►
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
Well,
welcome
everybody
to
this
meeting
of
the
development
plans
panel
and
my
name
is
councilor
Caroline,
Gruen
and
I'll
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
The
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
city
council,
YouTube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present
and
could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
if
we
could
start
online
left.
H
C
A
K
K
There
are
no
formal
late
items,
but
supplementary
information
will
circulate
to
members
prior
to
the
meeting,
and
that
was
appendix
2
for
item
seven
under
item
number,
four
organized
members
to
declare
any
interests
and
item
number:
five
is:
apologies:
apologies
for
absence
have
been
received
from
councilor
Campbell,
Council,
McKenna,
Council,
Hayden
and
councilor
Finnegan
and
councilor
Carter,
and
we
have
cancer
lamb,
substituting
for
councilor,
Carter
and
councilor
die
substituting
for
council
at
McKenna
and
I
believe
we're
just
waiting
on
Council
Kaylee
Brooks
as
well.
Thank
you,
oh
you're.
Here.
A
Thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
can
I
thank
colleagues
who
are
substituting
today.
It's
much
appreciated,
thank
you
so
on
to
item
six,
which
is
the
minutes
and
I'll
pause
on
each
page,
and
please
may
I
take
matters
arising
and
accuracy
together.
So
they
start
on
page
five
of
your
838
page
pack,
so
page
five,
any
anyone
who
want
to
raise
anything
Page,
Six
page
seven.
A
B
Thank
you
chair,
just
just
in
terms
of
a
matter
arising
from
the
the
previous
paper
that
came
to
you
on
biodiversity
net
gain
within
that
paper.
There
was
an
indication
that
the
council
was
looking
to
set
up,
what's
known
as
a
habitat,
Bank
and
progress.
The
detail
of
that
through
to
Executive
Board.
B
That
executive
board
meeting
was
due
to
have
happened
in
September,
but
for
a
number
of
reasons,
we've
we've
paused
that
the
chief
reason
is
because
we've
written
to
defra
to
seek
Clarity
on
a
particular
line
of
the
legislation
within
the
environment
act
that
causes
us
a
bit
of
concern
legally
around
the
operation
of
a
habitat
bank
and
we're
waiting
on
and
I.
B
Think
it's
not
just
us
I
think
it's
many
of
the
local
authorities
across
the
country
waiting
on
some
confirmation
in
terms
of
the
detail
around
that
before
we
progress,
but
there's
still
an
intent
to
work
on
that
habitat
bank
and
at
the
moment
we're
looking
at
Alternatives
and
ways
around
that.
So
hopefully
we
can
bring
something
to
Executive
Board
over
the
next
few
Cycles.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
Martin
any
comments
on
that.
So
that's
noted
item
number,
seven,
the
local
Plan
update
just
to
say
as
a
by
way
of
introduction,
because
there
is
so
much
material
here.
We
don't
intend
to
go
through
it
line
by
line
we've
put
some
we've
put
some
of
the
issues
in
the
papers
that
we
think
will
interest
you
most
and
that
you
probably
have
most
to
say
about,
and
the
officers
will
present
on
those
areas.
But
of
course
anybody
can
raise
anything
they
wish
from
the
papers
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.
B
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
really
pleased
to
to
bring
this
paper
to
development
plan
panel
members
this
afternoon.
B
It
represents
what
is
really
quite
an
ambitious
Suite
of
revised
policies
within
the
local
plan
document
that
really
seek
to
implement
the
council's
key
objectives
around
Net
Zero,
but
also
around
inclusive
growth
and
health
and
well-being,
because,
as
we
know,
a
lot
of
the
the
the
build
development
quality
and
a
lot
of
the
way
we
move
around
the
city
and
a
lot
of
the
way
that
we
protect
nature
and
the
environment
in
the
city
directly
feed
into
those
three
key
pillars.
So
members
should
be
very
familiar
with
this.
B
Suite
of
policies
and
they've
been
subject
to
two
key
rounds
of
consultation
previously,
where
we've
had
really
positive
and
and
good
engagement
from
representators
throughout
the
city,
but
we're
now
at
a
stage
where,
just
before
we
submit
this
to
the
Secretary
of
State
and
just
before
they
appoint
an
independent
inspector
to
scrutinize
this
material.
B
We're
going
out
for
one
final
round
of
consultation
to
address
and
deal
with
some
of
the
key
issues
that
were
raised
through
those
previous
rounds
of
consultation
and
I'll
go
through
those
issues
in
a
minute,
but
this
is
just
to
say
that
this
final
round
of
consultation
is
is
naturally
going
to
be
quite
discreet,
where
we're
focused
on
specific
changes
to
the
document.
So
just
moving
on
to
the
next
slide.
B
If
I
can
there,
we
go
that's
better
okay,
so
I
thought
it
would
be
helpful
just
to
start
off
with
what
you've
got
in
front
of
you
today.
Obviously,
the
report
sets
out
in
summary,
the
policies
of
the
plan
and
how
they're
proposed
to
be
changed.
You've
then
got
at
appendix
one.
You've
got
a
track
change
version
of
what
was
previously
consulted
upon
and
you've
got
a
version
with
those
track
changes
removed.
B
So
if
an
inspector
was
inclined
to
accept
everything
that
the
council
was
proposing
to
them,
that's
what
the
plan
policies
would
look
like.
You've
then
got
as
appendix
too
the
the
main
consultation
document
which
is
being
presented
as
a
schedule
of
track
change,
so
that
representators
are
very
clear
as
to
what
they
can
comment
on
at
this
stage
and
what
they
can't,
but,
albeit
with
documents
to
enable
them
to
see
that
the
wider
picture
of
the
plan.
B
You've
then
got
some
legal
documents
that
we
have
to
to
prepare
that
help,
inform
and
help
and
develop
the
policies.
The
first
in
appendix
three
is
the
sustainability
appraisal,
which
checks
that
the
changes
that
we're
making
are
appropriate
when
we
look
across
a
wide
range
of
objectives
that
we're
trying
to
seek
within
the
plan,
be
the
economic,
be
they
social
or
be
they
environmental
we've
then
got
a
habitat
regulations
assessment,
a
dependence
for,
and
that
has,
and
that's
due
to
be
changed
and
I'll
cover
that
later
on.
B
In
the
report,
when
I
talk
about
the
comments
that
Natural
England
have
made
to
the
plan,
we've
then
got
a
rather
large
document,
which
attests
to
the
Quality
and
the
extent
of
comments
that
we've
received
in
and
that's
the
report
of
consultation
at
appendix
5..
Now
that
sets
out
in
detail
the
consultation
activities
that
the
council
has
engaged
in.
B
It
also
sets
out,
in
summary,
the
consultation
responses
we've
received
and
our
response
to
those
and
whether
they
elicit
a
change
or
not
to
the
the
material
and
we've
then
got
a
depending
six,
a
duty
to
cooperate
statement
which
again,
is
another
legal
test
which
the
council
needs
to
engage
within
its
neighboring
authorities,
but
also
prescribed
relevant
bodies
such
as
the
environment
agency,
in
terms
of
positive
and
continuous
engagement
throughout
the
process.
B
So
those
are
the
documents
in
front
of
you
today,
as
the
chair
said,
we're
just
going
to
focus
in
on
the
key
changes
that
we
think
we
want
to
draw
your
attention
to.
B
The
first
is
around
policy
en1b.
Now,
policy
em1b
is
almost
like
the
Net
Zero
building
policy.
This
is
about
what
a
what
sort
of
buildings
are
we
expecting
to
be
built-in
leads
from
the
adoption
of
this
plan
that
help
us
reduce
carbon
and
help
us
meet
our
Net
Zero
targets.
B
The
the
policy
was
pretty
challenging
and
pretty
ambitious,
as
it
was
first
prepared
in
the
plan.
It
went
far
beyond
not
only
current
building
regulations,
but
also
future
home
Standard
Building
regulations,
and
it
wanted
to
get
to
a
position
of
operationally
Net
Zero
buildings
way
before
the
national
government
were
seeking
to
do
so.
B
It's
sought
to
do
that
by
introducing
a
metrics
around
energy
use
intensity,
which
is
basically
looking
at
the
amount
of
energy
used
per
square
meter
to
annually
heat
and
power
at
home
and
through
using
those
metrics
which
have
also
been
used
in
quite
forward-thinking
authorities
such
as
London
and
elsewhere.
B
You
would
then
automatically
result
in
a
reduced
level
of
carbon
use
of
the
building
and
I
think
the
key
thing
in
terms
of
using
that
was
there
was
a
real
focus
on
trying
to
bring
those
energy
use,
intensity
targets
down
and
through
things
like
the
fabric
of
the
building
and
through
what
what's
called
passive
measures,
such
as
the
orientation
of
the
building.
B
Now
we're
still
keeping
those
energy
use
intensity
targets,
but
on
hearing
from
a
wide
range
of
developers
and
their
Consultants
and
through
having
sort
of
detailed
discussions
with
Architects
and
people
who
are
actually
out
there
trying
to
deliver
this.
These
Ambitions,
we
did
get
a
lot
of
feedback
that
this
was
too
much
too
soon
and
from
two
perspectives
that
would
cause
us
a
problem.
B
The
first
is
that
developers,
despite
this
being
a
national
issue
and
despite
this
being
a
local
emergency
weren't,
yet
geared
up
for
these
policies
to
hit
from
day
one
of
the
plan,
and
the
second
point
is
around
feasibility
in
that
we
still
need.
It
is
felt
to
allow
some
time
for
developers
to
change
their
supply
chains
and
and
move
from
things
like
gas
boilers
to
air
source
heat
pumps
and
make
sure
that
the
right
supplies
of
these
materials
are
in
place
to
enable
the
policy
to
be
delivered.
B
We
felt
that,
if
we'd
carried
on
with
the
policy
as
it
was,
it
would
have
raised
soundness
issues
around
its
Effectiveness
in
terms
of
being
able
to
be
delivered
from
day
one.
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
listened
to
those
concerns
and
we've
introduced
a
transition
Arrangement
into
the
policies
which
will
kick
in
from
December
to
2027.,
and
so
that
there
is
a
slightly
slightly
less
ambitious
energy
use,
intensity
targets
to
get
developers
used
to
these
targets.
B
But
also
less
of
a
requirement
to
meet
any
carbon
that
hadn't
been
reduced
through
the
building
through
offsetting.
So
there
was
an
opportunity
through
the
policy
to
give
a
community
some
payment.
If
you
like,
for
the
carbon
that
wasn't
managed
to
be
reduced
within
the
building.
B
What
we've
done
is
we've
not
introduced
that
immediately,
because
our
viability
testing
tells
us
that
actually,
whilst
places
like
London-
and
actually
it's
worth
saying
to
members
that
London
has
a
policy
similar
to
this,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
result
in
all
of
the
buildings
being
built
in
London
being
operationally
Net
Zero.
What
it
does
result
in
is
a
lot
of
developers
paying
the
offsetting
charge
in
order
to
offset
what
they've
been
unable
to
achieve
through
their
buildings
So
within
leads,
which
has
a
very
different
Market
to
London.
B
It
seems
appropriate
for
us
to
not
push
the
viability
of
developments
through
this
particular
planning
route
so
far
so
soon,
but
what
we
will
do
is
we
will
expect
that
to
happen
from
January
2028
once
the
industry
and
once
developers
have
had
time
to
understand,
get
to
grips
and
plan
for
that
properly,
and
they
tell
us
that
they
do
need
time
to
do
this.
So
we've
listened
and
we've
amended
the
policy
accordingly.
B
See
sorry,
the
these
slides
are
just
detailing
the
the
the
two
energy
use
intensity
targets
that
that
we
will
Implement.
Now,
if
members
have
any
questions
on
this,
then
then
I'm
happy
to
take
them,
but
also
we've
got
offices
in
the
room
that
can
also
that
can
also
deal
with
this.
So
the
second,
would
you
like
me
to
stop?
Yes,.
A
I'm
just
suggesting
first
because
they
are
fairly
complex
ideas
and
there
are
a
lot
of
them.
