►
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
Good
afternoon
everybody
welcome
to
the
development
plan
panel.
I'm
councillor
walsh,
headland
high
part
ward,
I'm
chair
of
the
panel,
it's
tuesday,
the
2nd
of
november
2021,
and
let's
do
a
round
of
introductions
remind
everybody.
We
are
live
on
the
world
wide
web
with
7.8
billion
potential
viewers.
So,
as
I
said,
I'm
counseling
the
world
short
chair
I'll,
go
to
my
left
hand
off.
C
D
Hello,
everybody
councillor,
caroline
gruen,
I
represent
bramley
and
stanley.
E
G
H
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
everyone
as
soon
as
we
descended
into
chaos
before
we
even
got
to
the
end
of
introductions.
This
time,
council
alan
lam,
for
whether
we
walked.
A
Thanks
everybody
right,
so
let's
move
to
our
agenda
pack
so
natasha.
If
you
want
to
go
through
items,
one
two
three
that'd
be
great.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much
welcome
council
smith.
We
we
do
get
quite
serious
later
on.
It's
not
you
know
it's
not
always
like
the
interest.
Sorry
folks,
if
you
want
to
turn
to
pages
seven
to
ten
they're
the
minutes
from
our
meeting
of
ninth
september,
I'm
going
to
go
through
them
page
by
page,
but
I'm
assuming
you've
read
them.
We
covered
quite
a
lot
of
ground.
Is
there
any
matters
arising
from
pages
five
to
ten?
Rather
no
hang
on
didn't
apologize.
A
I
B
B
I
I'll
just
read
what
I've
interpreted
as
that
sorry,
yeah
members
heard
that
the
interim
sci
allowed
colleagues
to
undertake
planning
making
activity
and
the
full
sci
will
be
brought
before
planet
panel
members
at
the
dpp
meeting
in
november
that
that's
in
the
middle
of
the
face.
A
B
Yes,
so
we're
certainly
aiming
to
to
to
bring
back
for
the
discussion
the
sustainability
statement
of
community
involvement
for
for
january.
It
may
not
be
a
full
version,
because
I
think
me
in
makai
the
last
one
said
that
he
wanted
to
use.
The
results
of
this
consultation
is
a
good
way
of
understanding
how
effective
the
interim
statement
of
community
involvement
was
and
for
a
full
discussion.
I
think
councilor
anderson
requested
that
we
could
use
a
session
for
a
discussion
about
what
worked.
What
didn't
was
my
recollection
for
the
last
meeting
so
january.
B
A
H
Just
on
that,
I
think
it
really
is
important
that
we
we
get
this
get
on
top
of
this,
because
it's
something
that
it
feels
like.
We
keep
finding
a
bit
more
long
grass
to
kick
it
into,
and
that's
how
we
involve
the
community
in
planning
and
development,
there's
nothing
much
more
important
than
that.
Frankly,
so
I
really
feel
that
we
need
to
hold
officer's
feet
to
the
fire
that
this
does
come
as
a
substantial
item
in
january
and
we
can
actually
make
some
progress
in
moving
it
forward.
C
Allen
I
wished
other
departments
were
as
good
at
involving
the
community
as
planning
is.
I
can
think
of
many
organizations
on
top
of
my
list
highways,
who
would
never
even
tell
you
what's
going
on
at
the
end
of
your
street,
so
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
departments
david
that
could
learn
a
lot
from
planner
and
our
consultation
methods.
That
means
that
doesn't
mean
we
can.
We
can
do
it
better.
We
can
always
do
it
better,
but
I
just
make
that
point.
A
A
E
I
will
I'm
going
to
know
the
last
comment
and
yeah,
but
yes,
I
think
you're
absolutely
right
and
I
think
the
minutes
maybe
don't
reflect
what
was
said,
but
I
don't
know,
but
if
I
can
give
an
undertaking
that
we
will
bring
it
back
in
january's
meeting
yeah
as
a
substantive
item
yeah.
Thank
you.
