
address
sp7
to
achieve
distribution
of
housing
land
in
the
outer
areas
would
not
be
justified,
as
this
would
require
green
belt
land
and
in
any
regard,
the
remittal
would
not
justify.
C
C
C
The
likely
lessens
the
likelihood
of
significant
effects
on
the
european
nature
conservation
designations
subject
to
executive
board
approval
a
public
consultation
on
the
on
proposed
main
modifications
that
the
sap
will
commence
in
the
first
week
of
january.
For
six
weeks.
These
these
modifications
will
propose
the
deletion
of
the
37
sciences
allocations,
meaning
that
the
land
will
remain
as
green
belts
and
the
modifications
are
provided
at
appendix
7..
C
Following
the
adoption
of
the
course
strategy,
selective
review,
sorry,
the
following
the
policy
states,
the
review
will
be
submitted
by
the
end
of
december
2021.
C
A
No,
no
thank
you
that
was
excellent,
very
comprehensive
from
the
two
of
you.
It's
my
regular
reminder
at
this
point.
It
wasn't.
The
council
was
found
at
fault
during
this
process.
However,
we
are
where
we
are
and,
as
I've
said
on
this
in
this
in
this
panel
before
it's
my
firm
opinion
that
absolutely
nothing
should
stand
in
the
way
the
climate
emergency
focus
local
planner
review.
That's
the
council's
number
one
strategic
priority
for
the
city,
and
this
is
the
planning
systems
and
services
huge
contribution
to
that.
A
B
Hi
thanks
chair
and
thanks
for
your
report,
I
just
want
to
for
absolute
clarity.
Can
you
just
address
the
two
sites
in
2.1
paragraph
2.11,
on
page
10,
at
the
horseforth
campus,
which
has
a
in
principle
planning
application
approved
and
scarcroft
lodge,
which
sounds
like
that's
going
to
be
signed
off
in
december,
but
I
think
for
members
of
the
public
we
need
absolute
clarity
on
the
position
of
those
two
sites.
Please
thank
you.
A
I
I'm
happy
to
take
that
one
chat,
yeah
yeah,
obviously,
through
the
planning
decision
process,
applications
can
obviously
come
through
at
any
time
and
in
the
case
of
the
the
horse,
with
campus
sites
and
on
the
scarker
flood
sites.
It's
obviously
recognized
that
these
are
green
belt
sites,
but
that
doesn't
stop.
The
determination
of
planning
applications
provide
that
those
issues
are
dealt
with
through
that
decision-making
process.
I
So
in
those
cases,
as
I
hope
is
explained
happy
to
clarify
that
the
the
in
the
case
of
certainly
the
horse
with
campus
site,
very
special
circumstances.
Argument
was
made
with
regard
to
the
delivery
of
100,
affordable
housing,
and
that
was
felt
to
be
sufficient
to
demonstrate
very
special
circumstances.
I
I
So
it
was
felt
that
approving
those
those
applications
was
consistent
with
local
and
national
policy.
Oh.
A
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
Thank
you.
So
it's
a
really
useful
clarification.
Council,
anderson
you're
next.
B
B
I
would
point
out
that
I'm
glad
you
finally
caught
up
with
the
rest
of
us
who've
been
arguing
and
pointing
this
out
and
being
told
that
we
were
wrong
for
years
and
years,
and
you
know
it
is
very
sad
that
a
lot
of
residents
in
this
city
have
had
developments
taking
place
in
their
area
that
were
not
needed
were
not
needed,
despite
residents
pointing
out
things
because,
despite
neighborhood
plan
areas
pointing
this
out,
it
is
quite
worrying
as
to
what's
happened
to
some
of
our
communities,
because
we
have
not
listened
there
to
them.
B
That
said,
that
said,
I've
got
a
number
of
questions
that
have
been
posed
to
me.
Now
I
can
get
clarification
of
them.
I
was
going
to
bring
the
first
one
up
under
minutes,
but
as
there
was
no
minutes,
I
couldn't
do
it
we're
just
about
to
do
the
consultation.
B
B
So
where
are
we
with
the
sci
and
what
type
of
sci
is
going
to
be
used
for
this
consultation
in
january,
and
will
we,
as
the
development
plans
panel,
have
a
chance
to
sign
that
off
before
it
goes
out,
then,
in
respect
of
the
table
at
paragraph
3.17,
there
is
concern
by
one
of
the
neighborhood
plan
groups
that
the
supply
of
houses
between
2012
and
2017
don't
appear
to
have
been
taken
into
account
on
that
table.
B
B
Is
it
still
fit
for
purpose,
and
should
it
should
we
be
looking
to
get
it
removed,
because
there's
a
number
of
areas
would
argue
that
they
have
taken
their
fair
share
of
development
throughout
the
city
and,
if
you're
going
to
allocate
from
2028
onwards,
on
the
same
basis,
you're
going
to
penalize
the
same
areas
again.
So
what
plans
have
you
got
for
trying
to
equal
this
out?
B
B
A
Thank
you,
counselor
anderson,
so
I
guess
with
councillor
carter,
unable
to
make
it
today
and
I
do
hope,
he's
okay
it
for
you,
bear
the
burden
for
rewriting
evidential
evidential-led
planning
history
over
the
last
10
years.
Well,
good
luck
with
that!
Okay!
So
for
the
7
000th
time
in
this
plans
panel,
whether
in
person
or
remotely
like
this,
the
council's
been
evidence-led
throughout
as
well.
Legal
processes
throughout
and
has
never
been,
has
not
been
found
at
fault
throughout,
but
we
are
where
we
are
now,
there's
quite
a
few
questions
to
unpack
there.
A
I
F
I
Of
the
last
meeting
we
had
in
the
third
of
november
was
that
we
would,
we
would
be
able
to
share
interim
sti
in
advance
of
the
local
plan
updates
consultation,
rather
than
necessarily
the
site
allocations
plan
remittal.
I
The
issue
of
timing
has
obviously
raised
its
head
in
terms
of
being
able
to
submit
this
in
advance
well
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable,
and
that
has
meant
that
the
time
scales
probably
don't
allow
for
us
to
be
able
to
take
a
interim
sti
through
this
panel
before
going
out
to
consultation,
as
there
are
no
other
panels
scheduled.
Obviously,
before
we
go,
we
begin
that
that
consultation.
I
I
Obviously
one
performance
consultation
is
a
process,
will
only
cover
us
during
the
period
of
the
of
the
covid19
restrictions.
I
So
what
we're
proposing
to
do
is
for
that
document
to
be
published
on
the
website,
but
also
to
to
show
a
direction
of
travel
to
to
to
consult
on
the
in
the
the
full
sci
at
the
same
time,
and
hopefully
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
gather
the
views
of
the
public
of
their
experiences
of
consultation
during
lockdown
and
beyond,
and
that
will
help
us
inform
the
the
full
sci
which
will
subject
to
to
other
approvals.
I
I
I
see
no
reason
why
I
can't
be
brought
to
to
this
panel,
but
I
I
apologize
if
the
if
the
timing
unfortunately
hasn't
allowed
for
the
interim
sci,
given
the
needs
to
go
out
to
consultation
on
the
site.
Allocations
upon
remittal
doesn't
doesn't
really
allow
us
to
take
that
document.
Through
this
panel.
A
Thanks
adam
so
the
table
3.17.
K
I'll
explain
that
counselor
the
reas.
The
reason
why
the
completions
between
2012
and
2017
are
not
on
the
table
is
that
this
table
represents
the
the
clock
restarting
in
effect,
at
the
start
of
the
car
strategy,
as
amended
from
2017
onwards,
although
I
do
agree
actually
that
that
that
is
important
context.
So
what
I
propose
is
that
that
is
included
as
part
of
the
table
in
the
background
paper,
because
it
includes
important
information.
K
For
example,
proportionally
arab
looks
to
have
a
deficit
of
quite
a
high
proportion
of
its
housing
requirement
and
deficit,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
effectively
their
supply
was
front
loaded
in
that
2012-17
period,
where
you
saw
a
great
number
of
completions
on
on
the
one
side
really
at
high
rises.
I
think
it
was
over
370
units
there.
So
it's
important
to
outline
those
hmcas
that
had
that
front-loaded
delivery
in
the
pre-2017
period.
A
Okay,
thanks
matt,
that's
really
helpful.
Yes,
looking
at
sort
of
bigger
strategic
picture,
council
anderson
asked
about
sp7
sure.
J
If
I
could
come
back
in
on
on
on
that
one
we'll,
we
can
pick
up
looking
at
sp7
through
a
future
update
to
the
local
plan,
and
we
can
assess
that
that
distribution
policy
against
the
new
suite
of
climate
emergency
policies
that
we
will
have
delivered
through
this
initial
look
at
the
local
plan
update,
and
I
think
that
will
be
important
because
then
those
climate
emergency
policies,
informing
a
revised
approach
to
distribution,
can
then
inform
planning
for
housing
and
and
where
that
goes,
post,
2028.
A
Yeah
it
yeah
it's
a
useful
point.
There
is
a
lot
happening
in
the
planning
world
so
to
speak,
and
we
need
to
be
mindful
of
that
at
all
times,
yeah
for
sure
and
the
order
I
saw,
I've
got
casper
finnegan,
then
council,
collins
and
council
mckenna
so
robert.
If
you're
next.
E
Thanks
chair
three
questions:
first,
one
is
page
66,
which
is
the
table
1
4.1,
which
refers
to
hg2
150,
which
is
land
east
of
cherwell
in
morley
north.
E
E
If
the
developer
comes
along
and
says
we
built
this
station,
we
need
this
housing
development
here
at
this
particular
location,
to
pay
for
the
station,
I'm
assuming
that
they
will
fight
tooth
and
nail
to
retain
it
as
green
belts.
I'd
want
that
assurance.