Whether
you
would
prefer
to
comment
and
question
in
between
yeah
I
thought.
So
I
saw
councilor,
Anderson
first
and
then
I
think
I
saw
councilor,
Lam
and
then
I
saw
councilor,
Biffle
and
and
then
cancel
the
day.
Number.
J
J
If
we
give
them
three
years,
if
they
can't
change
their
policies
within
three
years,
they're,
not
good
businesses,
there
should
be
dynamic
enough
businesses
to
be
able
to
change
their
practices
within
three
years.
That's
taken
it
to
2026.,
so
there
is
no
reason
at
all
why
they
cannot,
because,
if
everybody's
doing
it,
if
everybody's
asking
for
it,
then
everybody
has
to
change
and
as
do
the
providers
of
the
materials
we
are
now
again,
the
LGA
are
arguing
now
that
it's
under
new
political
stewardship
but
arguing
that
everything
should
be
local
lead.
J
Is
it
all
approvals
after
January
2028?
That
would
apply,
or
is
it
any
houses
built
after
January
2020
January
2020,
because
it
t
because,
let's
be
honest,
those
of
us
who've
been
around
for
a
while
know.
It
will
take
them
at
least
two
years
to
build
out
any
Planet
permissions
to
get
in
2028,
so
it'll
probably
be
near
2030
by
the
time.
So
that's
why
it's
important,
because
then
you've
got
another
two
years
of
more
retrofit,
how
she's
being
built
and
so
in
Leeds.
J
You
know
we're
talking
about
what
three
and
a
half
four
thousand
houses,
whatever
it
is
per
annum.
So
if
we
wait
till
2030
that's
seven
years,
that's
almost
getting
close
to
30
000
houses.
We
are
not
going
to
have
been
retrofitted,
although
having
said
that
there
will
be
some
developers
who
will
do
it
voluntarily
doing
it,
because
some
of
us
have
been
at
seminars
in
the
past
have
met
some
of
those
developers.
B
Nothing
so
thank
you
for
those
questions.
Council
Anderson,
I
think
the
first
thing
I'd
say
is
the
policy
as
amended
here
in
front
of
you.
We
wouldn't
anticipate
retrofitting
being
needed
if
this
policy
were
implemented,
as
as
it
stands,
because
the
and
it
is
complicated,
but
the
the
policy
will
still
encourage
the
the
orientation
of
the
building
the
fabric
of
the
building,
the
bits
of
the
building
that
that
assist
in
keeping
the
house
warm
and
needing
less
energy
to
be
built.
B
It's
really
around
how
the
home
is
powered
when
the
grid
decarbonizes,
because
when
the
grid
decarbonizes
these
these
energy
use
intensities
are
the
The
Net
Zero
part
of
this
policy
is
much
easier
to
attain,
because
no
matter
how
you're
heating,
a
home
powering
a
home,
it's
coming
from
decarbonized
energy
sources,
okay,
so
so
it
is
really
tied
up
with
the
subtleties
around
those
aspects
and
you've
heard
to
think
of
us
taught
before
around
getting
to
kind
of
90
sort
of
Net
Zero
it.
It
is
reasonably
easy,
it's
that
last
10,
that's
really
difficult.
B
This
is
that
last
10
that
we're
talking
about
here
so
I'm,
not
anticipating
that
there
will
be
a
need
to
retrofit
I
think
with
this
policy,
which
is
also
significantly
Beyond,
where
government
building
regulations
currently
end
up
projected
to
go
sit.
So
I
think
the
council
can
say
is
being
ambitious
in
terms
of
current
government
policy
and
within
this,
this
revised
policy.
So
so
I
don't
think
it's
either
adding
to
a
future
retrofit
bill
or
delivering
in
any
way
poor
quality
development,
it's
actually
delivering
significantly
higher
in
terms
of
Net,
Zero
and
and
energy
use.
B
And
yes,
it
would
apply
to
all
approvals
after
January
2028.
So
whilst
they
may
take
time
to
build
out,
there
would
be
an
expectation
that,
from
sort
of
20
30
onwards,
the
development
in
Leeds
would
be
fully
net
zero.
Using
the
the
upper
part
of
the
policy.
A
J
If
it
hadn't
been
that
much,
you
would
never
have
changed
the
policy.
If,
based
on
your
logic,
where
you
say
it's
actually
not
going
to
make
a
material
difference,
you
would
have
introduced
it
from
day
one
if,
in
the
only
reason,
you're
amending
it
is
because
it
does
make
a
material
difference
to
our
policies.
I
mean,
irrespective
of
whether
I'm
right
or
not.
You
can't
say
that
it
isn't
going
to
have
an
effect
on
our
development
and
so
that,
but
anyway,
just
park.
It
don't
bother
on.
B
Him
I
will
come
back
counselor
because,
because
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
all
members
of
this
panel
understand
the
point
and-
and
a
lot
of
this
is
around
policy
that
would
otherwise
have
achieved
Net
Zero
by
allowing
developers
to
offset
and
that's
how
a
lot
of
these
policies
that
are
badged
as
Net
Zero
policies
are
actually
getting
through
by
offsetting.
Well,
we
can't
do
in
Leeds
because
of
our
our
particular
Market
characteristics
is
introduce
that
policy
at
this
stage,
because
it
it
at
the
moment
it
it
wouldn't
be.
B
B
But
the
theoretical,
the
theoretical
assessment
of
that
building's
carbon
and
its
energy
use
will
because
of
things
like
the
offsetting
payment
and
increasing
decarbonization
of
the
grid.
D
D
So
just
well
sorry,
if
I
missed
that,
just
by
way
of
follow-up,
how
do
we
deal
with
a
rush
of
applicants
before
the
hard
deadline.
B
I
I
think
it's
a
fair
point
counselor,
but,
but
in
in
my
experience,
developers
will
will
will
seek
permission
for
what
they
can
deliver
with
any
certain
point
in
time,
but
they've
got
the
capacity
to
deliver
and
what
they
think
the
market
will
absorb.
I.
B
Don't
think
we'll
see
a
particular
change
in
in
in
in,
in
that
we
certainly
when
we've
introduced
policies
in
the
past
that
have
sought
to
sort
of
Ratchet
up
things
like
affordable
housing
contributions,
for
example,
we've
not
necessarily
seen
a
rush
of
developments
seeking
to
get
in
before
the
wire.
If
you
like,.
E
Bethel,
thank
you.
I
was
also
similarly
going
to
ask
the
same
question
so
I
wonder
if
actually
there
could
be
some
wording
added
for
clarity.
The
other
question
was
in
terms
of
The
Last
Resort
element,
whether
there's
anything
a
little
stronger
that
we
can
use
wording
wise
there
in
the
we
see
at
the
moment
with
the
current
policy.
The
green
space
is
a
similarly
worded
sort
of
Last
Resort.
You
can
offset
your
green
space
contribution
using
the
section
106.,
and
actually
we
see
quite
regularly
that
that's
the
case.
E
B
And
I
think
the
way
the
policy
is
written
is
that
there
is
a
hierarchy
that
the
developments
will
need
to
go
through,
which
starts
with
passive
design.
Principles
then
goes
on
to
maximizing
renewable
energy
on
site
then
goes
on
to
ensure
that
on-site
sort
of
cooking
and
and
heating
his
fossil
fossil
fuel
free.
B
So
so,
and
and
then
there
will
be
a
series
of
checks
and
balances
that
we
will
have
when
we
both
validate
and
interrogate
planning
applications
to
make
sure
that
the
developers
gone
through
all
of
this
before.
We
then
understand
what
the
resulting
energy
use
intensity
performance
of
the
buildings
are
and
can
then
take
that
into
account
in
terms
of
the
determination,
so
I
think
there's
quite
a
few
checks
and
balances
in
the
way
that
we're
seeking
to
assess
these
developments.
We
can
certainly
look
at
I
mean
we've.
B
We've
talked
about
applications
also
needing
to
be
supported
by
energy
statements,
so
we
can
provide
guidance
about
what
those
energy
statements
should
be
and
should
look
like,
which
will
ultimately
again
enable
us
to
have
more
control
so
that
they're
not
they're
not
jumping
to
the
end,
which
I
think
is
your
concern.
Yeah.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
die.
C
Yes,
all
the
things
on
my
list
have
pretty
much
been
ticked
off:
I'm
I'm,
definitely
not
in
favor
of
a
transition
period,
but
the
only
thing
that's
left
in
terms
of
a
a
question
really
is:
if
one
of
the
issues
is
skills
development,
we
need
to
do
a
big
piece
of
work
on
that.
I
know
that
that's
happening
at
various
levels,
but
that
has
to
be
a
priority.
I
B
Just
just
to
say,
counselor
I
fully
accept
that,
and
sometimes
there
are
things
that
are
outside
planning's
Direct
Control,
that
need
to
happen
for
planning
to
be
able
to
implement
what
it
wants
to.
But
the
inclusive
growth
strategy,
for
example,
does
start
to
sort
of
talk.
Some
of
that
language
around
the
need
for
looking
at
sort
of
sexual
support
and
skills,
development
and
obviously
I
think
as
as
a
city
council
we'll
do
as
much
as
we
we
we
can
to
help
support
that.
A
I
mean
I
think
on
that,
if
I'm
always
banging
on
about
cross-service
working
and
co-working
and
collaborating,
and
if
ever
there
was
a
piece
of
work
that
required
that
this
is
definitely
it
and
I
really
do
think.
As
a
council,
we
need
to
get
our
fingers
out
in
terms
of
working
with
partners
with
developers
with
other
providers
with
people
who
can
trade
with
people
who
have
the
skills.
We're
not
brilliant
at
that
across
the
council
and
I.
Think
we
need
to
get
a
lot
better
would
be
my
view.
F
Thanks
Chad,
what
I'm
trying
to
get
an
understanding
of
here
is
all
the
different
issues
that
face
into
it,
because
I'm
wondering
whether
we
can't
be
a
bit
more
detailed
in
how
we
cover
a
required
transition
period.
There
are
some
things
we
can
control
and
some
things
that
we
can't
control.
One
of
the
things
we
can't
control
is
the
work
going
on
with
the
grid,
because
that
is
bigger
than
us.
F
F
I
guess
we
could
say
that
that's
the
the
deadline
that
leads
that,
but
the
grid
is
one
aspect
of
it
and
I
would
have
thought
we
could
have
worded
a
policy
around
something
around
that
because
that
isn't
within
developers
control,
but
in
the
same
way,
when
I'm
dealing
with
transport
I
say,
the
only
thing
we
have
to
worry
about
is
getting
everyone
on
the
bus
and
within
a
certain
time
period,
all
those
buses
will
be
electric
and
will
be
Net
Zero.
There
must
be
a
point
at
which
we
can
arrange
this.
F
But
if,
if
the
grid
is
an
issue
and
if
the
availability
of
certain
skills
is
an
issue
as
well,
is
there
nothing
we
can
put
in
that
would
say
by
2030?
It
would
have
to
be
Net
Zero,
regardless
of
what
we
allow
them
to
do
for
the
four
years
before,
so
that
we
have
that
certainty,
that
they're
not
adding
to
the
budget
by
2030.
I.
Guess
that's
one
Clarity!
F
The
other
point
I,
guess
that
that
is
my
concern
in
this
is:
how
much
does
this
use
up
of
the
carbon
budget
until
2030
and
how
much
of
that
have
we
factored
in?
We've
got
enough
existing
housing
that
we
need
to
deal
with
without
additional
housing
and
and
buildings,
adding
on
to
that
and
how's
that
calculation
been
worked
out.
B
Yeah
that
that
last
one's
really
challenging
because
carbon
accounting
is
is
something
that
I
still
think
is
is
in
its
infancy.
B
B
If,
if,
if
members
feel
that
it
shouldn't
be
2028,
if
you
feel
it
should
be,
you
know
that
that
that's
too
long
then
fine
we
can.
We
can
take
that
away
and
and
to
be
fair
developers,
didn't
tell
us
what
transition
they
wanted.
We
asked
them
a
lot
and
we,
we
really
sort
of
said
well.