A
Right
in
that
case
is
with,
with
the
exception
of
that
one
point
happy
with
the
minutes
folks
seeing
nods
around
the
room,
brilliant
okay.
So
let's
move
on
to
agenda
item
seven,
which
is
a
one
of
two
substantive
items,
and
this
will
be
discussion
discussing
a
piece
of
work
that
has
involved
huge
members
of
the
community
in
many
in
different
ways.
A
It
is
the
emerging
themes
from
the
local
plan
update,
which
is
obviously
got
a
climate
emergency
focus
which
is
extremely
relevant
to
the
moment,
we're
now
with
cop26
well
underway
in
glasgow,
although
if
you
saw
cnn's
coverage
yesterday,
they
pitched
tent
in
edinburgh
and
had
wolf
blitzer
in
an
outside
broadcast
tent
with
with
edinburgh
castle
and
arthur
c.
In
the
background,
I
suspect
some
people
are
being
fired
as
we
speak.
Regarding
that,
it's
just
incredibly
funny.
A
I've
been
watching
a
lot
of
cop
26,
so,
as
you
might
imagine,
with
no
other
hat,
but
this
is
the
emerging
themes
from
the
local
plan.
Consultation
is
possible,
the
most
important
planning
document
in
many
years
in
this
city.
So
it's
quite
an
exciting
item
for
myself.
Personally,
I
hope
for
the
panel
members
a
lot
of
work
gone
into
this
over
18
months
now
so
adam
the
floyd
shops.
A
We've
got
quite
a
lot
of
time
on
this
folks,
so
adam's
gonna
do
his
presentation
and
then
we'll
do
discussion
and
debate
when
he's
finished
his
presentations.
That's
okay,.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
so
this
report
is
designed
to
provide
some
interim
findings
and
emerging
themes
from
the
local
pun,
update
consultation
which,
as
members
very
well
known,
took
place
over
the
summer.
B
B
However,
there
is
no
formal
meeting
of
dpp
in
december,
so
it's
thought
it'd
be
helpful
to
provide
some
initial
feedback
and
and
thoughts
on
those
kind
of
initial
findings
from
the
consultation
given
that
at
this
stage
most
of
the
representations
have
been
assessed,
but
it
is
really
important
to
stress,
as
I
hope
the
report
does,
that
the
interim
nature
of
these
findings-
and
so
it's
important
not
to
prejudge
the
outcome
of
the
consultation
until
a
full
report
of
consultation
is
finalized.
B
The
report
does
go
into
details
on
the
nature
of
the
consultation
itself.
However,
I
am
conscious
that
members
received
a
report
on
the
consultation
mechanisms
from
my
colleague
ian
mckay
in
september,
so
I
don't
propose
to
go
into
further
details
on
the
consultation
elements
themselves,
other
than
to
say
that
it
was
a
very
different
consultation.
B
I
think,
than
anyone
we've
previously
done
in
terms
of
development
plan
documents,
the
restrictions
that
we're
under,
but
also
the
use
of
a
variety
of
different
media,
including
for
the
first
time
things
like
webinars
videos
tailoring
our
website
to
be
friendly
for
for
mobile
phones.
B
So
just
going
to
take
members
through,
as
the
report
does
in
elements
of
the
scope
first
and
then
the
individual
topic
areas
and
again,
as
as
the
report
makes
clear,
there
is
strong
support
for
the
overall
scope
of
the
plan
and
there
is
very
strong
support
for
taking
the
approach
of
five
five
topic
areas
rather
than
perhaps
a
more
narrow
definition
of
the
climate
emergency,
which
perhaps
would
maybe
just
focus
on
the
emissions
from
buildings.
B
However,
it's
also
important
to
note
that
a
number
of
representatives
have
requested
that
the
scope
be
altered
and
including
representatives
of
the
development
industry
requested
that
the
scope
be
widened
to
include
revised
housing
requirement
that
takes
account
of
the
35
uplift
prescribed
by
the
government
and
also
new
housing
allocations
to
take
account
of
that,
as
well
as
new
policies
around
the
distribution
of
housing.