E
If
I
could
share
second
question
relates
to
page
one
three:
four:
if
you
look
at
the
table
there,
I'm
of
course
interested
in
the
outer
south
west,
which
claims
that
we're
building
and
we
have
built
since
2012
more
than
brownfield
than
greenfield-
and
I
must
admit
I
don't
recognize
these
figures
at
all-
taking
it
that
immorally
we've
lost
daisy
hill
greenbelt,
greenfield
loma
farm
greenfield
elders,
farm
greenfield,
pretty
close,
plum
greenfield
scotland
all
greenfield
I'd,
like
the
figures
broken
down,
not
only
in
terms
of
out
of
southwest,
because
I
don't
believe
them,
but
I'd
also
want
them
broken
down
between
brownfield
and
greenfield
for
the
morning
north
and
morley
south
awards.
E
Please,
because
I
don't
recognize
this
view
that
you're
building
more
houses
on
brownfield
and
greenfield,
certainly
not
in
our
location
and
the
last
one
is
page
147
chair.
If
I
could
take
colleagues
along
to
147,
which
is
about
green
space,
which
confirms
that
morley
north
has
some
of
the
poorest
green
space
provision,
if
not
the
poorest
green
space
provision
in
the
city.
Now,
I'd
like
to
know
what
the
planning
department
have
got
proposed
to
improve
that
situation,
specific
plans.
So
I'd
be
delighted
to
hear
what
they're
going
to
do
about
it.
Thanks
chad.
A
Right
so
there's
quite
hypo
local
questions
there
who
wants
to
pick
these
up.
I
would,
I
would
suggest,
in
terms
of
figures,
for
the
brownfield
to
greenfield
comparison,
I
think
well,
they
are
accurate,
but
I
mean
it's
probably
something
that
could
be
responded
to
outside
of
the
plans
panel
at
the
moment.
E
J
So
yes
chair,
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
come
back
in
on
that
and
certainly
commit
to
sending
councillor
finnegan
those
figures
on
brownfield
greenfield
losses,
but
also
send
him
further
detail
on
green
space
provision
and
the
approaches
to
green
space
provision.
And
it's
it's
just
to
remind
members
as
well
that
and
just
so
that
the
audience
is
clear
as
well,
that
this
is
a
very
limited
process
that
we're
going
through
here.
J
It's
it's
limited
to
these
37
sites
and
it's
limited
to
simply
proposing
that
they
no
longer
come
forward
for
housing
and
remain
in
the
green
belt.
So
on
the
on
the
point
about
the
the
cherwell
site.
Next
to
the
the
railway
council
of
finnegan,
I
mean
we
don't
have
a
planning
application
in
front
of
us
for
that.
So
it's
not
for
me
to
comment
on
any
merits
of
that,
as
adam
suggested
earlier.
J
With
regards
to
the
horseforth
campus,
national
guidance
does
make
it
possible
and
does
oblige
local
authorities
to
consider
proposals
that
come
forward
on
greenbelt,
so
it
can't
be
ruled
out.
But
if
that
should
happen,
then
the
council
will
have
to
determine
any
planning
application
on
its
merits
and
because
there
isn't
any
in
front
of
us
at
the
moment
we
don't
know
what
those
merits
are.
So
it
isn't
really
appropriate
for
me
to
comment
on
any
aspects
of
that.
E
Okay,
just
briefly
respond
yeah,
I
don't
want
to
hold
up
because
I
know
we're
busy
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff,
but
the
plan
is
clearly
the
same
as
me.
I've
seen
the
pre-application
proposals
that
are
floating
around
for
housing
at
this
particular
point.
So
I
think
I
don't
think
it's
entirely
accurate
to
say
we're
totally
unaware.
We
don't
really
know.
E
What's
going
on
and
I'd
be
fascinated
to
see
if
there
have
been
some
discussions
with
this
particular
developer
about
yeah,
we
know
the
station's
going
to
cost
you
a
load
of
money
and
you
do
need
this
housing
development
we'll
see
what
we
can
do,
I'm
not
at
all
reassured,
but
I
haven't
been
reassured
for
the
last
18
years,
so
I
suppose
that's
nothing
new
thanks,
chair,
okay!
Well,
I.
A
J
Yeah,
it's
just
because
I
think
I
think
council
finnegan
does
raise
an
important
point
and
I
mean
there
will
be
some
developers
who
had
schemes
in
in
the
process
where
now
those
pre-application
discussions
and
and
even
applications
will
be
fundamentally
affected
by
this
process,
and
there
will
be
a
need
for
those
schemes
to
be
revised.
Should
a
developer
wish
to
to
to
maintain
them
and
put
them
forward
as
proposals
to
the
council.
J
But
certainly
these
sites
are
proposed
to
go
back
into
the
green
belt
and
actually
that
they
are
currently
green
belt,
because
the
judge
in
her
order
actually
put
them
back
into
the
green
belt.
So
that's
that's
a
a
hiatus
if
you
like
that
the
council
and
developers
will
be
working
through,
but
the
clarification
now
that
this
plan
panel
is
giving
an
executive
board
next
week
will
give
a
very
clear
signal
as
to
the
council's
position
on
what
the
status
of
these
sites
should
be.
A
Yeah
thanks
mike
that's
really
important
clarification.
I
mean
if
we
need
to
maintain
and
this
this
process
does
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
sap,
because
the
sap
is
foreign
one
of
our
primary
lines
of
defense,
if
you're
not
want
to
see
housing
being
built,
but
it's
one
of
our
main
mechanisms
of
controlling
what
how
why
and
when
so
I
mean
it
is
incredibly
important.
We
do
that.
A
It
is
the
fact
that
you
know
if
it's
not
in
the
sap,
then
it's
you
know
not
going
to
really
happen
unless
they're,
incredibly,
incredibly
specific
extenuating
circumstances.
So
it's
important
that
we
maintain
this
process
folks
right
so
counselor,
collins
and
councilman
kennedy,
council,
wadsworth.
D
Thank
you.
What
are
this
to
say
about
sp7
that
in
reality,
it's
a
guide,
but
I
still
think
table
3.17
is
is
quite
critical
and
I'm
just
wondering
whether
there's
additional
information
needs
to
be
made
clear,
be
within
that
table.
For
example,
could
officers
confirm
where
winford
sites
go
with
regards
to
those
table
the
joan
winfield
sites
going
once
a
house
is
completed,
or
do
they
go
in
once
the
planning
commission
has
been
given,
or
do
they
not
go
in
at
all?
In
addition,
we
we've
already
mentioned
the
horseworth
campus
site.
D
Where
do
the
150
plus
houses
that
we've
given
permission
in
principle
for
go
within
table
3.17?
The
reason
I'm
I'm
a
bit
pedantic
about
this?
Is
we
do
get
developers
coming
forward,
saying
you're
a
shortfall
in
your
hmca,
so
we're
going
to
help
you
out,
but
if
there's
a
clearer
picture
in
that
table
and
shows
what's
coming
forward
as
well,
I
think
we
can
defend
it
better.
So
that's
my
question:
where
does
windfall
go?
Where
do
the
150-plus
houses
for
hospital
campus
go?
Please.
A
K
K
K
Then
there's
large
windfall,
which
is
planning
permissions
that
come
forward
on
sites
that
are
above
the
site
threshold
for
schla,
so
they
would
be
identified
and
tracked
and
monitored
as
part
of
a
forward
planning
exercise.
Now
those
are
sites
that
are
monitored
by
schla,
but
if
they're,
not
in
sap,
then
they're
a
large
windfall
site.
So
anything
that's
been
granted
permission
since
the
sap
that
is
big
enough
to
be
included
in
the
schla,
that's
included
in
the
figures
there
in
the
table
at
3.17
and
that's
obviously
everything.
K
That's
happened
in
planning
permission
terms
up
until
the
first
of
april
2020.,
anything
that
happens
after
the
first
of
april
2020
would
be
included
in
large
windfall,
but
only
if
you
were
providing
a
further
update
to
the
base
of
the
plan.
So
as
it
stands
at
the
first
of
april
2028,
all
those
planning
permissions
that
were
not
previously
in
sap
that
are
big
enough
to
be
in
the
schla
are
now
included
in
that
table.
D
K
D
So
the
these
these
37
sites,
then
that
were,
were
leaving
in
greenbelt
now.
Are
they
in
the
sap
column,
the
numbers
if
you've
taken
those
out?
What
have
you
done
about
the
horse
of
college
campus
site?
Have
you
put
that
back
in
the
sap
numbers,
because
we've
effectively
said
that
there's
150
houses
there
plus.
K
Okay,
well,
the
first
seven
remitted
sites
are
not
in
there
because
they're
not
part
of
the
forward
supply
part
from
the
one
that
has
planned
permission
at
pre-relay,
but
the
with
the
horse
fifth
campus
site.
That
would
clearly
become
an
identified
site
that
would
be
tracked
and
monitored
through
schlaer
upon
its
permission,
but
because
the
base
date
of
this
update
is
the
first
of
april.
It's
not
in
that
table
yet,
but
it
would
only
be
included
if
you
were
to
provide
a
refresh
to
that
table.
K
D
So
sorry,
chad,
I
think
this
is
quite
important
that
we
get
this
right,
because
what
what
we
could
end
up
doing
is
having
several
planning
applications
coming
forward.
All
filling
the
same
small
hole.
D
I'd
like
to
know
more
about
what
this
threshold
is
as
to
what
is,
as
clustered
as
a
small
site
and
a
big
site
and
I'd
like
offices
to
actually
put
sites
like
the
horse
with
campus
sites
somewhere
in
the
table,
even
if
it
means
a
separate
column.
I
think
it's,
it's
totally
inaccurate
to
say
that
the
north
of
leeds
has
got
a
shortfall
of
minus
70
when
we've.
Given
this
permission
in
the
last
few
weeks,.
K
K
But
clearly
you
can
provide
the
information
of
what's
happened
since
the
base
date
and
that
would
include
and
can
include
the
table
of
those
permissions
that
have
that
have
been
granted
after
which
the
base
date
was
set
and
that
can
include
obviously
the
hospital
campaign
contextually,
what
those
what
those
contributions
are
for
each
hmca.
I
think
that
I
think
that's
fair
point
and
that's
something
that
can
be
provided
as
part
of
the
background
here,
but
yeah.
J
Yeah
yeah
chair.