What
are
your
perfect
conditions?
What
are
the
conditions
that
are
going
to
enable
you
to
do
this
and
that
wasn't
an
easy
conversation
with
them?
B
So
so,
where
we
are,
is
giving
developers
three
years
to
2028,
which
will
enable
the
large
amount
of
the
development
that's
delivered.
Post
2030
to
be
built
to
the
higher
standards.
B
B
In
terms
of
the
other
aspects
of
your
question,
we
can
look
at
the
supporting
text
to
try
and
contextualize
why
the
policy
now
says
what
it
says
around
the
overall
carbon
budget
and
this
link
between
energy
use,
intensity
and
Net
Zero,
because
I
know
that
that
that's
that
that's
quite
a
difficult
thing
to
explain.
F
I
think
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
exactly
exactly
on
it,
and
maybe
I
can
put
my
question
clearer.
So
if
I
built
something
in
2026
foreign
I
guess,
the
aim
of
of
what
I'm
I'm
trying
to
get
through
is
the
fact
that
if
we
put
something
in
in
2026
and
the
grid
decarbonizes,
it
could
be
Net
Zero
as
soon
as
it
is
possible
for
it
to
be
so.
But
what
is
there
in
the
here?
F
That
therefore
requires
that
development
to
be
built
in
such
a
way
that
everything
is
putting
in
is
on
a
path
to
decarbonization.
So
requiring
no
I,
know
I,
know,
there's
the
fossil
fuel
part
on
that.
But
therefore
the
only
factor
in
it
being
decarbonization
would
then
be
the
externalities
outside
the
developers.
Control.
Does
that
make
sense
because
yeah,
if
we
build
a
building
tomorrow
and
hook
it
up
to
the
grid,
the
only
energy
use
is
electric
and
we
try
and
reduce
as
much
that
energy
use
that's
needed
off-site
as
possible.
F
B
Yes,
in
theory,
the
the
grid
decarbonization
is
one
of
a
number
of
different
things
that
will
lend
itself
to
whether
the
the
building
is
ultimately
Net
Zero,
but
but
the
grid
decarbonization
is,
in
a
sense,
a
bit
separate
from
the
energy
use
intensity,
because
the
energy
use
intensity
is
encouraging
better
use
of
energy,
better
use
of
heat.
So
so
the
policy
still
encourages
that
fabric
first
approach.
B
What
this
policy
will
enable,
particularly
in
areas
like
the
city
center,
the
city
center
fringing,
where
we're
expecting
higher
density
development,
where
roof
space
doesn't
lend
itself
to
putting
lots
of
solar
panels
on
it.
Those
sorts
of
developments
would
prior
to
National,
Grid
decarbonization
have
had
to
have
relied
on
an
offsetting
route
to
become
Net,
Zero
yeah.
What
the
policy
says
is
just
because
you're
building
a
very
tall
high
building,
we
won't
burden
you
just
yet
with
that
offsetting
expense,
because
we
know
you
can't
put
enough
solar
panels
on
the
roof.
B
But
what
we
do
want
you
to
do
is
make
sure
that
the
building
itself
meets
the
energy
use
intensity
targets
so
that
the
high
rise
that
we're
getting
in
leads
is
as
energy
efficient
and
people's
bills
are
as
low
as
they
possibly
can
be
and
that
that
won't
have
to
be
retrofitted
is
that
is
that
clearer?
That.
F
F
What
is
the
requirement
for
that
two
percent
of
energy
that
they
may
need
to
get
from
external
sources
to
have
to
come
from
something
that
is
on
a
path
to
decarbonization,
so
that
we
know
that
that
building
so
that
it
is
connected
to
the
Grid
or
something
like
that
rather
than
something
separate
so
that
we
know
it
will
definitely
at
some
point
be
automatically
Net
Zero.
Does
that
make
sense?
F
They
can't
control
the
externalities,
but
we
can
ensure
that
it
is
connected
to
the
grid
for
whatever
they
need
extra,
because
we
know
there's
a
path
there.
What
we
don't
want
them
to
do
is
to
use
an
additional
fuel
source
that
or
or
an
additional
energy
source
that
is
not
on
a
path
to
decarbonization.
In
some
way,
does
that
make
sense,
I.
B
I
think
the
answer
to
your
question
is
the
promotion
of
on-site
renewable
energy,
the
the
the
resistance
to
fossil
fuel
energy
and
heat
generation
on
the
sides
and
the
the
the
the
the
the
the
grid,
ultimately
decarbonizing,
so
I
think
it's
it's
it's
reducing
the
energy
needs
of
the
building,
reducing
the
heating
needs
of
the
building,
maximizing
renewable
energy
and
and
Heat
maximizing
air
source
heat
pumps,
which
are
non-fossil
fuel
and
and
reducing
fossil
fuel,
energy
and
heat
generation
on
the
site
awaiting
grid
decarbonization.
B
I
So
that's
completely
correct,
however,
what
we're
not
doing
also,
maybe
that
helps
answer
your
question
is
we're
not
offsetting
whatever
is
being
relied
on
electricity,
because
we
know
that
eventually
it
is
going
to
be
decarbonized,
but
what
we
don't
want
to
do
is
add
the
load
to
the
decarbonization
of
the
grid
as
well.
So
hence
the
need
for
the
lower
energy
use,
intensity
standards
and
such
does.
That
answer.
A
I'll
bring
you
in
in
a
moment
councilor
lamb,
I'm,
going
to
ask
a
much
simpler
question,
probably
embracing
all
of
those
points.
The
way
I
came
to
this
was
initially
I
was
just
as
disappointed
as
councilor
Anderson
at
the
apparent
climb
down
it
didn't
feel
right
and
then,
as
I
as
I
considered
it
more
carefully.
A
I
thought
well,
I,
suppose,
setting
off
in
a
direction
that
you
then
can't
achieve
is
not
a
good
idea
either
and
that
we
needed
to
find
a
way
through
and
if
it
lands
you
in
the
same
place
at
the
same
time
as
the
original
intention
in
2030,
is
it
a
more
logical
way
of
doing
it?
So
my
question
in
a
much
simpler
term
than
councilor
Carlin's
question
was:
will
it
land
us
where
we
should
have
been
initially
in
2030?
Will
the
result
be
the
same.
B
For
the
result
will
be
significantly
more
Net
Zero
buildings
in
Leeds,
from
2030
built
to
a
higher
standard
than
we
know.
That
government
intends
building
control
standards
to
be
in
2030..
B
So
in
terms
of
the
Leeds
climate
commission
pathway,
we
will
still
be
on
that
pathway
of
ambition
within
this
city
before
the
government's
Net
Zero
pathway
or
what
was
the
government's
Net
Zero
pathway
when
it
a
couple
of
years
ago,
I'll.
A
B
In
all
honesty,
I
think,
if
we'd
gone
where
the
initial
policy
was
I
think
we
would
have
come
under
significant
fire
examination
and
I
think
we
would
have
not
shown
an
inspector
that
we
had
listened
to
concerns
of
the
development
industry
who
are
building
these
properties
and
I.
Think
it
is
important
to
reflect
on
the
points
that
they're
making
to
us.
So
I
think
we
go
into
an
examination
now
better
armed
with
greater
justification
for
these
highly
ambitious
policies.
That
shows
that
we've
listened
and
we've
amended.
B
So
we
are
more
likely
to
get
an
adopted
plan
as
a
result
of
these
pre-submission
changes.
A
Just
ask
one
final
question:
sorry:
to
keep
members
waiting,
do
you
do
you
feel
that
if
the
committee
today
decide
asked
us
to
reduce
the
transition
period
by
a
year,
would
you
be
okay
with
that?
Would
you
feel
that
was
achievable.
B
I
think
if
that
was
the
the
strong
feeling
of
of
the
panel
I
I,
think
it
makes
logical
sense,
because
it
ensures
that
everything
that
has
planning
permission
from
the
first
of
January
2027.
If
it's,
if
it
takes
three
years
to
build
it,
it
is
being
built
to
the
The
Net
Zero
Council
aspirations
by
2030,
so
I
I,
think
that
makes
justifiable
sense
and
and
I
think
that,
given
that
developers
have
not
told
us
what
transition
they
want,
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
set
the
transition
that
makes
that
makes
best.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
think
probably
like
I'm
sat
here
with
a
generally
open
mind
on
these
things
and
I'm
I
may
be
changing
it
as
we
go.
The
the
bit
I
try
and
put
myself
in
is
if
we
sat
in
a
plans
panel
in
a
practical
sense
in
well,
that's
20,
25
or
2026,
and
you
find
yourself
where
the
technology
has
moved
forward
faster
than
we
expected
and
the
ability
to
do.
This
has
arrived
faster
than
people.
D
Think
I've
heard
a
lot
of
words
like
encourage
and
promote
which
I
don't
like,
as
as
a
policy
strategy,
because
we
can
encourage
developers
to
do
all
kinds
of
things
and
if
they
don't
have
to,
they
won't
do
it
and
equally
have
a
concerned
post
2028,
that's
so
it's
not
viable
and
we're
getting
viability.
Arguments
back
at
us!
It's
the
outcome
that
matters
and
I'm
not
sure.
Quite
that
we're
there
in
terms
of
the
policy
language
to
to
deliver
the
outcome
that
we
want.
D
B
I,
may
yes,
I
mean
I,
would
I
would
share
councilor
Lam's
concerns
if
the
language
was
encouraged,
but
but
the
language
is,
must
the
language
and
the
policy
is
all
development
must
and
that's
quite
strong
planning
language,
so
I'm,
confident
that
that
is
sufficient
for
us
to
very
strongly
implement
this
policy
and
and
give
members
a
development
at
panels
the
the
ability
to
to
implement
these
policies.
D
That
I'd
get
put
once
the
post
is
in
after
2028.
That's
fine
before
that
we
can
only
encourage
and
promote,
and
we
may
be
in
a
position
where
that
that's
we
could
be.
It
could
be
deliverable.
D
B
Council,
the
policy
will
be
implementable
before
2028
or
2027.
If
members
wish
it
to
be
earlier,
because
it
says
up
to
the
31st
of
December
2027,
all
new
developments
must
and
then
it
sets
out
that
hierarchy
of
on-site
Renewables,
passive
design
fabric
first
and
a
set
of
energy
use
intensity
targets
that
must
be
met
now
what
it
then
does,
after
that
transition
is
jump
up
those
energy
use
intensity
targets
and
require
an
offsetting
contribution
if
they
can't
be
met.
So
so
the
must
will
apply
from
the
point
of
adoption
of
this
plan.
B
A
You
know
Mike,
my
concerns
are
about
the
transition
period
in
that
we're
expecting
Developers
to
grow
in
their
knowledge
and
skill
set
and
to
apply
better
practices
over
a
period
of
time,
rather
than
immediately
I
get.
That
is
there
any
way
that
we
can
systematically
sample
whether
they
are
in
fact
taking
the
strides
forward
that
we
need
them
to
take.
B
I
think
that's
a
really
good
idea
chair
and
what
I'm
Keen
to
do
is
to
do
some
detailed,
post-decision
monitoring
and
some
post
construction
monitoring,
because
I
think
the
way
this
should
work
is
that
if
a
developer
does
it
once
they
shouldn't
necessarily
do
it
differently
on
other
schemes?
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
within
their
interests
to
apply
different
standards
to
different
schemes.
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
accompany
this
policy
with
an
implementation
strategy.
B
J
J
What
I'm
trying
to
stop
to
what
I'm
trying
to
get
is
bringing
it
in
as
quick
as
we
possibly
can
noise,
no
buts,
no
maybes,
no
arguing
that
they
can't
afford
to
do
it
or
the
technology
is
not
there,
because
if
they
can't
get
the
technology
in
by
then
you
know
there
are
solutions
because
developers
are
doing
it
just
now.
There
are
some
developers
doing
it
just
now.
So
there's
no
reason
why
the
other
developers
can't
follow
to
the
same
make.
Custom
law
might
have
less
profit,
but
you
know
everyone's
going
to
the
event.