B
All
the
representators
have
similarly
requested
that
housing,
numbers
and
distribution
be
included,
but
but
in
order
to
account
for
potential
increases
in
carbon
emissions
to
perhaps
reduce
the
amounts
of
housing,
delivery
and
housing
delivery
in
what
they
feel
would
be
on
sustainable
locations
representative
also
advised
that
the
scope
should
be
expanded
to
include
affordable
housing
as
an
example
in
order
to
better
address
the
unsustainability
goals.
B
Other
issues
include
blue
infrastructure,
which
I'll
address
later
on,
and
the
inclusion
of
employment
land
amongst
others
so
taken
together.
This
would
represent
quite
a
much
larger
scope
if
we
were
to
agree
to
these
suggested
changes.
A
much
larger
scope
than
clearly
has
been
outlined
by
the
council
so
far,
so
obviously
careful
consideration
needs
to
be
given
to
what
a
response
would
be
to
that
potential.
Expansion
of
the
scope.
A
I
A
clarification
so
when
you
say,
including
the
affordable
homes,
affordable
homes
would
be
subject
to
the
same
standards
every
other
house,
wouldn't
they
it's
not
like
they're
separate,
and
we
need
to
consider
those
differently.
B
Yeah,
so
just
to
clarify
what
what
that
means
is
that
the
the
representators
who've
requested
that
affordable
housing
be
considered.
What
they
mean
is
that
new
policies
for
affordable
housing,
so
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
that
should
be
delivered
separately
from
carbon
emissions
standards
which
absolutely
right,
affordable
housing,
would
be
subject
to
them
as
the
same
as
standard
housing
would
be.
B
So,
moving
on
to
carbon
reduction
as
the
first
topic
paper
again
broad
support
for
all
the
policy
areas
within
the
carbon
reduction
topic
paper
in
regard
to
whole
life
cycle,
carbon
cost
or
higher
lifestyle
and
whole
life
cycle
carbon
emissions.
B
There
is
again
strong
support
for
this
to
be
included,
requiring
developments
to
measure
their
carbon
impacts
and
detailed
comments.
So
far,
analyze
relating
to
that
have
requested,
probably
greater
clarity
on
the
assessment
standards
that
would
need
to
be
used.
Also,
question
marks
about
who
would
monitor
and
assess
these
standards.
B
There's
the
the
the
danger
of
the
phrase
I
think
that's
used
in
one
of
the
representations
is
of
developers
marking
their
own
homework
and
the
danger
without
upskilling
of
of
officers
that
that
we
can
be
imposing
standards
that
the
council
can't
actually
assess.
So
that's
a
concern.
That's
been
raised
through
consultation.
B
The
development
industry
is
also
keen
to
see
transitional
arrangements
so
that
this
comes
in
in
a
gradual
step
basis,
rather
than
what
you
might
term
as
overnight
and
clearly.
Obviously,
the
development
plan
process
is
a
long
process,
so
nothing
would
be
coming
in
overnight,
but
that's
a
request
from
the
development
industry.
B
With
regards
to
operational
energy,
again,
there
is
broad
support
for
the
council
pursuing
policies
to
make
new
developments
and
new
buildings
net
zero
carbon.
Some
of
the
detailed
comments
that
we've
received
include
statements
that
you
know
this
is
technology
that
already
exists
today
and
should
be
making
use
of
it
right
now,
but
also
questions
about
a
clear
definition
of
what
zero
carbon
performance
actually
means
and
how
it
would
be
measured,
which
is
similar
to
the
point
I
raised
earlier.
B
B
Developments
should
reduce
their
energy
demands
by
80
percent.
So
it
doesn't
get
us
to
net
zero
carbon,
but
does
get
significant
steps
towards
it.
B
Sustainable
construction
members
recall
the
question
asked
here
was
essentially
should
leeds
be
setting
its
own
standards
of
sustainable
construction,
or
should
we
be
making
use
of
national
or
even
international
standards?
I
think
there
is
quite
a
lot
of
debate
on
either
side
and
view
views
were
quite
quite
strong
on
either
side.