Thank
you
for
that,
just
to
say,
and
just
just
to
comfort
members
that,
as
usual
with
submission
of
planning
information,
there
will
be
a
a
background
paper,
as
matt's
alluded
to
which
will
take
a
lot
of
the
material
that
is
in
front
of
members
today,
but
make
that
a
bit
more
public
friendly.
J
But
it
will
also
take
on
board
some
of
the
questions
that
have
been
asked
today
and
some
of
the
clarity
that's
been
asked
for,
because
these
questions
are
questions
that
are
going
to
be
asked
by
residents
and
consultees.
J
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
all
there
and
it's
very
clear
because
I
think
members
will
agree.
This
is
complicated.
It's
been
a
very
complicated
process,
so
we
just
need
to
throughout
this
consultation,
ensure
that
the
the
consultancy
responses
we're
inviting
are
made
in
the
right
context.
J
So
doing
things
like
clarifying
for
councillor
collins,
the
status,
the
current
status
of
the
horseworth
campus
site
will
be
important,
it's
in
the
dpp
paper,
but
we
need
to
make
it
make
it
clear
in
the
background
paper
that
it
it
doesn't
become
part
of
those
numbers
because
it
hasn't
got
permission
yet,
but
if
it
does,
that
will
help
improve
the
supply
within
the
north
hmca.
A
Okay,
that's
that's
really
helpful.
Transparency
is
everything
as
always
on
this
panel
right,
so
council
mckenna.
G
Thank
you
chair
just
like
to
say
in
barry's
opening
point
regarding
an
over
supplier
housing.
Can
I
point
out
that
it
was
the
city
center
and
the
inner
area,
where
there's
an
over
supply
of
fourteen
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
three
houses
that
has
got
us
out
of
the
maya
and
allowed
us
to
maintain
the
credibility
of
the
staff.
G
Again,
it's
been
done
by
town
cramming,
the
issue
that
council
finnegan
raised
regarding
green
space
enough
in
molly.
Quite
right,
you
should
fight
for
the
award,
but
can
I
point
out
that
only
has
the
lowest
amount
of
green
space
and
pork
sports
pictures.
I
always
raise
this
point.
G
I
know
we
can't
do
anything
about
it,
but
we
are
suffering
indiana
area
for
lack
of
green
space,
lack
of
playing
pictures
and
telling
cramming,
and
that
is
what
is
getting
rozelle
to
the
mire,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
sat
around
this
table
should
ignore
that
fact,
because
it
is
a
fact.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
No,
thank
you
well
said
I
mean
in
areas
of
leeds
are
doing
the
serious
heavy
lifting
when
it
comes
to
housing
in
this
city.
So
and
people
need
to
bear
that
in
mind.
So
I
like
to
members
from
outer
areas,
you
know
when
you
look
at
colleagues
like
myself
and
councilman
kennedy
from
an
area
is
bear
that.
Bear
that
in
mind.
I
think
castle
wadsworth,
oh
you're.
Next,
I
think
we're
still
on
questions,
although
I
think
that
council.
E
B
I'll
bring
us
back
to
questions
and
save
my
comments
for
the
comments
section.
My
question
really
is
to
officers
just
as
to
how
open
are
we
by
developers
bringing
a
legal
challenge
for
costs
of
work
that
they've
done
on
these
37
sites
and
now
they're
going
that's
all
going
to
be
wasted,
because
council
finnegan
makes
a
very
good
point
about
the
white
rose
rail
station.
That
was
very
clearly
in
pre-application
discussions
that
it
was
predicated
on
the
housing
side
when
that
drops
out.
B
Obviously,
the
economics
of
that
tends
to
drop
out
as
well,
but
a
lot
of
work
has
been
done.
Similarly,
in
my
own
board
with
wills
gill,
a
significant
work
has
been
done
there
by
developers
in
bringing
that
site
forward,
and
that
is
now
also
lost.
I'm
not
sure
that
they'll
be
quite
as
happy
as
we
are
about
option
two
being
adopted
and
how
are
we
open
to
bearing
in
mind?
We
have
clearly
made
a
mistake,
and
most
of
the
residents
of
leeds
are
owed
an
apology.
A
J
Officers
yeah
I'm
happy
to
come
back
on
on
that
point
chair
just
to
say
that
the
the
plan
was
clearly
challenged
within
the
six
week,
statutory
challenge
period
after
it
was
adopted
in
july
2019.
J
So
since
that
date,
developers
have
known
that
there
was
a
risk
to
the
sites
in
the
greenbelt.
J
Now,
whilst
it
was
originally
thought
and
considered
that
that
risk
would
be
limited
to
airbrush
clearly,
the
judgment
and
the
the
judge's
relief
extended
that
to
all
of
the
greenbelt
sites
within
the
plan,
but
developers
at
from
a
very
early
stage
post
adoption
did
have
a
chance
to
engage
with
that
challenge
process
and
did
have
a
chance
to
make
comments
to
the
court
in
terms
of
disagreeing
with
that
and
no
such
challenges
were
were
received.
A
F
I
I
just
want
to
re-emphasize
what
council
mckenna
and
others
have
said
around
the
the
city
center,
cramming
and
and
the
over-development
of
the
center
of
the
city
center
areas.
It's
absolutely
right
what
you
say,
jim
and-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
did
agree
with
that.
But
my
question
is
about
if
we
take
all
these
green
belt
sites
out
and
therefore
leave
the
brown
field
available
for
building
on.
F
I
have
noted
the
the
paragraph
on
which
analyzes
contamination,
but
frequently
we
find
on
brownfield
sites,
as
we
have
in
only
twice
actually
councillor
mckenna,
that
there
are
complications
either
because
of
contamination
or
other
reasons
to
do
with
previous
use
difficulties,
developing
etc,
which
puts
the
development
price
up
and
often
results
in
developments,
not
bringing
any
affordable,
housing
or
well
below
the
quota
forward
and
similarly
reduced
green
space
and
and
any
other
advantages
that
we
might
be
looking
for
in
terms
of
planning
gain.
I
I
happen
to
to
come
on
one
shower.
I
think
it's
obviously
a
a
very
reasonable
point.
Councillor
gruen!
Thank
you.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
be
mindful
of
now,
I
suppose,
is
that
the
the
sites
that
are
in
the
site
allocations
plan
has
adopted,
have
already
been
through
a
process
and
been
found
sound
and
have
been
found
to
to
meet
all
those
tests
of
suitable
sites.
I
I
Nevertheless,
as
you
rightly
say,
there
will
always
be
instances
of
sites
coming
forward
that
don't
necessarily
deliver
as
planned
due
to
abnormals
that
perhaps
couldn't
have
been
predicted.
I
I
think
what
can
give
us
some
comfort
as
matthew
has
gone
through
is
the
the
size
of
the
head
room,
as
we
call
it
in
terms
of
the
11
000
houses
can
give
us
some
comfort
that
there
is
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
viable
supply
there
and
clearly,
through
individual
plan
applications
we'll
need
to
work
with
developers
to
try
and
maximize
schemes
that
deliver
two
policies
that
deliver
affordable,
housing
and
green
space
as
as
they're
required
to
do,
but
whether
they
can't
do
that
they
they
realistically
and
accurately
reflect
that
through
to
viability,
assessments
which
will
obviously
be
subject
to
to
very
robust
process.
I
So,
whilst
we
can't
guarantee
that
that
won't
continue
to
happen
on
individual
cases,
I
think
as
a
global
supply
across
the
district,
we
can
have
some
confidence
that
we
we
have
a
lot
of
supply
there
and
that
developers
have
made
clear
through
the
schlep
consultation
that
they
feel
that
these
sites
are
deliverable.
So
we
would
very
much
hope
they
wouldn't
come
back
in
the
next
few
years
and
tell
us
the
sites.
They'd
already
told
us
were
deliverable,
are
no
longer
deliverable.
F
Well,
thank
you
for
your
answer,
adam,
which
was
very
professional,
but
I'm
absolutely
not
convinced,
because
we,
we
are
regularly
told
on
plans
panel,
that
sites
are
not
as
deliverable
as
they
were
first
conceived
to
be
and
the
results
are
as
I've
described.
So
I
think
it's
a
real
danger.
A
I
mean
on
that
I
mean
yeah.
There
is
the
never-ending
sort
of
dance
between
the
council
as
the
planning
authority
and
developers
trying
to
trying
to
minimize
their
commitments
to
us
as
a
city
and
to
our
communities,
and
that,
I
think,
is
the
the
show
that
never
ends.
A
Unfortunately,
council
growing
and
it's
up
to
us,
it's
beholden
on
us
to
have
a
strong
set
of
policies
which
I
think
we
do
to
have
a
need
to
adhere
to
them
and
to
be
really
really
very
strict
in
terms
of
holding
developers
to
that
particularly
green
space
and
affordable
housing,
which
knows
a
huge
concern
for
members
on
this
panel
and
and
also
to
really
drill
down
into
the
details
of
viability.
Assessments.
A
Because
often
that's
where
developers
can
can
behave
with
more
the
most
questionable
practices.
I
think
and
there's
a
memorable
city
plans
one
that
council
mckenna
will
be
probably
able
to
recall
whether
the
developer
claimed
that
providing
white
goods
in
the
development
should
be
accounted
as
towards
their
viability
and
also
the
roof.
That
was,
it
was
a
special
roof.
It's
a
very,
very,
very
special
roof
and
that
should
be
considered
into
the
viability
and
and
as
you
might
imagine,
council
mckenna's
chair
of
that
panel
gave
it
very
short
shift.
A
So
it's
talk
to
us.
We've
got
to
be
on
our
metal,
and
that
applies
to
both
officers
and
members.
We
spent
an
hour
on
this
folks.
I
want
to
move
to
to
look
at
the
recommendations
and
then,
after
that
I'm
gonna
have
a
short
comfort
break.
I
know
I
normally
don't
doing
the
two
hour
panel,
but
if
you
know
the
size
of
my
coffee
mug,
it
was
extremely
unwise
this
morning.
So
but
boy
did
I
need
the
caffeine
so
we're
gonna.