J
So
what
happens
with
the
Thousand
development?
That's
been
given
permission
in
2027,
irrespective
whether
we
go
for
27
or
28
that
they
could
take
them
10
years
in
which
to
build
it
out.
B
Yeah
I
I
think
that
is
an
issue
councilor
Anderson,
but
we
would
need
to
look
at
how
we
could
condition
the
the
implementation
of
the
policy,
but
ultimately,
if
if
a
developer
goes
in
for
a
grant
about
line
or
full
permission,
it
has
to
be
based
on
the
policies
that
are
adopted
at
that
time.
B
What
we
could
do
is
we
could
write
into
the
justification,
the
supporting
text.
We
could
think
about
some
wording
that
we
could
put
in
to
try
to
to
to
try
to
sort
of
deal
with
that
situation
arising
and
have
a
conversation
with
them
illegal
colleagues,
in
terms
of
how
that
can
be
implemented.
B
A
Yeah
rate
and
speed
of
manufacture
might
be
an
issue
actually
I.
Don't
know
that
I
think
it
may
be.
So
these
things
all
do
need
taking
into
account,
and
thinking
about
I
was
going
to
say
Hannah
counselor
before
thank.
E
You
and
just
just
to
Aid
my
understanding
actually.
Is
it
not
exactly
the
same
as
the
situation
we're
in
now,
whereby
any
houses
that
are
getting
planning
permission
now
will
have
to
adhere
to
the
the
standards
that
they're
getting
planning
permission
for
now,
rather
than
the
the
bit
that's
up
to
2027.
So
whenever
we
put
it
in
there's
going
to
be
a
lag
because
for
the
next
10
years
there
could
be
the
ones
being
built
on
this.
This
isn't
going
to
amend.
That
is
just
going
to
be
a
continuation
right.
Thank
you.
Just
checking.
F
Sorry
jet
I
know
we're
going
on
around
this,
but
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
oddities
in
this.
The
one
thing
I
will
come
back
to
because
people
sat
with
me
on
the
airport
one
and
we
had
a
long
time.
Anyone
that
was
in
that
particular
one
of
this
conversation.
There
is
a
set
carbon
budget
that
every
area
must
fit
the
later
we
delay
properties
being
Net
Zero
operationally
and
the
build
of
them.
F
Then
the
the
higher
the
world
warms
and
the
more
of
the
carbon
budget
we
use
by
2030,
and
that
means
we
have
to
find
that
from
somewhere
else,
that
saving
that
we
need
to
get
to,
and
that
is
the
difficulty
here
and
that's
what
I'm
I'm
trying
to
understand.
So
I
completely
understand
that,
while
we're
looking
at
a
development
today
and
saying
it
to
be
Net
Zero
operationally
and
they
must
factor
in
the
whole
life
carbon
of
a
development
built
right
today,
and
we
were
saying
that
that
had
to
be
done.
F
For
instance,
let's
say
that
was
adopted
policy,
then
viability
would
come
up
every
single
time
and
it
wouldn't
get
done.
I
am
willing,
then,
to
accept
that
there
is
a
period
of
time
people
need.
The
difficulty
then
comes
on
to.
How
is
the
dates?
How
has
the
date
been
worked
out?
So
if
there
is
a
very
complicated
set
of
work,
that's
been
done
that
says:
here's
when
we'll
have
all
the
skills.
Here's
when
we'll
the
the
externalities
will
be
done.
That's
fine,
but
I
I,
just
don't
know.
F
Are
we
going
to
end
up
with
them
doing
nothing
for
18
months
and
then
having
a
six
month
run
and
then
we
still
have
the
viability,
questions
on
the
1st
of
January
2028
that
that's
the
real
difficulty
and
it's
finding
that
date.
I
completely
understand
that
you've
got
to
sit
in
front
of
an
inspector
and
bring
this
through.
But,
as
you
said,
developers
haven't
given
us
this
date,
so
we've
responded
and
I'm
just
trying
to
work
out
whether
our
response
is
proportionate.
F
I
am
I
am
movable
from
immediately
as
soon
as
we
go
in,
but
I
would
want
to
see
some
solid
evidence
of
why
we're
putting
it
at
a
certain
time
frame
and-
and
we
can
generate
some
of
the
the
requirements
around
skills
and
such
for
this
from
this
policy.
I
know
that
does
take
time,
but
I'd
rather
have
a
a
calculated
time
that
it
says,
rather
than
we
did
just
set
a
date
in
the
sand.
B
Just
just
to
reply
to
that
and
I
to
be
really
clear
developers
won't
be
doing
nothing
once
this
plan
is
adopted,
they'll
be
having
to
face
a
series
of
quite
challenging
policies
to
deliver
development.
That
is
much
better
quality
than
they've
delivered
before
and
they're
already
that
they
will.
We
will.
We
will
get
objections
about
the
transition
period
because
they
will
say
it's
it's
too
hard
because
it
goes
beyond
where
current
building
control
and
building
regulations
takes
us.
B
So
if,
if
we're
thinking
about
a
proper
transition,
we
start
from
a
period
in
this
Authority,
where
we've
already
looking
to
build
Beyond
building.
Megs
we've
had
that
since
2014
we're
maintaining
that
we're
saying
as
building
regs
ratchet
up,
we
still
want
you
to
do
better
than
building
ranks
and
then,
through
this
energy
use,
intensity
aspect
of
the
policy.
We're
saying
give
real
attention
to
how
how
these
homes
are
heated,
how
they're
powered-
and
you
can
resolve
that
through
fabric
through
passive
design
and
through
on-site
Renewables.
B
B
The
the
transition
period
is
is
helping
those
developments
that
can't
get
there
through
on-site
renewable
infrastructure,
for
example,
and
therefore
would
otherwise
have
relied
on
sort
of
offsetting
as
as
a
means
to
deliver
Net
Zero,
as
well
as
introducing
sort
of
the
energies
intensity
Targets
in
a
bit
of
a
step
to
approach.
B
So
so
so
this
is
still
highly
ambitious
in
terms
of
counting
the
sort
of
the
carbon
lost
or
or
or
the
carbon
that's
still
being
generated.
That's
incredibly
difficult
and
I've
spent
the
last
sort
of
two
and
a
half
years
trying
to
work
out
a
way
of
doing
that
and
talking
to
academics
and
and
and
and
and
lots
of
other
interested
parties
and
I
haven't
really
been
able
to
find
a
way
to
to
actually
capture
that
on
a
development
by
development
basis,
because
it
it
does
depend
on
the
site
specifics.
B
It
does
depend
on
the
specifics
of
the
the
energy
statement
and
the
calculations
that
have
been
made
on
each
and
every
application,
which
is
why
it's
so
important
that
we
have
somebody
working
within
the
planning
department
who
can
actually
understand
those
those
calculations
and
help
inform
the
the
the
plan
and
permission
process.
A
F
I
think
the
only
thing
I'd
say
on
it
is
there
appears
to
there's
not
really
the
evidence
behind
it.
I
completely
appreciate
Martin
and
completely
get
it
as
soon
as
this
policy
comes
in
and
we
enter
the
transition
period,
it'll
be
better
than
where
we
are
now,
but
I.
F
Think
members
have
been
very
happy
that
what
we
were
seeking
was
the
best
that
we
could
possibly
get
and
and
I
don't
want
us
to
move
away
from
that
you're
in
a
risk
game
and
you're
working
out
where
this
looks
like
an
inspector
and
you're
weighing
up
that
risk.
F
But
members
can
choose
for
themselves,
I
guess
where
they'd,
rather
that
risk
be
and
we've
thought
differently
about
it
as
individual
members
on
different
schemes,
I'm
sure
I'm,
just
imagining
myself
as
counselor
Lam
was
earlier.
The
satin
City
plans
panel
with
this,
and
it
all
looks
like
a
very
woolly
six
hour
discussion
to
me
on
something
where
previously,
we
had
a
very
simple
15-minute
defer
this
and
and
send
it
back
for
better
discussion,
and
that
is
my
real
concern.
F
I
and
it
is
those
words
yeah
the
encourage
the
I
think
there's
there's
something
that
would
probably
give
me
more
reassurance
in
there
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
it
was.
It
may
be
something
that
explains
more
what
what
we're
going
through
in
this
and
that
that
development
will
do
the
best
it
can
do
at
that
given
time
and
that
sort
of
thing
I
want
to
ensure
but
I'm,
not
quite
sure.
B
Thank
you
so,
having
sort
of
scrutinized
the
policy
again,
May
I
make
a
suggestion
that,
where
it
says
up
to
the
31st
of
December
2027,
all
new
development
must,
if
that
were
to
say
up
to
the
1st
of
January
2027,
all
new
development
first,
and
the
second
thing
then,
is
after
it's
set
out
the
the
passive
design,
the
on-site
renewable
and
ensure
the
fossil
fuel
free
development.
It
currently
says
in
order
to
achieve
the
above,
applications
will
be
expected
to
meet.
A
E
Thank
you.
It
feels
like
this
is
kind
of
two-sided
in
terms
of
the
permission
time,
but
there's
also
an
element
of
the
build
out
time.
So
I
wonder
if
there's
a
bullet
we
can
put
in
that
says.
Actually,
even
if
your
permission
is
done
here,
anything
built
after
the
27th
of
December
2030
has
to
meet
the
higher,
even
if
the
permission
was
sought
on
the
transition.
A
B
Right
so
I'm
just
re-sharing
that
the
presentation
so
the
next,
the
next
change
we
had
intended
to
move
from
Brienne
excellent
for
our
commercial
developments
to
Brian
outstanding
and
actually
the
bre
group
themselves
have
suggested
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
deliver
Graham
outstanding
consistently
in
Leeds
across
all
our
our
commercial
developments,
and
we've
had
significant
responses
from
industry
to
say
that
that
there
are
very
few
cases
of
delivering
this,
it
requires
such
Optimum
conditions
to
be
able
to
achieve
that.
B
Actually,
the
briam
excellent
as
a
minimum
rating
is
is,
is
one
that's
continue
to
be
supported
by
by
bre
and,
as
you
can
see,
it's
only
really
been
achieved
by
the
top
one
percent
of
buildings,
so
so
that
the
other
aspect
of
this
is
bre
came
in
with
a
sort
of
a
late
suggestion
that
we
we
introduce
abriam
communities
rating.
B
Now
our
Brienne
communities
rating
applies
more
to
master
planning
very
large
scale
sites,
so
I
think
it
might
be
appropriate
for
us
to
sort
of
put
something
in
the
in
the
text
or
the
policy
that
looks
at
the
the
application
of
of
briam
communities,
which
I
think
would
would
overlap
with
what
the
council
would
intend
to
do
through
its
wider
design
coding
anyway,
which
is
going
to
become
a
requirement
for
the
leveling
up
and
regeneration
bill.
So
that
would
hopefully
fit
quite
neatly
with
that.
A
E
Yeah
I
just
wondered
in
terms
of
rather
than
getting
rid
of
outstanding
altogether.
Is
there
a
wording
that
could
be
put
in,
which
is
almost
like
when
you're
seeking
applications
from
protected
characteristics,
type
thing
where
you
can
it's
our
it's
our
aim
to
have
more
than
one
percent,
so
we'd
really
welcome
development,
which
does
me
outstanding.
E
B
So
the
other
significant
issue
we've
been
dealing
with
is
is
is
with
natural
England
and
it
relates
to
the
renewable
energy
policy,
where
we're
looking
to
identify
opportunity,
areas
for
solar
and
wind
within
the
city
and
the
need
to
prepare
a
habitat
regulation
assessment,
which
is
a
legal
document
which
has
to
accompany
that
policy.
B
The
Natural
England
objected
to
our
policy
and
our
assessment
in
the
habitat
regulations
on
the
basis
that,
whilst
our
assessment
of
where
nesting
birds
were
likely
to
be
was
correct,
there
is
land
just
outside
of
where
these
birds
nest-
and
this
is
this-
is
specifically
related
to
there.