A
Let's
get
this
item
out
of
the
way
and
then
we'll
have
a
short
break
for
five
minutes,
and
then
we
come
back
and
go
through
the
rest
of
our
items,
which
are
extremely
important,
so
we
have
some
recommendations
in
front
of
them.
Obviously
we
want
to
give
our
best
advice
to
executive
board.
I
think
the
officer
recommendations
are
good
and
clear
and
are
extremely
sensible,
and
I
refer
members
that,
to
my
comments
at
the
start
of
this
item,
that
this
is
the
planning
system.
A
Can
take
time
the
statutory
instruments
we
use
we
have
to
use
can
be
laborious
at
times,
and
I
think
we
have
an
overwhelming
strategic
priority
to
get
the
local
plan
review
done,
which
focuses
on
climate
emergency,
which
is
a
subject
which
is
very
close
to
my
heart
and
other
members
on
this
panel.
A
A
Don't
told
stampede,
I'm
judging
from
sort
of
an
array
of
smiles
and
nods,
I
think.
Are
we
happy
with
the
recommendations?
A
A
Thumbs
up
again
excellent
okay,
so
it
is
the
opinion
of
this
panel
that
we
support
the
recommendations
that
set
out
yeah,
fantastic
right,
no
descent!
That's
what
I
like
to
see
nice
cross-party
consensus,
good
on
that
basis,
we're
having
a
short
break
of
five
minutes
until
about
seven
minutes
past
eleven,
so
we
can
all
make
various
accommodations
for
our
comfort
thanks
very.
A
J
A
B
H
H
A
I
Apologies,
yeah
abby's
gonna,
give
this
presentation
so
abby
when
you
are
ready
to
go
to
the
next
slide.
Just
let
me
know
and
I'll
I'll
click
you
forward.
L
See
it
just
a
second
just
the
second
one
is
fine.
Oh,
I
see
okay
thanks.
L
So
the
report
in
front
of
the
panel
today
introduces
a
new
supplementary
planning
document
which
seeks
to
establish
space,
light
and
ventilation
or
immunity
if
you
use
a
capsule
term
standards
for
proposals
for
houses
in
multiple
occupational
hmos,
purple,
purpose-built
student
accommodation
or
pbsa
and
co-living
development,
the
preparation
of
the
spd
is
in
fulfillment
of
the
commitment
that
we've
made
in
the
core
strategy
within
policy
h9,
which
states
that
these
types
of
development
are
not
subject
to
the
space
standards
as
set
out
in
the
policy,
but
their
further
guidance
will
be
provided
through
the
supplementary
planning
document.
L
So
a
draft
spd
has
therefore
been
prepared
and
the
approach
to
the
spd
is
set
out
in
the
report
and
I'll.
Take
that
as
read.
However,
I
will
just
provide
a
summary
of
the
main
issues
within
the
report
and
the
spd,
and
then
I'm
happy
to
take
comments
and
questions
from
members,
so
the
nationally
described
based
standards
have
been
introduced,
a
minimum
set
of
space
standards
for
all
new
c3
dwellings,
and
these
standards
have
been
adopted
exactly
within
the
least
core
strategy
as
the
minimum
space
standards
for
all
new
homes
in
leeds.
L
L
So,
in
line
with
council
objectives,
it's
proven
to
provide
planning
guidance
for
types
of
accommodation
not
covered
by
the
policy
to
ensure
that
all
residents
in
these
types
of
accommodation
can
expect
a
good
standard
of
living,
and
this
issue
has
become
even
more
prevalent
in
light
of
the
kovid
19
crisis
and
the
resultant
lockdowns,
because
the
way
that
we
use
our
homes
has
changed
significantly
and
it's
intensified.
L
The
preparation
of
the
spd
has
involved
a
lot
of
cross
council
working
with
a
number
of
services
within
the
council,
particularly
development
management
and
the
private
sector.
Housing
team
and
an
informal
engagement
has
already
taken
place
with
landlords
the
universities
and
developers
in
preparing
the
spd.
L
So
it's
not
the
role
of
the
spd
to
set
out
all
of
the
policy
requirements
for
these
types
of
accommodation,
for
example,
green
space
or
parking,
as
this
is
established
elsewhere
within
the
development
plan
or
with
another
planning
guidance.
So
the
spd
makes
reference
to
other
plans,
policies
and
planning
guidance
as
appropriate.
L
L
Space,
for
example,
students
tend
to
use
bed
spaces
for
study,
socializing
relaxation,
relaxation
etc,
and
there
are
generally
two
types
of
student
accommodation
that
provided
within
a
cluster
flat
arrangement,
which
is
typically
four
to
six
bed
spaces
with
the
shared
kitchen
and
living
room,
and
then
there's
also
student
studio,
accommodation
as
well,
and
so
the
spd
seeks
to
set
standards
for
both
of
these
types
of
accommodation
requires
and
requires
that
all
students
living
within
a
pbsa
development
should
have
access
to
a
bedroom,
bathroom
kitchen,
living,
dining
and
communal
spaces.
L
Therefore,
it's
expected
that
in
most
circumstances,
developments
will
achieve
the
mid
to
upper
sizes
of
the
ranges
set
out
within
the
spd
and
exceptions
to
this
would
only
be
where
the
communal,
space
and
amenities
provided
within
the
development
of
a
demonstrably
high
quality
and
high
standard
which
could
help
to
justify
smaller
bed
space.
Consideration
will
also
be
given
to
the
overall
quality
layout
and
finish
of
the
bedrooms.
L
If
it's
considered
that
light
levels
in
this
game,
particularly
low,
further
assessment
will
be
required
and
then
the
sbd
goes
on
to
rely
on
building
regulation
standards
for
ventilation
seeks
to
ensure
a
site-by-site
based
approach,
with
advice
being
sorted
from
environmental
health,
environmental
studies
and
air
quality
management.
Colleagues
as
appropriate,
as
they
would
do
when
responding
to
a
planning
application
for
these
types
of
accommodation.
Anyway.
L
L
These
are
also
not
subject
to
space
standards
or
the
requirements
of
policy
h9
as
they
fall
within
the
c4
or
sui
generous
use
class.
And,
however,
there
is
an
increase
in
awareness
that
some
landlords
are
letting
very
small
and
inadequate
rooms
in
hmos
in
parts
of
the
city
and
the
preparation
of
the
spd
is
an
opportunity
for
a
coordinated
and
cross
council
approach
between
the
private
sector,
housing
team
and
the
planning
service
to
join
the
complimentary
to
work
together
to
improve
the
standard
of
living
from
potentially
vulnerable.
L
As
residents
in
in
hmos,
so
while
the
standards
established
through
the
spd
will
only
apply
to
new
planning
applications
or
conversions,
so
planning
applications
for
conversions
to
existing
hmos,
the
private
sector,
housing
team
are
also
preparing
some
separate
crowding
and
space
guidance,
which
will
help
us
to
provide
a
joined
up
and
complementary
approach.
L
The
sbd
standards
have
been
developed
using
industry
best
practice
such
as
the
metric
handbook,
which
is
a
planning
and
design
data
manual
and
and
then
also
the
national
housing
federation
housing
standards
handbook.
The
standards
adopt
a
living
function
based
approach
where
the
space
needed
for
individual
elements
of
living
are
set
out
in
a
matrix.
L
The
space
required
varies
depending
on
which
element
of
the
hmo
is
being
shared,
and
the
number
of
bed
spaces
are
in
the
hmo
overall,
and
we've
also
provided
indicative
illustrative
layouts
for
the
various
living
functions
set
out
in
the
spd.
As
as
part
of
an
appendix
to
the
spd,
the
spd
doesn't
determine
which
element
of
the
hmo
should
be
shared.
However,
it
does
set
bedside
or
bed
sitting
room
sizes
and
which,
depending
on
which
element,
is
shared
so
in
in
bed,
sitting
type
room.
L
You
know
the
normal
functions
of
living
as,
as
would
be
expected
with
any
within
any
type
of
accommodation
and
then
again
it
so
in
terms
of
light
standards,
the
approach
is
going
to
be
proportionate
and
based
on
a
case-by-case
assessment
of
availability
of
light
and
outlook
within
the
hmo,
and
all
habitable
rooms
are
expected
to
have
a
good
access
to
to
a
good
level
of
natural,
daylight
and
outlook.
L
This
is
particularly
important
for
changes
of
use
applications,
as
they
all
need
to
ensure
that
bed
bedrooms
have
a
good
level
of
outlook,
particularly
when
rooms
are
converted,
and
they
were
not
usually
previously
used
as
bedrooms
bed
or
bed
sitting.
Room
should
not
be
formed
where
they
would
suffer
from
such
overlooking
from
other
bedrooms
or
properties
that
privacy
would
be
impaired,
nor
would
they,
where
would
they?
L
They
would
impair
the
privacy
of
all
the
bedrooms,
bedsits
or
principal
rooms,
but
other
properties,
and
in
addition,
it's
particularly
important
when
considering
converting
rooms
to
bedrooms
at
ground
floor
basement
levels
that
consideration
is
given
to
how
rooms
will
relate
to
any
outdoor
or
immunity.
Space
provided
and
the
spd
expects
that
situations
should
be
avoided
where
occupants
are
needing
to
keep
their
curtains
closed
or
their
blinds
closed
to
maintain
their
price,
their
own
privacy,
as
this
impacts
on
on
sunlight
and
daylight
penetration,
but
also
in
terms
of
overall
well-being
and
again.
L
This
spd
captures
outlook,
privacy
and
outdoor
space
and
immunity
terms.
So
it's
to
provide
a
well-rounded
approach
and
again
ventilation
standards
are
derived
from
building
regulations,
requirements
and
then,
finally,
for
co-living
developments,
co-living
is
a
relatively
new
form
of
housing
model
and
it
offers
individuals
the
opportunity
to
live
together
communally
within
shared
accommodation
which
contains
communal
areas
such
as
lounges
kitchens
and
workspaces.
L
This
type
of
accommodation
is
seen
as
provide
an
alternative
to
traditional
flat
or
house
shares
and
can
include
additional
services
and
facilities
such
as
room
cleaning,
on-site
gyms
and
concierge
concierge
services.
L
It's
very
difficult
to
define,
co-living
and
planning
terms,
and
therefore
the
spdi
identifies
a
number
of
key
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
help
determine
whether
a
scheme
is
in
fact
co-living
such
as
communal
spaces,
social
meeting
spaces
entrance
lobbies,
management
regimes,
workspaces,
recreational
space
and
things
like
that
and
so
similar
to
pbsa
that
the
spd
takes
a
range
based
approach
with
a
minimum
studio
size
of
22
to
30
square
meters.
L
To
justify
a
smaller,
smaller
bed
bed
space,
the
spd
expects
that
co-living
developments
will
provide
garden
space
stroke
outdoors
outside
space,
for
example,
roof
terraces
for
use
by
residents
within
the
scheme
and
key
to
the
success
of
co-living
developments
will
be
the
effective
management
of
those
schemes
and
therefore,
proposals
are
required
to
be
supported
by
a
management
plan
which
sets
out
how
the
scheme
will
be
managed
access,
how
access
will
be
controlled
and
how
it
will
operate
in
such
a
way
that
actually
supports
co-living
or
communal
living
and
social
interaction,
and
we're
very
keen
that
this
is
not
seen
as
a
a
workaround
for
for
meeting
the
requirements
of
policy.
L
H9
again
light
stands
will
be
proportionate
into
terms
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
depending
on
light
availability
in
the
surrounding
development.
L
Having
regard
to
subtle
buildings
adjacent
to
the
development
site
and
ventilation,
standards
will
be
in
accordance
with
the
building,
regs
and
and
finally,
the
sbd
requires
that
co-living
schemes
should
provide
a
good
level
outlook
and
not
adversely
affect
the
outcome.
Privacy
of
neighboring
neighbouring
properties.
L
In
terms
of
next
steps
subject
to
members
comments
today
and
dpp
endorsement.
Hopefully,
it's
intended
that
the
spd
will
be
subject
to
formal
consultation
early
in
the
new
year
for
a
minimum
of
six
weeks.
L
The
comments
that
we
get
in
response
to
that
consultation
will
be
taken
into
account
as
appropriate
and
a
revised
draft
prepared
for
pre-adoption
publicity,
which
will
then
be
brought
back
to
dpp,
convert
the
comments
and
following
that,
pre-adoption
publicity
and
the
spd
can
be
adopted
by
the
chief
penny
officer
through
delegated
powers
in
line
with
the
council
scheme
delegation.
L
Hopefully,
by
the
summer
of
next
year,
once
adopted,
the
spd
will
become
part
of
the
lease
development
plan
and
will
carry
weight
when
the
council
makes
decisions
on
applications
and
then
just
for
members
information.
A
draft
consultation
strategy
for
the
upcoming
consultation
is
attached
to
my
report,
appendix
2,
which
sets
out
some
of
our
thinking
on
appropriate
ways
to
engage
on
the
spd
early
in
the
new
year
and
I'm
happy
to
take
thoughts
on
that.
And
so
in
conclusion,
the
preparation
of
the
hmo,
pbsa
and
co-living
community
standards
spd.
L
It
presents
a
significant
opportunity
to
improve
the
standard
of
living
for
residents
in
liens,
regardless
of
their
their
accommodation,
type
or
tenure,
and
what
will
help
to
improve
the
overall
quality
of
accommodation
within
the
city,
making
a
contribution
to
the
city's
inclusive
growth
and
health
and
well-being,
agendas
and
development
plan
panels
therefore
invited
to
comment
on
the
spd
and
the
plans
for
a
formal
consultation
in
the
new
year
and
endorse
the
dspd
for
public
consultation.
So
on
that,
I'm
happy
to
take
comments,
thoughts
and
questions
thanks,
jeff.
A
No
thanks
abby,
it's
a
really
strong
piece
of
work,
so
we
have
to
comment
on
the
contents
and
then
the
consultation
process
and
make
some
recommendations
on
that.
Otherwise
we
can-
or
we
can
just
we
can
accept
the
report
and
move
forward
so
up
to
the
floor
as
it
were.
A
Members
very
happy
with
it
council,
collins,
councillor
anderson,
councilman,
o'haran.
D
D
So
if
we
get
a
building,
if
with
this
goes
through-
and
we
we
have
this
standard,
this
policy
standard
and
there's
a
permitted
development,
will
that
developer
have
to
comply
with
our
space
standards
and
light
sounders,
etc
or
or
will
they
still
just
be
able
to
build
whatever
they
want
within
a
building
that
they
already
own
and
and
already
exists?
D
And
then
the
second
point
is:
we
do
actually
have
a
university
in
horsford,
so
we
we
have
had
hmos
coming
forward
before
now,
and
the
biggest
concern
residents
have
are
parking
and
where
are
the
bins
gonna
go,
so
you
briefly
mentioned
that
there's
another
strategy
for
parking,
but
does
that
specifically
reference
these
three
types
of
accommodation?
D
L
Thanks
councillor
colin
so
on
your
first
point
on
permitted
development.
If,
if
it
comes
in
as
a
prior
approval
for
permitted
development
and
it's
deemed
to
be
permitted
development,
then
that's
it.
So
the
spd
can't
affect
those
proposals.
L
Unfortunately,
however,
the
government
has
just
introduced
the
requirement
for
committed
development
schemes
to
to
include
natural
light
and
then,
as
of
april,
the
sixth
of
april
next
year,
they've
also
introduced
a
requirement
for
all
permitted
development
schemes
to
accord
with
the
nationally
described
space
standards,
so
that
would
be
policy
h9,
although
it
won't
be
in
reference
to
h9
it'll,
be
in
reference
to
the
nationally
described
space
standards,
which
is
effectively
the
same
thing.
L
So
that's
a
really
welcome
move,
I
think
in
terms
of
driving
up
standards
and
then
on
your
second
point,
about
parking.
L
I
know
that
this
is
particularly
an
issue,
but
there's
a
what
we
have
a
parking
spd
which
sets
out
the
parking
requirements
for
hmos
so
that
that
that
is
cross-referenced
slightly
within
the
spd.
But
I'm
happy
to
make
that
reference
clearer,
but
we're
also
going
through
a
process
of
introducing
a
new
transport
spd
and
the
transport
spd
seeks
to
capture
four
existing
spd's
relating
to
transport
and
put
them
all
all
together
in
one
place.
L
That's
been
out
to
public
consultation
once
so
once
already,
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
it's
up
to
at
the
moment
in
terms
of
coming
out
for
the
pre-adoption
publicity,
but
I
can
totally
appreciate
the
need
to
clarify
the
requirements
for
parking
within
the
spd
and
I'll
I'll
try
and
do
that
before
that
consultation.
On
this
honest
draft.
D
Thank
you
abby
that
that's
very
useful
just
regarding
the
the
existing
document
you've
got,
then,
if
it's
references
houses
of
multiple
occupancy,
but
you
say
this
third
type
of
housing
now
is
new.
Does
our
parking
standards
document
refer
to
that
type
of
housing
as
well?
And
if
not,
could
you
just
see
whether
that
could
be
reviewed?
D
L
A
Great
I'd
be
really
useful.
Thanks
very
much
counter
anderson.
B
Just
briefly,
hopefully
quickly,
I
totally
welcome
this
paper.
It's
an
excellent
paper,
and
certainly
one
that
can
be
supported.
We
just
got
for
the
point
of
clarification.
B
Should
we
be
putting
it,
or
can
we
be
putting
anything
in
here
to
look
at
our
climate
standards
that
we're
trying
to
get
in
terms
of
energy
efficiency
of
housing
in
terms
of
minimums?
Is
there
anything
that
we
can
put
in
here
to
beef
up
some
of
the
other
spd's
that
are
going
to
be
coming
forward?
As
the
chair
commented
on
at
the
beginning?
B
The
second
point
is
in
terms
of
the
time
scales
which
are
fine,
but
can
you
briefly
outline
as
to
what
weight
as
those
of
us
who
are
on
plans
panels
when
we'll
be
able
to
start
giving
this
more
weight?
Full
weight
will
obviously
come
when
it's
totally
adopted,
but
can
we
make
reference
to
it
once
you've
been
out
to
consultation?
B
A
Thanks
anderson
cancer
anderson,
have
you
ever
come
back
on
those.
L
Happy
to
come
back
or
martin
might
want
to
come
back
as
well
on
the
requirements
for
energy
efficiency,
and
things
like
that
that
will
be
captured
as
part
of
the
local
plan
update.
So
obviously,
the
spd
only
relates
to
sort
of
amenity
standards
within
the
proposals
for
hmos,
pbsas
and
co-living,
so
the
the
requirements
for
energy
efficiency
measures
and
things
that
will
be
can
be
cross-referenced
within
the
spd.
L
I
Oh
sorry,
my
my
point
was
what
you've
just
covered,
but
better
than
I
ever
could
be.
So
don't
worry
about
that.
I
think
I
think
I
don't
know
nicole
if
you
wanted
to
come
in
on
the
the
weight
to
be
given
to
the
to
the
document
of
the
various
stages.
Yeah
that'd
be
really
helpful.
F
Yeah
thanks
chair
just
for
the
audience,
nicole
walker
legal
advisor
to
the
panel
with
regard
to
weight
as
the
as
the
document
progresses
through
the
through
the
different
consultation
procedures,
and
we
get
more
of
an
idea
of
what
the
end
product
is
going
to
be.
Then
definitely
more
weight
can
be
applied
by
decision
makers,
officers
and
members
when
they're
considering
planning
applications
so
that
the
it
is
emerging
policy
but
closer
to
the
adoption
stage.
Then
then,
that
gathers
the
amount
of
weight
that
can
be
applied.
A
A
Anyway,
right
so
councilman
herron
and
then
council
mckenna.
H
Thank
you,
chair
council
anderson
actually
picked
me
to
the
post
in
terms
of
how
this
will
fit
with
our
climate
emergency
policies.
I
welcome
the
proposals
in
terms
of
raising
standards
for
some
of
the
most
vulnerable
residents
in
the
city.