We
go
the
South
penins
Moors,
which
actually
facilitate
the
nesting
activities
of
those
birds,
and
these
these
areas
are
called
functionally
linked
land.
So
Natural
England
have
asked
us
to
take
account
of
that
functionally
linked
land.
B
When
we
look
at
the
opportunity
areas
for
solar,
that's
a
reasonable
suggestion,
and
it's
one
that
we've
taken
on
board
and
updated
the
policy,
and
we
are
also
in
the
process
of
updating
the
habitat
regulations
assessment
to
reflect
this
updated
policy
and
that
habitat
regulations
assessment
will
critically
identify
that
the
policy
raises
no
likely
significant
effects
on
these
particular
areas
of
nature
conservation.
B
Can
move
on
under
G
policy,
G10
biodiversity
enhancement,
there's
been
quite
a
bit
of
change
to
the
policy
really
as
Government
guidance
around
biodiversity
net
gain
has
been
released
because
the
environment
act
came
out
in
2021,
so
there's
been
quite
a
lot
of
supplementary
guidance.
That's
come
out
since
then,
which
has
clarified
how
local
authorities
are
supposed
to
deliver
biodiversity
innate
gain,
so
we've
taken
that
on
board
within
the
policy,
so
you'll
see
some
changes
to
that.
B
But
a
more
substantive
change
is
the
introduction
of
a
policy
on
nesting
features
for
Swifts
and
bats
within
major
and
minor
development,
and
that's
a
policy
that's
commonly
known
as
Swift
bricks.
B
We've
had
some
quite
significant
Lobby
from
various
groups
within
leads
on
that
and
I
think
this
is
a
real
opportunity
to
sort
of
incorporate
a
species.
Who's
become
a
bit
more
naturalized
to
the
built
environment
within
new
developments.
So
hopefully
members
will
approve
that
change
as
well.
I
B
The
original
policy
where
we
were
looking
to
introduce
20-minute
neighborhoods
within
the
plan
leads
to
quite
a
lot
of
comment,
most
of
it
positive
through
the
formal
consultation
period,
but
some
negative
outside
of
the
consultation
period,
and
actually
this
the
the
Ambitions
of
the
20-minute
neighborhood
to
have
places
that
operated
more
completely.
B
That
were
dense
and
they
were
compact
and
they
were
highly
connected
so
that
people
could
walk
and
and
pursue
active
travel
options
between
home
and
job
and
services
has
developed
through
the
Town
and
Country
Planning
Association,
and
a
phrase
that
their
uses
is
complete,
compact
and
connected
places.
Now,
I,
don't
think
anyone
can
object
to
a
complete
compact
and
connected
place.
So
that's
the
terminology
that
we're
hoping
to
to
go
with
when
we're
talking
about
walkable
neighborhoods.
F
That's
fine
and
that
answers
one
of
my
questions
which
was
How.
Would
how
would
we
chosen
that
title
I
was
just
going
to
know
this
different
than
what
we've
chosen
the
transport
strategy
and
I
wonder
whether
we
should
align
the
two,
but
if
it
aligns
with
obviously
something
with
the
down
and
Country
Planning
Association,
then
that
that
fits
us.
The
one
thing
that
I
think
20-minute
neighborhoods
approach,
the
the
actual
one,
not
the
one.
F
Some
people
think
it
brings
in
that
that
aims
you
towards
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
expressly
written.
We've
got
reduced
the
need
for
the
private
car,
but
it's
actually
the
reduction
in
the
need
to
travel.
That
is
a
key
and
I'm,
not
sure.
We
expressly
note
that
in
the
policy,
obviously
it
is
making
a
more
connected
place
does
imply
that,
but
I
think
I
would.
Rather
it
was
expressly
there.
F
It
could
be
very
connected
if
I
could
travel
four
miles
on
a
very
good
bus
route
to
get
to
a
pharmacy,
but
it
would
be
better
connected
if
I
could
walk
to
my
nearest
District
Center
to
get
to
it
so
I
think
reducing
the
need
to
travel.
I
really
would
like
to
see
in
there
somehow
and
I.
Just
couldn't
see
that
explicitly
there
I
know
it
is
in
the
transport
strategy
that
goes
alongside
this,
but
but
that
that
is
a
key
aim
of
the
policy.
A
Thank
you
very
much
noted
you
comments.
Councilor
Carlo.
D
B
Thanks
councilman,
so
so
the
policy
is
is
is
an
ambition
and
it
it
sets
out
how
we
would
like
places
to
operate.
B
We
can
only
control
that,
through
the
grant
of
planning
permission,
so
we
will
expect
developments
that
are
happening
within
areas
to
help
contribute
to
being
to
places
becoming
complete,
compact
and
connected,
and
they
can
do
that
through
a
variety
of
different
ways.
It
will
also
help
when
we
are
preparing
Leeds
local
plan
2040,
because
it
will
help
us
respond
to
proposals
for
development
and
critically,
where
they
are
within
the
city
and
the
complete
compact
and
connected
places.
B
Methodology
will
be
used
as
we
look
to
assess
the
the
the
the
desirability
and
the
sustainability
of
those
those
site
options
that
are
in
front
of
us,
so
so
I
think
at
the
moment
the
policy
is
is
really
guidance
for
ourselves,
as
we
make
Leeds
local
plan
2040.,
but
but
but
can
also
be
used
where
developments
are
generating
things
like
Community
sums
or
a
need
for
public
transport
infrastructure
to
also
support
those
things
being
delivered.
J
What
defense
mechanisms
do
local
residents
have
because
it's
fine
having
all
of
these
policies,
but
as
anybody
who
sits
on
a
plans
panel
will
tell
you
not.
Every
application
is
totally
policy
compliant
officers
pick
and
choose
which
policies
there
were.
They
are
going
to
ask
us
to
comply
with
they'll,
often
say
it's
not
policy
compliant
on
this,
but
on
balance
we
still
recommend
that
the
development
goes
forward
for
approval.
Fine
we've
then
got
to
meet
the
value
judgment.
Now.
What
happens
if
a
planner
comes
along
and
says?
Well
we
accept
that
policy
sp1a.
J
We
aren't
policy
compliant
in
this
development
on
this
occasion,
but
because
of
blah
blah
blah
it
this
development
becomes
except
you
know,
we've
got
to.
How
do
you
do
that
and
then
what
do
residents
do?
Because
residents
are
arguing
we
should,
if
our
development's
taking
place
the
infrastructure
should
be
getting
put
in
up
front.
You
would
disagree.
I
accept
that,
but
residents
are
willing
to
accept
and
maybe
consider,
development
if
the
infrastructure
is
put
in
place
so
where's
the
defend.
How
can
we
I
mean?
Maybe
right?
J
Maybe
we
might
take
control
by
then
by
very
much
doubt
it
bring
forward
a
policy
that
we
can
get
our
residents
to
buy
into
because
equally
I'm
going
to
reverse
my
argument,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
people
totally
happy
with
this,
because
I've
had
a
lot
of
people
contacting
me
to
take
this
20-minute
neighborhood
is
overly
prescriptive
and
people
are
trying
to
dictate
how
I'm
going
to
run
my
life,
etc,
etc.
So,
but
my
main
concern
is
policy
compliance,
not
all
officers,
look
upon
each
policy
as
needing
to
be
policy
compliant.
B
Thanks
councilor
Anderson,
so
this
is
an
issue
that
we
already
have
in
the
plan,
because
the
legislation
says
that
the
development
plan
is
that
the
primary
consideration
of
this
material
considerations
indicate
otherwise
and
it's
those
material
considerations
that
will
influence
the
balance.
The
the
the
determining
officer
will
will
arrive
at
and
ultimately
recommend
to
to
to
plans
panels.
B
So
this
is
no
different
really
in
in
in
terms
of
the
way
that
we've
worked
with
the
policies
that
are
already
in
the
plan,
and
it
certainly
doesn't
encount
take
a
precedence
over
other
policies
in
the
plan.
B
What
it
does
do
is
it
sets
out
quite
a
clear
approach
to
the
spatial
strategy
which
the
council
would
now
like
to
see
moving
forward,
which,
as
I
said,
will
influence
the
way
in
which
the
council
prepares
policies
for
each
local
plan,
2040,
where
we've
got
the
opportunity
to
allocate
land
for
housing,
and
we've
got
the
opportunity
through
that
plan,
to
look
at
things
like
our
local
and
town
centers
and
how
they
operate
so
I.
Think
we'll
we'll
really
see
this
strategic
headline
policy
be
implemented
in
quite
a
lot
more
detail
through
that
process.
A
E
Thank
you,
I
guess
the
is
how
to
explain
it.
The
a
20-minute
neighborhood
is
is
great
and
I'm
really
happy
with
the
change
in
title
I,
wonder
if
there's
work
to
be
done,
though,
around
I'll
use
the
example
of
schools.
So
for
me,
if
I
walk
to
my
kids
school,
which
I
do
most
days
twice
and
then
I
have
to
get
to
work
well,
what's
my
transport
link
like
it's?
E
B
I
I
think
that's
right,
I
think
that's
what
the
policy
is
trying
to
to
achieve,
because
the
policy
will
apply
not
only
to
new
development,
not
only
to
the
council.
B
As
It
prepares
its
local
plan
2040,
but
also
to
our
transport
colleagues
in
terms
of
their
priorities
and
how
they
roll
out
public
transport
infrastructure
so
that
we're
actually
making
those
join
ups
between
that
infrastructure,
the
place,
the
growth,
the
services,
so
that
it
is,
as
it
says,
more
connected,
so
it
it
does
provide
a
sort
of
a
framework
under
which
I
think
a
lot
of
different
services
and
a
lot
of
different
actors
in
place
can
operate.
E
I
guess
I
feel,
like
the
theory
is
effective.
I
worry
that
the
the
roll
out
of
it
might
not
have
as
strong
an
effect
on
our
communities
as
we're
hoping
so
yeah,
I,
I,
guess
it's
it's
about
as
local
members
or
as
a
local
member
need
to
be
able
to
bring
it
up.
Anytime,
I
feel
like
actually
there's
some
some
further
work
to
be
done,
so
maybe
that
resides
with
me.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
yeah,
so
I
I
mean
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
the
it's
yeah,
the
policy
sp1a
and
it's
part
like
six,
no
sorry,
eight
and
0.3.
L
So
it's
encourages
mixed
use
and
Innovative
and
flexible
design
of
buildings
and
spaces
to
provide
multifunctional
uses
to
facilitate
thriving
at
local
economies
and
inclusion.
I
think
I
think
it's
just
a
little
bit
too
sort
of
doughy
it
needs.
L
It
needs
tidying
up
a
bit
a
bit
more
specific,
so
I
was
I
was
thinking
something
along
the
lines
of
as
well
as
that,
but
also
provision
of
community
centers
social
infrastructure,
seating
areas
for
rest
and
socializing
that
kind
of
thing,
rather
than
it
being
because,
because
that
just
wouldn't
happen
without
specifying
like
things
like
community
centers,
really
important.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
This
policy
bothers
me
it's
one
of
those
policies,
which
is
what
makes
the
public
really
frustrated
with
the
planning
process,
because
I
look
at
that
and
think
I
cannot
think
unless
you
build
an
entirely
new
settlement
somewhere
in
the
city.
I
cannot
think
of
a
community
in
Leeds
where
that
policy
is
deliverable
in
full
and
in
full,
and
you
said
it's
an
ambition
rather
than
a
policy,
but
again
I
envisage
sat
in
a
planning
committee
in
a
few
years
time.
So
well,
that's
what
the
policy
says
well.
D
Well,
where
are
you
going
to
put
the
green
space
in
the?
Where
are
you
going
to
produce
the
local
food
in
a
landlocked
city
center
location?
In
my
we
know,
the
mayor
has
been
very
explicit:
mass
transit
will
not
arrive
in
the
outer
Northeast.
There's
no
plan
for
it's
not
going
to
happen.
D
So
why
have
a
policy
that
isn't
we
know?
Sat
here
now,
isn't
deliverable
and
is
it
going
to
frustrate
the
hell
out
of
us
when
we're
trying
to
hold
developers
to
it
and
as
cancer
Anderson
said
planners
will
say
well
we're
in
the
plumbing
bands.