H
Obviously,
young
people
across
our
student
population,
but
also
many
other
vulnerable
adults
who,
for
one
reason
or
other,
are
not
able
to
access
larger
accommodation
of
their
own,
so
really
really
welcome
the
fact
that
we're
trying
to
raise
the
standards
across
the
board,
because
I
think
some
of
the
scenes
I've
seen
across
the
years
in
terms
of
the
private
rented
sector
in
particular,
and
the
living
standards
that
people
have
been
expected
to
and
have
a
decent
life
in
frankly,
very,
very
below
standard.
H
And
if
we're
going
to
have
the
uplift
in
health
outcomes
for
the
city
that
we
need
to
see
in
line
with
our
health
and
well-being
strategy,
ensuring
that
the
poorest
can
improve
their
health
the
fastest.
We
absolutely
need
to
be
raising
the
standards
of
this
accommodation,
that's
affordable
and
ensures
that
people
can
live
a
healthy
life
with
decent
spatial
standards
and
they
can
breathe.
H
There's
good
quality
and
decent
light
and
outside
space
as
well.
So
really
welcome
the
uplift
that
this
will
bring
to
that
part
of
the
housing
sector
in
the
city.
A
Thanks
to
that
yeah
me
too,
it's
I
bet
all
of
us
have
got
some
examples
in
our
in
our
council
life.
There's
a
really
really
really
poor
standard
in
hmo
quality,
you
might
imagine
being
heading
in
hype.
Counselor.
I've
got
quite
the
case
file
on
on
low
quality,
hmos
council
mckenna,
and
I
think
we
can
wrap
this
item
up.
Oh
council
brewer
next
letter,
jim.
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
thought
I
understood
call
living,
but
when
I
read
the
document
I'll
be
particularly
talks
about
lilac
scheme,
which
is
in
my
street,
where
I
live
a
scheme
that
I
have
been
in
many
many
times.
I've
been
invited
in
less
worrying
times
in
for
thursday
meals
several
times,
and
I
I
don't
really
see
that
as
a
cold
living
scheme.
G
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
get
my
head
around
it's
more
like
a
cooperative
that
they
have
plenty
of
public
open
space,
because
it's
an
old
school
and
army
councillors
fully
supported
it,
and
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
transfer
of
assets
from
the
council
to
the
scheme.
It's
a
very
environmental
scheme,
but
to
me
co-living,
was
what
I
thought
they
understood
as
coal
even
was
professional
people
living
together.
You
know
which
happens
on
an
informal
basis,
so
you
know
I'm
puzzled
on
that
one.
G
So
maybe
if
you
could
give
me
some
explanation
regarding
hmos,
which
is
the
bane
of
all
our
lives,
it's
been
well
documented
by
dawn
and
barry
it.
I
know
it's
about
immunity
standards.
I'd
fully
appreciate
that,
but
parking
is
a
big
issue
for
us,
particularly
in
the
in
our
area
like
headingley
and
bramley.
G
We
have
lots
of
big
houses,
and
we've
been
coming
in
for
where
this
in
particular
was
a
small
house
and
they
wanted
11
solid
crash
pads
put
in,
and
it
was
only
the
local
councillors
who
actually
come
in
and
and
stopped
it.
But
my
concern
is
that
there's
reference
about
proliferation
that
we
can't
do
much
about
it.
G
As
I
understand
it
now,
a
street
and
possibly
my
streak
has
been
taken
over
a
little
bit
because
they
are
very
large
houses,
five
bedrooms
built
by
the
co-op
in
1901
marvellous
houses,
but
lends
them
itself
to
hmos,
which
brings
all
sorts
of
problems
in
we
have
we
have
a
polish
proliferation
policy
for
takeaways?
Why
don't
we
have
one
for
hmos,
where
we
we
don't
want
to
see
them
all
clumped
together,
you
know
it
can
ruin
our
communities
in
the
inner
area.
It
can
ruin
our
streets.
Some.
G
Perhaps
some
more
thoughts
should
go
into
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
L
Yeah,
so
on
council
mckenna's
first
first
point
about
co-living
is
he's
absolutely
right
in
terms
of
we're
not
considering
the
lilac
scheme
to
be
a
co-living
development,
as
those
are
more
cooperative
forms
of
ownership
and
they'll
actually
also
be
within
a
c3u.
So
it's
likely
or
they're
likely
to
be
a
c3u,
so
they'll
be
subject.
Schemes
like
that
would
be
subject
to
the
space
standards
requirements
set
out
by
policy
h9
and
what
we
mean
by
co-living.
Is
these
purpose-built
co-living
schemes
that
you're
seeing
quite
a
an
uptake
of
in
major
cities?
L
So
there's
quite
a
lot
in
london,
there's
also
quite
a
lot
in
manchester
as
well.
It
could
be
that
it's
only
a
matter
of
time
before
we
start
to
get
more
interest
in
those
types
of
schemes
in
leeds
in
the
future.
We
would
obviously
don't
know
that,
but
so
so
what?
L
What
we're
targeting
here
is
that
the
purpose-built
co-living
developments
and
and
the
intention
is
with
these
schemes
that
they
provide
a
sort
of
intermediate
or
affordable
way
of
sharing
and
it's
they're
aimed
at
young
professionals
or
recent
graduates
effectively
and
it's
a
way
of
living,
more
affordably
in
city
centres.
And
so
that's
what
we're
targeting
with
this
element
of
the
spd.
L
We're
not
we're
not
talking
about
sort
of
cooperative
or
co-housing
schemes
like
the
lighthouse
scheme
or
the
chapel
town
co-housing
scheme,
either
because
they're,
both
in
a
c3use
and
then
on
on
the
concentration
or
proliferation
plural,
for
it
can't
get
the
word
out.
But
you
know
I
mean
I'll
hmos
that's
covered
within
the
policy
h6
of
the
course
strategy
and
with
the
article
four
direction
that
we've
got
in
place
in
the
city.
L
There's
been
a
piece
of
work
done
recently
by
some
university
of
leeds
students
that
has
looked
at
the
evidence
base
on
hmos
and
done
some
work
on
exploring
what
the
issues
are
in
terms
of
hmos
and
leads,
and
that's
something
that
we
we're
happy
to
summarize
and
bring
back
to
a
future
panel
meeting
as
appropriate.
But
there
is
an
extra
piece
of
work
to
be
done
there
on
on
summarising
the
work.
L
That's
been
done
by
the
students
and
looking
at
those
issues
in
more
detail
and
but
we're
happy
to
bring
that
back
to
a
future
panel's
appropriate
when
we've
got
the
time
to
do
so,
because
obviously
the
local
planner
update
is
obviously
the
priority
for
us
at
the
moment.
But
but
yeah
I'm
have
to
bring
that
back.
G
Yeah,
can
I
just
a
little
follow
up
thanks
for
that
abby?
That
was
most
helpful,
but
I'm
now
convinced
I
don't
understand
what
co-living
is,
but
I
I
don't
know
any
examples
of
leads,
so
perhaps
a
bit
more
information
on
that
might
be
useful,
and
maybe
we
could
have
been
put
more
into
the
spd
as
it
goes
over
consultation.
I
haven't
got
a
clue
because
I
don't
think
we've
ever
had
one
unless
it's
operating
in
some
type
of
informal
basis.
A
So
abby
was
just
how
about
you
circulate
to
members
of
dpp.
Some
case
study
examples
via
email
and
which
members
can
then
look
at
and
then
because
I
I
want
to
make
progress
this
morning,
but
jim's
right
to
raise
you.
But
let's
have
some
examples.
Circulated
electronically.
F
Counselor
very
briefly,
I
just
want
to
say
I
really
welcome
the
report
as
I
welcome
anything
that
drives
standards
up,
and
I
can't
wait
for
it
to
become
a
fully
approved
policy
long
time
coming.
But
it's
a
very
positive
piece
of
development.
F
Just
one
really
very
specific
question
we
have
visited
on
a
number
of
occasions,
good
examples
of
purpose-built
student
accommodation
and
just
one
very
detailed
point.
The
only
downfall
that
I
have
felt
with
the
ones
that
I
have
visited
is
that
all
the
shared
areas
are
absolutely
fabulous
and
the
whole
quality
and
standard
of
the
interiors
is
brilliant,
but
in
terms
of
the
individual
bedroom
sizes
I
I
actually
think
they
just
fall
short
in
many
of
our
new
developments,
and
I
would
like
you
to
give
some
thought
to
that
in
these
standards.
F
In
it
most
typically,
it
will
have
a
desk
chair
arrangement
of
some
kind
and
a
bed
and
a
wardrobe,
and
then,
of
course,
the
bathroom
off.
What
it
doesn't
accommodate
is,
if
you
really
do
want
to
relax
just
on
your
own
sitting
in
an
easier
position
and
perhaps
watching
a
television
program
or
just
unwinding
generally,
it
doesn't
have
that
facility.
F
It
assumes
that
all
the
students
socialization
space
is
going
to
be
in
the
communal
areas
with
other
people,
and
sometimes
you
do
actually
just
need
a
bit
of
downtime
on
your
own
and
I
don't
think
the
bedroom
sizes
accommodate
that
in
many
instances.
I'm
sorry,
that's
me,
so
the
question
is:
could
some
thought
be
given
to
that?
Please.
L
Thanks
we
have
tried
to
do
that
to
a
certain
extent
already
in
terms
of
the
standards
that
we've
set
out
and
what
we've
tried
to
do
in
setting
those
standards
is
look
at
what
the
schemes
have
been
like
in
leads
so
far,
and
also
to
recognize
the
work.
That's
been
done
by
yourselves
through
through
panel
chairs,
to
benchmark
the
the
the
size
and
space
standards
that
we've
got
within
the
rooms.
L
So
we've
tried
to
capture
that
already,
I
think,
as
part
of
the
consultation
process,
we'll
get
an
understanding
of
what
that
seems
seems
to
be
like
for
others
as
well
and
but
something
that
we
definitely
need
to
consider
and
have
tried
to
consider
already
within
within
the
standards
that
we've
set
out
as
the
draft
spd.
F
A
A
We
all
know
this
is
sort
of
close
to
colin's
heart,
so
he's
raised
issues
about
alliance-based
ventilation,
that
kind
of
thing
public
spaces
communities
that
kind
of
thing,
so
I'm
not
gonna,
really
I'll
go
through
it
in
detail,
but
yeah
council
campbell
has
made
a
contribution.
That's
been
noted
by
officers.
Is
everyone
content
with
this
item
then
seems
to
be
yeah,
seen
quite
a
few
nods,
excellent,
okay
and
the
thumbs
up
from
castleton
much
appreciated.
No,
but
no,
I
think
it's
it's
a
good
piece
of
work.
A
I
think
we've
made
some
contributions
to
it,
but
can't
see
quite
public
consultation.
In
that
case,
we
happy
to
go
with
the
recommendations,
yep,
but
silences
agreement.
That's
what
I
like
to
hear
excellent
okay.
So
our
last
item
is
accessibility
spd,
so
adam's
kicking
off
the
screen
sharing.
Thank
you
very
much
so
abby
far
away.
I
think
this
is
you
again.
L
It's
me
again,
yeah,
thank
you,
so
I'm
very
trying
to
be
very
mindful
of
time
constraints,
and
so
I'm
happy
to
take
further
comments
from
members
by
your
email.
Afterwards,
if
that's
helpful
and
or
necessary,
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
a
very
skip
through
what
this
consultation's
about
and
what
we've
done
as
a
in
response.
L
So
in
in
july
2019,
the
government
announced
its
intention
to
consult
on
options
to
raise
accessibility
standards
in
new
homes
and
in
september
2020
they
published
a
consultation
paper
which
considers
how
to
raise
accessibility
standards
and
that
paper
seeks
to
recognize
the
importance
of
suitable
homes
for
older
and
disabled
people.
L
This
is
already
an
important
issue
as
we're
aware
of
in
leeds,
and
we're
also
aware
of
growing
need
for
accessible
and
adaptable
accommodation
in
light
of
our
aging
population.
Just
to
point
out
the
consultation
period
closed
on
the
first
of
december.
Unfortunately,
due
to
timings
and
development
plan
panels,
work
programme,
which
is
rightly
focused
on
the
sap
and
the
local
plan,
update
it's
not
been
possible
for
us
to
bring
a
draft
response
in
front
of
the
development
plan
panel
for
consideration
before
the
consultation
period
is
closed.
L
So
what
we've
done
is
sent
an
interim
draft
response
to
government,
for
this
consultation
caveat
that
it
will
be
confirmed
following
today's
discussion
pending
comments
from
panel
members.
So
to
kick
off
an
accessibility,
then
members
would
be
aware
that
there
are
currently
three
standards
of
accessibility
set
out
within
the
building.
Regulations.
L
L
Dwellings
guidance
is
providing
level
access,
level,
thresholds,
stores
and
corridor
widths,
entrance
level,
wc's
and
accessible
heights
controls,
and
then
the
next
two
categories
are
optional
in
building
regulations
terms,
and
then
they
require
a
planning
policy
in
order
to
switch
on
the
requirements
for
developments
to
meet
the
new
standards
in
accordance
with
locally
identified
needs,
and
so
category
2
is
accessible
and
adaptable,
and
that
sets
a
higher
standard
for
accessible
homes
which
is
broadly
equivalent
to
the
lifetime
home
standard.
L
Providing
enhanced
accessibility,
circulation,
spaces
and
bathrooms
to
make
new
homes
more
accessible,
also
includes
features
to
make
the
homes
easily
adaptable
over
time
to
a
wide
range
of
occupants,
including
older
people
and
those
with
reduced
mobility
and
some
some
wheelchair
users,
and
then
category
category
3
or
m43
wheelchair
user
dwellings.
This
sets
a
standard
for
wheelchair,
accessible
homes.
L
This
requirement
can
either
be
for
a
wheelchair,
adaptable
home,
which
includes
features
to
make
the
home
easy
to
convert
and
to
be
fully
wheelchair
accessible
in
the
future
or
a
wheelchair,
accessible
home
has
built,
which
includes
the
most
common
features
required
by
wheelchair
users,
but
it
also
includes
user
use
of
outdoor
space
parking
and
communal
facilities
that
may
be
provided
for
the
use
of
occupants
so
leeds
core
strategy
policy.
H10
requires
that
new
build
housing
developments,
provide
30
of
them
drawings
to
meet
m42
standards
and
two
percent
of
drillings
to
meet
m43
standards.
L
This
is
not
an
easy
thing
to
achieve
in
planning
policy,
which
perhaps
explain
why
it
explains
why
there's
not
been
many
local
authorities
that
have
sought
to
introduce
these
standards
within
their
local
plans
and
leads
is
very
much
seen
as
leading
the
way
as
a
best
practice
local
authority
in
in
accessibility
terms,
and
we
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
and
effort
in
securing
these
requirements
within
the
development
plan
and
at
the
time
preparing
the
core
strategy
selected
review,
which
introduced
the
policy.
L
The
percentage
requirements
for
m42
and
m43
were
based
on
what
could
be
accommodated
within
the
valid
viability
assessment
for
the
plan,
without
undermining
undermining
our
other
infrastructure
requirements
such
as
affordable
housing
and
green
space,
and
it
was
always
the
intention
that,
should
the
viability
situation,
improving
leads,
an
increase
in
the
percentage
requirements
would
be
progressed
through
a
future
local
plan
update
and
so
on.
To
the
government's
consultation
paper.
L
It
sets
out
five
broad
options
which
they
consider
to
be
ways
in
which
they
can
boost
the
amount
of
accessible
housing
and
provides
an
opportunity,
through
the
consultation
police,
to
provide
feedback
to
government
on
our
experiences
of
securing
and
implementing
the
policy,
in
the
hope
that
it
provides
a
useful
state
of
government
when
setting
future
policy
direction.
And
so
there
are
five
policy
options
and
there's
three
of
those
on
the
screen.
L
The
screen
now
and
then
there's
the
remaining
until
the
next
slide,
and
so
the
first
one
is
to
consider
how
recent
revised
planning
policy
on
the
use
of
optional
technical
standards
impacts.
More
delivery
of
accessible
housing
option
two
is
to
mandate
the
current
m40
requirement
in
building
rigs
as
the
new
minimum
standard
for
all
homes,
with
m41,
applying
by
exception.
Only
where
m42
is
not
not
practical
and
not
achievable,
m43
would
apply
where
there's
a
local
planning
policy
in
place,
which
is
evidenced
through
local
needs.
L
Option.
Three
is
remove
and
phone
altogether
so
that
all
new
homes
will
have
to
at
least
have
the
accessible
and
adaptable
features
of
an
m42
home
m43
would
be
where
the
a
local
planning
policy
in
place
where,
where
also
where
need,
has
been
identified
evidence
this
would
mean
that
no
new
homes
could
be
built
as
m41
and
then
next
slide.
Please
add
them.
Thank
you.
Option
four
is
to
mandate
the
current
m42
requirement
in
the
building
rigs
as
a
minimum
standard
for
all
new
homes,
with
m41,
applying
by
exception.
L
Only
so
a
set
percentage
of
m43
homes
would
also
need
to
be
applied
in
all
areas
so,
rather
than
local
authorities
setting
a
planning
policy
for
the
provision
of
m43
a
defined
and
constant
percentage
would
apply
to
all
new
housing
and
then
finally
option.
Five
is
to
change
the
content
of
the
mandatory
technical
standard.
This
could
be
done
by
upgrading
the
statutory
guidance
to
create
revised
m41
standard.
L
This
revised
standard
could
be
pitched
between
existing
requirements
of
m4
and
m42,
adding
more
accessible
features
into
the
minimum
standard,
and
the
full
commentary
on
the
relative
costs
and
benefits
of
those
policy
options
is
set
out
within
the
report
and
as
well
as
some
of
the
key
considerations
to
government
in
terms
of
the
practicality
of
implementing
some
of
the
policy
options
that
set
out,
particularly
in
terms
of
ensuring
that
the
exceptions
to
meeting
the
standards
are
very,
very
tightly
described
by
government
in
any
future
review
of
the
building
rigs.
L
So
following
consultation,
the
leads
all
the
people's
forum,
the
leads
accessing
usability
group
and
discussion
with
plans
panel
chairs.
The
interim
draft
response
sets
out.
The
council's
preferred
option
is
policy
option
for,
and
the
main
reason
for
this
is
that
it
will
significantly
boost
the
supply
of
accessible
housing,
not
only
in
leeds
but
nationally
as
well.
L
Boundaries
will
also
give
certainty
to
building
control
inspectors
in
terms
of
what
to
expect
when
they're
going
out
on
site
and
the
entering
death
response
is
based
on
preferred
policy
option
for,
but
it
also
submits
comments
in
regards
to
the
other
options
based
on
the
commentary
set
out
within
the
report.
It's
worth
noting
as
well
that
the
royal
town
planning
institute's
response
to
the
consultation
agrees
with
what
we've
said
in
our
interim
draft
response
and
indicates
preference
policy
option
for
as
well
as
a
supporting
policy
option
too.
L
So,
in
conclusion,
that
the
government
is
seeking
to
potentially
increase
the
requirements
for
accessible
housing
in
itself
is
a
good
thing,
and
we've
responded
accordingly
by
setting
out
what
our
preferred
option
would
be
in
terms
of
securing
the
best
outcomes
for
the
people
of
leeds.
We've
also
set
out
some
of
the
practical
implications
for
introducing
the
requirements
based
on
our
experiences
of
preparing
and
implementing
policy
h10.
L
A
Thanks
abby
right
so
again
it's
another
really
strong
piece
of
work
comments.
Folks,
I've
got
council
richie,
then
council,
collins,
kevin.
B
L
B
Do
agree
with
the
approach
that
we're
taking,
obviously,
as
you
alluded
to,
we've,
had
some
discussions
at
chairs
meetings
about
it
and
put
some
input
in.