We
can't
we've
got
to
give
more
weight
to
that,
and
so
we
can't
refuse
planning
content
because
it
can't
be
delivered.
Knowing
we're
writing
a
policy
that
can't
be
delivered.
A
I
just
pose
a
counter
question
to
you:
do
you
want
to
impose
this
on
every
single
development.
D
G
G
This
policy
helps
to
set
some
strategic
and
land
use
parameters
as
as
to
which
of
those
choices
best
fit
and
have
the
best
potential
to
enable
us
to
apply
this
policy.
So
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
applications
to
it.
I
accept
that
in
the
first
instance
existing
places
and
new
development
yeah.
That
is
a
challenge.
G
Isn't
it
you
can't
re-engineer
everything
all
at
the
same
time,
but
what
we
can
do
is
to
is
to
try
and
assimilate
new
development
more
seamlessly,
if
that's
possible
within
those
communities
by
trying
to
influence
decisions
about
investment
and
infrastructure
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
So
you
know
it's
serving
a
positive
purpose
in
trying
to
do
that,
but
I
think
in
terms
of
the
site
selection
process
and
trying
to
guide
development
of
new
allocations,
particularly
where
we're
putting
site
requirements
to
those
allocations.
G
J
J
If
you
disagree
with
that,
and
or
even
more
importantly,
if
a
neighborhood
plan
is
trying
to
identify
sites
to
be
put
in
and
they
feel
that
something's
not
within
close
by
fits
this
criteria,
are
they
entitled
to
say
no,
no
development
in
this
area,
because
this
Village
you
just
cannot
produce
this?
Are
you
saying
that
there's
black
and
white,
or
is
it
still
come
down
to
officer
interpretation
of
it.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
what
the
policy
does
councilor
Anderson
encounter.
The
lamb
is,
it
is
it
is.
It
pulls
together
quite
a
number
of
new
and
existing
policies
within
the
plan
on
accessibility
on
greenspace,
on
services,
on
local
centers,
to
try
to
come
up
with
a
coherent
ambition
about
places.
Now
we're
not
going
to
meet
that
ambition
everywhere,
because
we're
building
on
quite
already
existing
complex
tapestry
within
Leeds,
but
when
we
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that,
we
should
go
for
it,
and
this
policy
helps
us
to
achieve
that.
B
This
policy
also
helps
local
people
think
about
how
they
would
like
their
place
to
develop
and
it
will
be
relevant
to
them
as
they
grapple
with
some
of
those
issues.
But
it's
not
written
as
a
black
and
white
refuse
or
accept
policy.
It's
rather
written
as
a
defining.
What
a
complete
compact
and
connected
place
looks
like
that,
we
will
aspire
to
and
I
think
just
the
the
debates
for
having
today.
B
Whilst
that's
okay,
because
I
understand
that
members
are
I'm,
obviously
had
some
feedback
from
from
from
local
people
about
how
they
want
to
use
the
policy.
We're
not
asking
to
change
the
overall
intent
of
this
policy.
The
the
changes
to
this
policy
through
the
pre-submission
changes
are
actually
quite
minor,
so
the
policy's
already
been
accepted
by
executive
board
as
a
policy
to
to
be
published
as
part
of
the
Leeds
local
plan
update
and
and
that
intent
really
hasn't
changed
it.
B
It's
really
talking
about
some
of
the
sort
of
minor
wording
of
the
policy,
but
we
can
take
on
board
some
of
the
concerns
that
you
have
about
how
this
policy
is
being
seen,
but
there's
nothing
in
the
wording
of
the
policy
that
should
lead
local
people
to
think
that
they
can
use
it
quite
absolutely
in
the
way
that
you're
suggesting.
J
B
F
Thank
you.
Yeah
we've
been
around
this
a
few
times,
though
I
haven't
really
I.
Think
I've
accepted
in
this
that
this
isn't
a
policy
we
can
through
the
the
arrangement
that
we're
going
through
now.
This
isn't
a
policy
that
we
can
put
in
in
the
way
that
we
would
like
it
that
that
it
required
these
facilities
to
be
there,
because,
obviously
we
have
allocated
sites
and
when
I
think
of
one
of
these
one
of
the
sites
that
I
think
of
is
one
in
your
ward.
That
I
had
to
struggle
with
that.
F
It's
20
minutes
to
the
edge
of
Weatherby
but
I
very
much
doubt
any
of
those
things
are
in
20
minutes,
I
think
the
school
was
slightly
outside,
wasn't
it,
but
that
site
is
allocated
and
and
therefore
that
will
go
ahead.
F
The
main
thing
I
think
the
power
that
gives
this
is
is
windfall
developments
that
may
come
in
because
by
my
understanding,
if
somebody
wanted
to
put
that
next
to
a
village
with
no
facilities
at
the
moment,
we
would
be
able
to
say
quite
rightly
well,
there's
nothing
in
that
Village
of
services
for
the
the
people
that
live
there.
F
Already
this
is
just
going
to
make
lots
of
cardio
somewhere
else,
so
so
I
get
that
bit
in
a
way,
I
mean
I
have
a
couple
of
villages
that
are
perfect,
20-minute
neighborhoods
and
it
may
lead
to
handful
of
houses
going
into
the
middle
of
farsley,
because
it
does
have
everything
that
you
would
need
that
adds
pressure
onto
it.
But
unfortunately
we
can't
look
at
that
pressure
necessarily
through
this.
F
That's
when
we
get
to
the
site
allocation
process
which
will
go
into
the
next
plan,
which
I
think
is
where
we
can
look
at
what
that
land
use
is
what
we
can't
say
is
next
to
a
small
village
or
a
name
one,
because
it's
always
bad
to
name
one,
but
next
to
a
small
village.
Maybe
there
should
be
somewhere
for
people
to
work.
Maybe
there
should
be
some
commercial
land.
F
That's
set
aside
there,
but
at
the
moment
we
don't
have
that
so
I
think
we
know
that
I
know
that
this
isn't
going
to
be
black
and
white,
but
it
does
give
that
intent
of
where
we
want
to
go
and
I.
Think
that
is
quite
valuable
to
have
really,
especially
when
all
the
conversations
around
and
yeah
some
sites
are
already
allocated.
We
can't
make
a
judgment
because
they
are
allocated
and
they've
been
proved
to
be
sustainable
in
a
way.
F
D
Yep,
thank
you,
I
think
it's
perhaps
the
language
in
the
consultation
and
perhaps
the
language
of
the
policy
that
suggests
to
people
if
you're
getting
a
development.
You
should
expect
these
things
actually
I
think
it
needs
to
be
honest
in
the
consultation.
Just
because
that's
what
it
says
doesn't
mean:
that's
what
you
get
and
to
use
the
example
you
have,
we
did
ignore.
D
That's
no
secret
I
did
not
want
Racecourse
approach
to
be
allocated
him,
whether
we,
my
view
was,
and
according
to
the
core
strategy,
it
wasn't
accessible
location,
it
wasn't
a
sustainable
location,
but
that
didn't
defend
us,
even
though
it
didn't
meet
the
accessibility
standards.
We're
going
to
be
in
the
same
vote
when
it
comes
to
allocating
sites
and
approving
developments
going
forward
and
I.
Think
the
language
just
needs
to
be
honest
and
upfront
that
this
is
what
we'd,
like
our
all
our
neighbors
to
be
like,
but
they
won't
all
be
like
that.
B
Yeah
we
can,
we
can
have
a
think
about
that
and
we
can
maybe
put
put
some
wording
in
to
to
qualify
that
Council
land.
So
just
to
say,
on
the
the
use
of
this
policy,
we
will
be
holding
a
workshop
with
with
development
plan
panel
on
on-site
assessment
criteria.
B
That's
probably
going
to
be
programmed
in
the
new
year
now
so
so
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
members
to
to
understand
how
we
use
this.
This
proposed
policy,
okay,
yeah.
B
B
The
first
relates
to
the
emerging
Place
efficiency
strategy
that
we
have
within
the
council,
and
the
use
of
that
phrase
play
sufficiency,
I
think
is,
is
quite
important
because
it
really
sets
out
and
and
captures
an
understanding
of
of
opportunities
for
children
to
be
able
to
play
Within
the
built
in
the
natural
environment.
It's
not
just
about
children's
play.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
I'd
like
to
amend
the
current
policy
that
we
have.
B
Our
policy
G4
on
Green
Space,
to
include
the
word
sufficiency
after
play
and
also
to
reflect
Place
efficiency
within
our
place,
making
policy
both
policies
currently
refer
to
play,
but
are
just
to
be
absolutely
sure
that
we
are
Linked
In
right.
The
way
across
the
council
and
with
other
strategies
that
are
emerging
and
that
place
efficiency
strategy
will
go
to
exec
boarding
in
December,
so
I
think.
B
Hopefully
those
those
two
points
will
be
will
be
valuable
and
finally,
just
just
to
let
members
know
that
there
are
still
some
maps
to
be
added
to
the
tables
that
will
go
out
to
publication.
We
weren't
able
to
produce
them
in
time
for
today's
meeting
and
those
Maps
will
be
a
more
detailed
OS
based
layer
of
the
Leeds
habitat
Network,
the
green
and
blue
infrastructure,
Network
long
established
Woodland
and
the
renewable
energy
opportunity
areas,
because
these
are
designations
that
we're
proposing
to
put
on
the
policies.
B
Map
will
therefore
put
more
more
definitive
Maps
within
the
consultation,
and
that,
hopefully,
is,
is
all
I
have
on
the
the
local
Plan
update
papers.
Yeah.
F
F
There's
discussion
around
my
Transit
the
discussion
around
the
bus,
the
discussion
around
other
things,
but
I
I,
would
hope
will
be
developing
something
a
mile
out
of
the
city
center.
We
may
be
able
to
have
a
policy
that
required
them
to
put
in
a
bike
hire
station
as
well
as
we
have
the
car
club.
Etc
I,
don't
know
whether
I'd
have
to
come
through
this
or
whether
that's
something
we
could
update
in
one
of
the
other
transport
policies,
transport
policies,
sorry,
but
that
that
looks
like
something
that
was
a
gap.
B
Yeah
thanks
councilor,
Carla
I
will
have
a
look
and
understand
because
because
I
suspect,
we've
probably
got
policies
that
can
cover
that
I
think
that's
an
implementation
issue
rather
than
an
uppercase
policy
issue
and
and
and
and
certainly
there's,
there's
lots
of
things
happening.
B
But
if,
if
we
include
them
all,
we
make
the
plan
very
large
or
actually
sometimes
we
make
the
plan
quite
out
of
date
quite
quickly
so
but
but
I
think
I'll
get
back
to
you
on
the
ability
to
be
able
to
secure
that
through
the
policies
we've
got.
A
Thank
you.
Peter
can
I
ask
members
to
look
at
page
11,
then,
where
we've
got
the
recommendations
for
this
paper.
A
So
if
you
want
to
assist
us
Martin
and
Dawson
recommend
to
Executive
Board
the
proposed
pre-submission
draft
changes
and
supporting
paragraphs
of
the
local
Plan
update,
one
are
set
out
in
appendix
one
and
the
schedule
of
changes
in
appendix
2
and
the
sustainability
appraisal,
as
set
down
in
appendix
3,
which
you
outlined
at
the
beginning,
was
the
structure
of
the
papers.
We
have
do.
I
have
a
proposer
for
that
yeah.
Thank
you.
Councilor
Carlin.
A
B
That's
adding
something
about
encouraging
outstanding
briam,
as
well
as
conforming
to
the
minimum
rating
of
of
of
3am
for
G4.
It's
adding
wording
around
Place
efficiency
and
for
the
the
place
making
policy
p,
no
P,
P10,
P10
I
think
that's
adding
a
reference
to
play
sufficiency
and
then
for
s
p,
1,
B,
the
connected
compact
communities.
That's
adding
wording
to
the
justification
about
the
intent
of
the
policy
and
how
it
will
be
used.