I
just
do
want
to
make
a
point,
though
I'm
2.5
when
we're
celebrating
the
fact
that
we're
one
of
the
lead
at
leading
authorities
in
the
use
of
accessible
housing
standards
that
london
has
a
90
policy.
Doesn't
it
on
m42-
and
I
know
I've
raised
this
with
you
directly
abby
and
and
you've
responded
accordingly
around
the
reasons
for
that.
I
do
think.
B
If
it's
good
enough
for
london,
it
should
be
good
enough
for
lee's,
and
I
hope
that
the
government
takes
the
highest
target
there
and
addresses
for
the
whole
whole
country,
and
the
other
point
I
want
to
make
is
on
the
problem
with
achieving
that
which
is
on
viability.
B
Again,
I
think
they're
actually
consensus
on
this
panel
last
time
between
the
right
in
councillor
carter
and
the
left
in
councillor
myself
and
other
colleagues
that
this
viability,
this
built-in
guaranteed
profit
margin
of
circa
18
to
22
is
just
unreasonable
and
unsustainable,
and
the
fact
that
we're
hamstrung
with
with
these
sort
of
initiatives
is
just
unacceptable
really,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
government
needs
to
address
appropriately,
but
with
that
I
do
agree
with
the
approach
that
we're
taking
and
the
consultation
response
that
we've
submitted.
So
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
kevin,
I
agree
that
the
margin
and
using
it
as
an
excuse
to
try
to
water
down
other
commitments
is
unacceptable.
Abigail.
Any
response
to
council
richie's
points.
L
Yeah,
thank
thanks
chair.
I
totally
accept
what
council
richie
said
there
and
I
mean
we've
done
in
setting
the
requirements
through
policy.
H10
we've
done
what
what
we
had
head
room
for
within
the
viability
assessment
of
the
of
the
plan
and
so
based
on
the
smart
from
2017
that
sort
of
requirement
of
17.5
of
dwellings
to
be
m42
and
a
minimum
of
five
percent
to
be
m43.
However,
the
percentage
set
within
the
core
strategy
are
based
on
our
variability
and
what
flexibility
we
have.
L
But
it's
noted
that
the
30
that
we
require
for
him
for
two
is
significantly
over
and
above
what
was
what
was
recommended
through
the
through
the
smart,
so
any
any
future
mandating
requirements
by
government
will
have
to
be
factored
into
viability,
work
that
supports
the
local
plan
update,
but
we've
always
had
that
commitment
and
I'm
sure
we
had
that
when
we
were
preparing
the
policy
in
the
first
instance
that
should
we
have
flexibility
or
headroom
in
the
future,
we
will
try
and
capture
an
update,
an
increase
in
the
percentage
requirements
as
part
of
a
local
plan
update,
okay,.
J
Much
for
that
chair
could
I
supplement
yeah.
Of
course
it's
okay!
Thank
you
just
just
just
to
take
cancer
richie's
point
on
the
the
general
approach
to
viability
and
just
to
sort
of
remind
members
that
that
was
a
part
of
our
response
to
the
planning
white
paper
where
we
we
did
ask
that
that
the
benefits
that
planning
were
trying
to
secure
in
terms
of
good
design
and
other
things,
weren't
hamstrung
by
and
profit
expectations.
A
Apologies
that
my
phone
was
trying
to
make
sure
it
didn't
make
a
noise
thanks
a
lot.
I
know
it's
really
helpful.
Council
collins.
D
Thank
you,
jeff,
I'm
more
than
happy
with
the
proposal
that
we
adopted
option
for
I
like
the
fact
that
we're
leading
the
way
on
this-
and
I
think
leads-
should
always
continue
to
do
that,
and
I
don't
support
that
all
developers
should
get
over
20
profits.
My
question,
though,
is
on
that
option.
Four.
It
said
we
will
adopt
a
set
percentage
or
was
to
that
effect
against
m43,
and
how
are
we
going
to
set
that
set
percentage?
L
So
so
the
expectation
is
that
government
will
set
that
percentage,
so
it'll
be
a
nationally
set
percentage
for
all
local
authorities,
so
it
wouldn't
be
determined
by
the
council,
or
would
it
be
determined
by
the
development
industry
either?
What
we've
said
in
our
response
is
that
perhaps
there
should
be
a
regional,
regional,
regional
allowance
to
account
for
the
differences
in
viability
between
places
like
london,
which
can
support
a
much
higher
proportion
of
m43
than
than
other
market
areas.
But
our
expectation
is
that
that
percentage
will
be
set
by
government.
L
D
Can
I
just
come
back
just
so
if
the
government
is
slow
in
setting
that
percentage?
What
what
do
what
happens?
Do
we
are
we
in
limbo
until
they
do
that,
or
are
we
doing
a
piece
of
work
that
would
actually
put
a
figure
in
there
for
ourselves.
L
So
we've
got
the
current
current
requirement
for
two
percent
m43
dwellings,
as
is
adopted
in
the
policy
h10,
and
then
our
understanding
is
that
it's
going
to
be
this
potential
for
us
to
to
increase
those
percentages,
not
as
part
of
the
ongoing
local
plan
update
but
as
part
of
a
future
next
tranche
of
local
plan
updates.
Should
the
viability
appraisal
allow
us
to
do
that,
irrespective
of
whether
the
government
comes
out
with
any
mandated
nationally
percentage
requirement
for
m43
dwellings.
So
we've
already
got
the
requirement
for
two
percent.
L
We
might
be
able
to
increase
that
in
the
future,
subject
to
viability,
irrespective
of
what
the
government
says
in
terms
of
responding
to
the
consultation
process,
because
we
don't,
we
don't
necessarily
know
what
government
are
going
to
come
back
with
in
terms
of
the
response
to
this
consultation
process.
Yet.
F
I
just
want
to
explore
the
option
for
option
three
thing:
why
would
we
not
do
away
altogether
with
m41
as
you've
suggested
in
option
three,
because
I
think
that
that
will
be
a
loophole
that
developers
will
look
to
in
order
to
prove
to
us
that
m42
is
not
achievable
and-
and
I
really
like
the
idea
that
we
we
build
to
a
high
standard
for
every
house.
L
Thanks
casper,
that's
a
really
important
point
that
you've
raised
there.
The
reason
why
we've
set
out
responses
we
have
is
that
m41
is
a
basic
standard
that
applies
to
all
new
dwellings
and
and
guarantees
that
they're
at
least
to
a
visitable
standard
and
then
m42
is
that
sort
of
slightly
higher
standard.
L
The
justification
for
not
removing
m41
altogether
is:
it
provides
a
basic
guarantee
of
some
accessibility
and
an
m42
if,
if
it
becomes
the
new
sort
of
national
standard
as
a
minimum,
we've
also
got
info
one
to
four
back
on.
If,
if,
if
in
the
future,
m41
is
gone
all
together
and
a
developer
comes
in
or
an
application
comes
in
that
says
they
can't
be
m42.
L
F
Well,
I
think
we'll
have
to
be
really
really
careful
not
not
to
find
that
we've
got
more
m4
ones
than
is
reasonable.
I
think
that
will
be
a
sticking
point
just
to
keep
our
eye
on
that.
Okay,.
H
Sorry,
chair
yep,
no
worries
just
to
go
back
to
councillor
gruen's
point
that
this
is
a
consultation
paper
and
it's
a
response
to
a
consultation
paper
so
everything's
frozen.
I
hope
you
can
hear
me
there.
We
go
clearly
clearly
switched
the
microphone
on
has
made
the
my
broadband
go
beyond
this
capacity
just
agree
just
explore
a
little
bit
further.
The
point
that
council
grew
has
just
made.
This
is
our
response
to
government
consultation.
H
So
if
we
go
in
with
a
very
clear
expectation
that
m4
2
is
our
desired
minimum
standard,
what
difference
does
that
make
in
terms
of
m41
if
the
government's
pushed
by
everybody
to
go
for
m42
becoming
the
minimum.
L
Thanks
councilman
mulherin,
so
basically
it
stops
you
having
to
negotiate
on
a
site-by-site
basis
which
parts
of
the
m42
requirements
you
can
and
can't
meet
if
you've
got
a
full
back
position
of
m41
m41.
The
differences
between
m41
and
m42
are
actually
not
that
significant
in
terms
of
what
the
adaptations
are
so
we've
also.
L
J
If,
if
I
may,
I
mean-
I
think,
we'd
be
happy,
given
that
this
is
a
draft
consultation
response,
I
think
we'd
be
happy
to
to
amend
that
response,
with
the
fears
that
members
have
expressed
about
the
risk
and
whether
government
can
and
should
suggest
any
remedy
to
that
which
might
involve
local
authorities
being
very
clear
as
to
the
exceptional
circumstances
that
might
exist
when
m41
is
accepted,
because
it
may
be
that
there
are
some
sight
ground
conditions,
for
example,
that
that
don't
lend
themselves
to
the
delivery
of
this.
J
But
yet
it
would
still
be
desirable
to
put
some
accommodation
on
those
sites.
So
we
can.
We
could
certainly
you
know,
make
this
point
to
government.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
probably
reassure
members.
I
think
we
showed
myself
I'm
seeing
some
nods
from
elected
members
around
the
screen.
I
think
that's
yeah,
I
think
that's
an
appropriate
way
forward.
Yeah,
okay,
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
indicating
to
speak,
so
I
think
we're
happy
to
make
progress
with
this
item
yet
good.
Okay,
that
is
folks.
Our
last
substantive
item
and
we're
finishing
just
about
on
time.
Just
remains
for
me
to
tell
you
that
the
next
day
development
panel
is
tuesday,
the
19th
of
january
at
1
30..
A
If
you
can
all
be
there
and
it
seems
really
early
to
be
saying
this
and
it
always
catches
me
out
every
year
and
sort
of
appears
out
of
nowhere,
but
it
I
said,
have
a
group
have
a
good
christmas
have
a
happy
new
year,
I'm
sure
2021
will
be
very
different
from
2020..
You
never
know,
but
listen
folks.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
attendance
and
your
hard
work
today.
Take
care
now
stay
safe.
Thank
you.