Those
were
the
the
changes
that
I
had
sorry
sp1a.
Thank
you.
Councilor
Anderson.
A
L
Yeah
thanks
I
didn't
hear
anything
about
yeah
social
infrastructure.
B
That's
reflecting
in
policy
sp1
a
criteria,
two
number
eight
about
Community
facilities
and
community
centers
and-
and
that
may
be
via
the
change
to
the
supporting
text
or
that
may
be
via
a
change
to
the
to
the
policy.
We'll
have
a
think
about
that.
If
that's
okay.
A
Okay,
so
do
I
have
a
proposal
for
that.
Thank
you,
cancer
actor
and
a
second
please
thank
you.
Councilor
Biffle,
all
those
in
favor.
A
Any
app
stations,
so
that
is
approved
second
part
of
the
recommendation.
Do
you
want
to
take
us
through
that
recommend
to
ex
executive
board
that
they
approve
the
six-week
consultation
and
the
supporting
paragraphs
as
set
down
in
the
appendees?
A
B
That's
correct
sure,
so
it's
it's
it's
approval
of
the
documentation
itself
and
those
changes
that
we've
just
gone
through
and
then
it's
approval
of
the
actual
consultation
period,
which
will
be
six
weeks
and
will
include
the
main
material
plus
all
the
appendices
that
you
have
within
the
bundle.
A
D
B
Yeah
as
part
of
the
consultation
material
will
will
be
really
clear
as
to
what
parts
of
this
document
are
now
open
again
for
consultation
and
why
we've
chosen.
Why
we've
chosen
to
do
that
so
that
people
understand
the
nature
of
the
consultation.
A
I
A
D
A
B
Foreign,
so
this
relates
to
a
consultation
from
government
as
part
of
its
planning
reforms
and
leveling
up
and
regeneration
bill,
and
it's
specifically
relates
to
changes
that
are
being
proposed
around
plan
making
happy
to
hand
over
to.
Oh,
you
haven't,
got
a
card
draw
me
just
to.
B
Just
kick
off
yeah,
so
so
so
this
is
in
relation.
Oh,
it's
here,
yeah
I'll
hand
over
to
Sarah
who
prepared
the
report.
H
It's
a
while,
since
I've
done
this,
it's
all
right.
It's
a
few
months
afternoon,
members
Martin
and
I
have
prepared
this
report,
but
Joe.
If
it's
okay,
because
we
weren't
sure
how
long
the
first
agenda
would
go
on
for
our
item.
That
would
just
do
a
really
short
instruction,
I
think
we'll
take.
The
report
is
written
as
read
as
we've
written
it
and
and
then
maybe
go
straight
to
the
point
to
raise
questions
and
comments.
If
that's
okay,
so
this
paper
is
on
the
government's
consultation
on
the
implementation
of
plan.
H
Making
reforms
as
part
of
the
leveling
up
and
regeneration,
build
I
think
that's
quite
important
to
emphasize
that
it
is
part
of
that
bill,
but
also
links
to
The
Wider
part
of
the
part
of
the
wider
planning
reform,
since
the
planning
white
paper
from
2020
onwards,
and
we've
got
a
number
of
ones
all
out
at
the
moment.
So
the
report
highlights
key
points
from
the
consultation
includes
Vision
plan
content,
Vision
short
and
simpler
time
frames,
front
loading,
the
process,
consultations
and
accessibility
of
information,
monitoring
and
digitalization
and
and
there's
not
in
the
report.
H
There's
a
lot
in
this
consultation
and
that
comments
raised
previously
on
many
of
the
other
consultations
have
been
taken
on
board.
So
we
feel
that
progress
has
been
made
and
and
the
consideration
has
been
taken
into
accounts
for
our
comments
and
other
authorities
and
stakeholders
comments.
H
The
proposals
are
broadly
welcomed,
but
some
some
specific
points
raise
concerns
and
that's
in
our
overall
conclusion
that
this
consultation
does
form
part
of
the
bigger
reforms
and
it's
important
that
the
wider
picture
and
details
is
understood
for
us
all
to
go
forward
very
short
and
sweet
yeah.
But
there
we
are.
A
J
I
have
concerns
at
trying
to
do
this
in
30
months,
because
just
look
at
us
here
today
and
all
the
processes
we've
done,
we've
done
and
we
are
only
a
small
part
of
I
know.
But
the
point
is
by
the
time
you
go
out
and
reconsult
and
if
we've
got
our
own
Community
involvement,
consultation
documents,
which
you
know
you've
not
said
you're,
going
to
repeal
that
so
in
other
words,
that's
already
set
out
so
we're
gonna
have
to
go
back
and
talk
to
our
communities.
J
I
have
real
concerns
that
trying
to
do
within
30
months
will
be
up
against
it.
But
I.
You
know
that's
what
the
governor
said,
but
I
I
would
agree
that
it
is
because,
particularly
if
we
are
genuine
about
Consulting
with
communities
and
what
we're
now
in
the
previous
paper
we're
now
in
our
third
or
fourth
iteration,
isn't
it
so?
If
you
I
mean
that's
good,
that
all
adds
to
the
time
and
the
more
complicated
it
becomes,
which
it
will
do,
we
might
need
more
iterations.
J
You
know
fighting
you
might
start
off
with
a
hundred
proposals
and
by
the
time
you're
on
your
sixth
or
seventh
down
you're
down
to
only
see
proposals
that
you're
Consulting
on
but
I.
Don't
know
how
we
get
that
message
across,
but
I
do
think
that
and
how
we
keep
our
SCI
in
place
are
the
two
concerns
that
I've
got.
H
H
Is
it
so
I
think
that
we
are
raising
that
and
I
think
this
is
the
issue
about
the
complexities
of
the
issues
of
local
authorities
across
the
county
across
the
country,
but
not
also
the
county
really
so
I
think
it's
it's,
how
we
phrase
it
and
how
we
say
that
we
have
concerns
about
going
forward
for
a
31
because,
obviously
stage
one
in
the
time
frame
that
they've,
given
in
figure
one.
Actually
the
scoping
actually
hasn't
got
a
time
limit
on
which
I
think
is
quite
an
interesting
point
because
that
could
be.
H
You
know
how
long
is
a
piece
of
string,
so
it's
getting
that
it's
the
early
stages,
but
that
actually
isn't
counted
as
as
part
of
the
30-month
plan.
So
the
scoping
early
scoping
is
before
we
get
to
stage
one.
So
that's
the
timetable.
We
and
I
think
that's
something.
We
need
to
refer
back
to
the
government
in
our
response
that
you
know,
because
they
may
suddenly
come
back
and
say
actually
that's
got
to
be
done
within
a
period
of
time
and
obviously
the
way
we
we
do.
Our
consultation
and
engagement
leads
and
the
scoping.
H
You
know
it's
very
thorough
and-
and
we
do
extra
so
I
think
that
needs
to
be
something
we
need
to
raise
and
make
sure
that
we
are
taking
into
account
how
we
engage
and
consult,
but
also
the
the
proposing
a
project.
I
can
never
say
it.
Project
initiation
document
got
so
used
to
saying
SEI
and
I.
Think
that's
a
clarification
we
need.
Does
the
sci
still
remain?
Is
this
a
separate
document?
H
They
have
to
be
tied
in
or
will
it
not
be
signed
in
or
will
one
go
because
obviously
SEI
is
very
important
and
it's
not
just
about
local,
not
just
about
plan
making
it's
about
decision
making
and
how
we
advertise
and
how
we
engage
so
I
think
there's
lots
of
little
detail.
I.
Think
that's!
The
biggest
overall
outcome
is,
there's
still
a
lot
of
detail.
H
That's
not
going
to
talk
about
new
regs
coming
out
and
and
and
how
we
look
at
stuff
and
how
it
fits
in
with
the
wider
planning
reforms
which
we
still
don't
have
all
the
information.
J
B
Now
this
this
would
cover
all
development
plan
documents
counselor
Anderson,
so
it
would
include
the
site
allocations
plan,
but
it
is
silent
on
neighborhood
planning
other.
B
No
I
suppose
the
only
thing
just
to
just
to
add
to
to
Sarah's
comments
is
that
we've
made
the
point
in
here
that
if
the
government's
ambition
is
for
30
months,
which
we
do
think
is
unreasonable,
but
if
even
it's
gonna
be
40
months
or
50
months,
there
is
a
need
to
properly
and
adequately
resource
planning
departments.
In
order
to
achieve
that,
because
it's
the
bits
of
the
process
that
are
the
most
time
consuming
are
the
bits
where
we
engage.
B
We
engage
either
with
the
public
or
with
developers
or
or
different
bodies,
so,
but
also
not
only
do
they
need
to
equip
us
to
do
that,
but
people
like
the
plumbing
inspector
and
the
statutory
bodies
that
we
engage
with
also
need
to
be
equipped
to
do
that
as
well
through
through
no
fault
of
their
own,
because
they've
got
their
own
resources
to
to
deal
with,
but
but
it
has
taken
us
nearly
six
months
to
engage
with
two
statutory
bodies
on
the
process
of
the
local
Plan
update.
B
So
and
you
go
at
the
the
pace
of
the
slowest
part
of
that
plan.
So
so
there
are
quite
a
few
wider
issues.
I
think
for
the
government
to
to
think
about.
H
I
think
a
interesting
discussion
through
the
duty
to
cooperate.
Well,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
been
discussed
yet
Martin,
but
I
think
that
might
be
a
good
one
to
bring
up
with
our
colleagues
and
other
authorities.
Yeah.
B
From
from
what
I
understand,
certainly
within
the
region
most
planners
feel
the
same
way
and
and
the
the
national
events
that
I've
attended
on
this,
the
comments
all
seem
to
be
very
similar
in
in
the
the
30
months.
Does
it
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
in
this
consultation
and
I?
Think
there's
a
lot
of
sense
in
this
consultation,
but
I
think.
Unfortunately,
the
30
months
has
sort
of
distracted
people
from
focusing
on
what's
really
good
and
they've
sort
of
landed
on
the
well.
That's
just
not
achievable.
J
H
That's
it
is
raised
in
raising
a
report
which
I've
read
many
times
now,
but
it
there
is.
They
say
that
this
is
the
point
of
the
Gateway,
so
the
gateways
are
supposed
to
be
helpful
in
making
sure
they're
in
the
right
direction.
So
we
don't,
in
some
cases
previously
have
gotten
to
the
point
of
of
going
to
examination
and
there's
problems
or
new
things
are
raised
or
changes
to
housing
numbers.
H
So
the
gateways
are
supposedly
a
point
of
of
making
sure
we're
on
the
right
track,
and
we've
raised
the
issue
that
that
really
should
be
also
the
same
same
inspector
or
inspectors.
You
know
so
we've
got
the
full
condition.
So
not
a
different.
You
know,
a
view
is,
is
slightly
different,
but
in
the
circumstances
we
don't
know
if
they've
said
that
should
be
it's
a
stop
or
go
it's
Gateway
three.
H
So
basically
we
either
know
everything's,
okay
or
you
know,
we're
ready
to
rock
and
roll
so
to
speak
as
going
to
examination
so,
but
we
have
asked
more
clarity
on
what
those
issues
may
be
and
what
could
be.
But
theoretically,
in
the
way
it's
set
out.
That
shouldn't
really
happen.
Theoretically,
if,
if
everything
goes
to
that
plan,.
E
Thanks
chair
yeah
couple
I'm,
just
just
for
clarity,
clarification
for
me
and
just
a
nod
or
or
not.
The
overall
conclusion
section
of
the
report
is
what
we're
actually
going
to
send
in
to
the
consultation.
Is
that
right
or.
B
It's
the
it's
the
italicized
text,
councilor
Bethel.
So
after
each
section
there
is
an
underlined
heading
which
says
matters
to
consider
in
the
council's
transportation
response
and
there's
an
italicized
sort
of
a
through.
That's
what
we'll
send
in
response
to
the
to
the
questions
it
might.
It
might
not
read
quite
like
that,
which
is
why
it
says
matters
to
consider.
E
Okay,
great
so
I
guess
most
of
what
I
was
going
to
ask
them
because
it
wasn't
included
in
that
overall
conclusions,
I
was
like.
Actually,
we
do
need
to
put
some
of
that
that
very
much
solves
that
which
makes
this
a
lot
a
lot
quicker.
What
I
haven't
seen
I,
don't
think
within
the
report,
is
what
we
as
a
city
would
want
the
time
limit
to
be
in
a
very
similar
way
to
what
we've
said
about
the
developers
not
giving
them.
What
we
want.
I
worry
we're,
also
not
giving
her
what
we
want.
B
Think
it
is
really
not
not
like
to
say
what
that
should
be.
I
mean
I'll.
Give
you
I'll,
give
you
an
example.
I'll
give
you
an
example:
I
mean
the
core
strategy
took
from
I
think
it
took
about
four
years,
then
the
site
allocations
plan
took
seven
and
it
still
isn't
quite
finished,
because
we've
got
a
remittal.
The
air
Valley
plan
took
about
three
and
the
cost
strategy.
Selective
review
took
about
two.
B
So
it's
it's
given
the
complexity
and
the
scale
of
leads,
and
and
given
the
issues
that
we
face,
it's
really
hard
to
to
sort
of
Define
what
an
ideal
time
might
be
and
on
the
plans
that
have
taken
us
the
longest
like
the
site
allocations
plan,
for
example,
a
lot
of
that
was
out
of
our
hands.
So
a
lot
of
that
was
National
guidance
changing
overnight
and
us
not
knowing
about
it.
A
E
Come
back
councilman.
Thank
you.
Yeah!
That's
really
helpful
in
terms
of
the
stuff
that's
out
of
our
hands.
If
the
government,
given
any
indication
of
whether
time
when
it's
not
in
our
hands,
will
come
out
of
the
30
because
sometimes
what
they
do
is
they
kind
of
cancel
the
clock,
while
it's
with
inspector
or
whatever,
and
then
when
it
comes
back,
it
restarts
the
timer.
H
My
understanding
is
that
it's
it's
it's
to
stick
to
exactly
what
it
says
in
figure
one.
So
unless
they
say
the
the
issue
is-
and
we
don't
know
enough
depth
about
what
a
Gateway
One
when
they
say-
oh
actually,
no,
you
can't
you've
got
to
go
back
and
do
some
work,
so
the
understanding,
I
suppose,
would
be
that
that
stops
the
clock,
but
I
think
we
need
much
more
detail
on
that
on
the
actual
ins
and
outs
of
how
those
work.
H
So
we
don't
it
could
be
on
hold
for
a
long
time.
But
we
have
asked,
though,
that
is
part
of
the
questioning
of
going
back
to
government-
is
what
does
that
actually
mean?
What?
If
there
are
issues.
B
Just
to
say
what
hopefully
helps
is
we
have
suggested
in
this
response
that
at
Gateway
three,
which
is
the
last
one
before
it
goes
in
front
of
an
inspector?
We
have
a
conversation
with
government
and-
and
we
simply
we
say
these
are
the
issues
that
this
is
the
extent
of
where
we
are.
We
think
it'll
take
another
10
months,
18
months,
not
three
months
and
then
have
an
agreement
with
government
in
in
in
in
in
in,
in
terms
of
that
process,.
E
Come
back
yeah,
just
one
final
one,
please
in
terms
of
the
gateways,
obviously
well
I,
say.
Obviously,
I
might
actually
be
wrong,
but
at
the
moment
we
don't
do
sort
of
the
Gateway
process.
E
B
I
think
the
gateways
are
designed
to
front
load
and
de-risk
the
process,
so
I
think
in
the
government's
mind,
the
Gateway
is
getting
you
in
front
of
an
inspector
early
will
be
the
inspector
saying
you're
going
overboard
with
your
evidence
on
this
or
you
you
I
can
understand
that
this
is
going
to
take
a
bit
longer
on
another
aspect
of
it.
B
So
I
think
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
get
that
that
sort
of
consistency
and
and
get
the
inspector
in
at
an
earlier
point
in
the
process
so
that
you
haven't
spent
five
years
on
something
under
over
to
inspector
and
the
Specter
says.
Well,
you
went
wrong
three
years
ago,
so
so
I
think
I
think
it's
about
trying
to
sort
of
get
that
that
front
loading
So
in
theory.
It
should
speed
the
process
up
rather
than
slow
it
down.
L
You
yeah
spds
I'm
a
bit
unclear
as
to
what's
going
to
be
happening
with
spds
and
hair
was
a
supplementary
plan
any
different
from
an
SPD
I.
Don't
understand.
H
Very
good
point:
Council
books,
obviously
I,
think
I,
think
sort
of
reading
between
the
lines
their
intention
for
New
Super
French
is
that
they
are
form
part
of
the
local
plan
and
I.
Think
that's
the
key.
The
weight
is
there.
So
obviously
the
moment
it's
implementary
planning
documents
are
that
don't
have
as
much
weight
their
guidance
and
so
I
think
everything
expected
to
go
through
the
whole
plan
process.
Collectively
The
Only,
Exception
they're
talking
about
is
when
we're
doing
authority-wide.
H
So
the
design
codes
that
we
we
assume
coming
in,
which
has
been
talked
about
through
consultations,
but
that's
a
question
we're
quite
Keen
to
understand,
because
sometimes
the
technical
guidance
does
help.
You
know
in
implementation
or
clarification,
and
obviously
sometimes
we
use
updated
evidence
that
comes
through
just
to
to
adopt
a
little
bit
quicker
and
make
changes
when
changes
come
through
from
government
or
circumstances
change.
So
we
are.
H
We
are
seeking
to
ask
that
question
in
in
33,
A
and
B
that
we
want
a
bit
more
clarity
on
how
what
does
the
present
roles
and
is
there
a
transition
perks?
They
provided
a
transition
period
for
obviously
the
plan
making
process,
but
they
haven't
provided
those
sorts
of
details
on
the
transition
for
us
in
the
stage
that
we
should
hopefully
be
at
when
this
comes
in.
So
what
will
happen
to
our
spds
and
that's
a
question
that
we
want
clarification
on?
H
C
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
the
use
of
digital,
as
opposed
to
any
other
ways
of
Consulting
with
people
and
I
I
see
that
you've
made
a
comment
in
there.
I
I
share
that
concern,
but
I
wondered
if
you'd
had
any
indication
of
what
that
might
look
like.
You
know
when
it
says
in
the
digital
plan
section
that
plans
will
make
best
use
of
modern
technology
and
be
produced
digiously,
rather
than
analog
any
indication
of
what
that's
likely
to
look
like.
B
I
mean
I,
think
it's
fair
to
say:
we've
been
trying
to
do
that
a
lot
already,
so
our
call
for
sites
on
our
local
Point
2040,
for
example,
was
was
done
online
and
we
were
encouraging
people
to
select
sites,
identify
them,
draw
them
and
submit
them
online.
That
saves
a
lot
of
our
resource
and
it
saves
a
lot
of
our
time.
B
We
also
try
and
encourage
a
lot
of
the
consultation
touring
and
throwing
to
happen
digitally
online,
either
through
videos
that
we've
done
or
or
online
events,
but
also
key
to
that
is
receiving
comments
online,
because
if
we
receive
handwritten
comments
that
there's
an
extra
period
of
time
needed
to
decipher
those
comments
and
to
actually
log
them
onto
our
system
and
when
we're
dealing
with
sort
of
25
000
comments
like
we
dealt
with
through
the
site
allocations
plan
that
that
creates
significant
delays
to
the
plan
making
process.
B
C
Can
I
just
come
back
and
say,
but
we
need
to
recognize
that
that's
not
all
local
people
and
one
of
the
things
we
did
do
with
the
local
Plan
update,
was
went
out
to
to
places
didn't
we
to
libraries
and
places
where
people
could
walk
in
and
physically
see.
Something
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
aware
of
that
as
well.
A
Is
that
the
intention
that
there
would
be
a
variety
of
different
approaches,
because,
depending
on
where
you
are
in
the
city,
does
rather
depend
on
the
level
that
people
are
digitalized
to
the
number
of
people
who
have
the
necessary
equipment?
Some
people
would
prefer
face
to
face.
Etc
is:
is
there
going
to
be
a
mix.
B
I'm
not
getting
the
impression
that
that's
where
the
government
wants
this
to
land,
because
I
think
they've
they've
heard
that
public
consultation
is
one
of
the
key
bits
of
the
plan
making
process
that
takes
the
largest
amount
of
time.
They've
responded
to
that
by
saying.
If
we
digitize
that
aspect
of
plan
making,
then
it'll
speed
things
up,
but
what
they
haven't
done
is
said
that
there
should
be
a
variety
of
techniques
and
methods
to
engage.
But
what
they
have
done
to
be
fair
is
to
suggest
that
we
we
do
a
lot
more
front.
B
Loading
of
of
the
process
and
I
think
I.
Think
they're,
also
thinking
that
things
like
visualizing.
What
new
development
looks
like
and
being
able
to
to
articulate
what
development
sites
look
like
when
they're
built
out,
rather
than
sort
of
as
a
line
on
the
plan,
would
also
be
helpful
to
that.
J
J
It
takes
a
heck
of
a
lot
more
than
30
months
to
get
a
neighborhood
plan
through
for
a
start,
and
if
you
go
back
to
some
communities
and
see
these
are
broad
structures
that
we
leads
are
wanting
to
change,
and
that
then
has
a
knock-on
effect
on
them.
Might
take
them
a
few
years
in
order
to
get
their
their
suggested.
Changes
to
the
neighborhood
plans
to
conform
with
your
proposed,
because
my
understanding
is
that
neighborhood
plans
need
to
conform
with
the
generality
of
the
council's
proposals.
J
H
It
was
something
I
picked
up
and
I
have
made
notes.
I
apologize,
it's
not
in
in
the
report,
but
I
do
think.
That's
important
and
that's
the
point
about
the
wider
The
Wider
reforms
and
this
obviously
links
to
leveling
up
Bell
and
regeneration,
but
we've
got
lots
of
other
reforms
going
on
and
quite
a
few
out
and
lots
of
stuff's
going
on
so
I
think.
That's
how
we
understand
how
that
works
in
conjunctionality
part
of
we
haven't
got
that.
So
that
is
something
we
will
be
as
part
of
the
wider.
A
Okay,
so
can
I
point.
You
then,
to
the
recommendation
on
page
827th
of
your
pack,
so
we're
noticing
the
contents
of
the
report
and
providing
comments
for
the
council's
consultation
response,
which
basically
means
we
are
asked
to
agree.
The
stuff
that's
written
in
italics
in
the
body
of
the
report
could
I
have
a
proposal
please
for
that
recommendation.
Thank
you
councilor
before
and
a
seconder
thank
you
councilor
Carlo,
all
of
those
in
favor
abstentions.
Oh
sorry,
those
against
abstentions.
J
J
Can
this
one
be
sent
to
us
automatically
without
something
to
request
it
because
it
gets
a
bit
because
we
get
residents
saying
what
did
the
council
say?
I,
don't
know
I.
That
was
a
development
blinds
panel.
We
discussed
it
and
we
then
deferred
it
effectively
to
officers
to
conclude
it
on
our
part,
so
it
just
got
in
the
eyes
and
crossing
the
t's.
J
A
You
very
much
for
that,
so
we
we
now
move
on
to
the
final
item,
which
is
to
note
the
date
of
the
next
meeting
which
hasn't
changed.
Has
it
mattered?
No,
no!
It
hasn't
that's
good!
Okay!
Do
you
want
to
summarize
anything
or
conclude?
No.
B
Just
to
say
Chet
that
either
myself
or
my
colleague,
Caroline
Harris
will
be
emailing
you
to
seek
your
availability
for
some
workshops
around
Leeds
local
plan
2022-2040..
B
We
hope
to
get
four
in
before
Christmas
and
then
one
in
the
new
year.
So
if
you
could
respond
with
your
availability,
that
would
be
much
appreciated.
Thank
you.