I
think
largely
due
for
the
reasons
of
of
kind
of
resource
implications
for
the
council.
B
Most
respondents
of
the
comments
so
far
analyzed
would
say
that
they
would
prefer
a
national
standard
or
even
an
international
standard,
rather
than
leads
developing
their
own
bespoke.
One
and
developers
have
also
agreed
with
those
statements
I
think,
for
ease
of
standardization
across
across
the
country.
It
should
be
recognized
so
that
a
few
people
have
said
that
they
would
like
leads
to
set
their
own
standards,
because
the
opportunities
to
be
as
aspirational
as
they
possibly
can
be.
B
So
it
certainly
wasn't
a
unified
front
on
that
point
in
terms
of
resilience
to
heat
again
general
supports
but
again
comments
from
the
development
industry.
The
building
regulations
do
already
deal
with
this
issue.
However,
other
councils,
whilst
recognizing
that
fact
have
said
that
existing
standards
do
not
go
far
enough,
which
is
why
local
policies
should
be
preferred
and
finally,
in
terms
of
renewable
energy.
So
in
terms
of
carbon
reduction
on
the
topic
of
renewable
energy.
B
Again,
very
strong
support
of
those
reps
analyzed
strong
support
for
on-site
renewables
and
technical
comments
on
things
like
ground
and
water
source,
heat
pumps
and
their
effectiveness
for
certain
kinds
of
developments,
which
I
think
is
very
helpful.
In
terms
of
that
technical
understanding
that
that
we
know
we
need
in
terms
of
developing
these
policies
and
again,
there
was
probably
more
well.
B
So
if
we
move
on
to
flood
risk
again,
I'm
going
to
say
it's
quite
a
lot.
Broad
support
for
all
policy
areas
here,
and
I
think
the
first
topic
was
about
development
in
flood
risk
areas.
And
the
question
that
was
being
posed
here
was
whether
the
council
got
the
balance
right
in
terms
of
developments
in
areas
that
were
otherwise
very
sustainable,
because
they're
well
located
to
say
town
centres
and
employment
opportunities,
but
we're
in
areas
of
higher
flood
risk.
B
The
general
view
coming
back
would
appear
to
be
that
the
council
hasn't
got
that
balance
right
and
that
people
feel
that
flood
risk
trumps.
Other
sustainability
considerations,
that's
not
a
universal
view.
There
are
others
who
feel
that
if
developments
can
be
designed
appropriately
and
can
be
made
resilient
to
risk
of
flooding
that
sustainable
places
such
as
this
are
appropriate
locations
for
development.
So
there
is
debate
there,
but
there's
strong
views
on
either
side
in
terms
of
functional
floodplain.
Again.
B
Support
for
limiting
expansion
into
unprotected
areas
and
the
environment
agency
requested
that
we
kind
of
look
at
future
functional
floodplain,
which
is
an
interesting
concept
which
I
guess,
which
is
going
beyond
initial
modeling
work
into
the
sort
of
modeling
of
what
could
be
the
functional
floor,
blade
of
the
sort
of
medium
to
even
long
term,
which
is,
I
think,
something
that
we
haven't
looked
at
in
detail
so
far,
but
certainly
something
that
we
can.
We
can
pursue
and
see
how
how
that
can
be
accommodated
with
an
existing
sort
of
national
frameworks
as
well.
B
B
This
is
according
largely
to
the
development
industry,
rather
than
being
a
matter
for
local
policy,
so
strong
support
for
us
to
have
new
policies
largely
from
members
of
the
public.
The
development
industry
came
for
us
to
just
make
use
of
existing
national
policies.
So
there's
a
debate
clearly
there
in
terms
of
how
we
should
pursue
that.
B
Resilience
again
broad
support,
but
fears
from
some
house
builders
saw
concerns
for
a
more
accurate
word,
that
new
policies
with
heightened
standards
of
flood
resilience
could
impact
on
viability
and
would
potentially
limit
innovation
as
well
and
viability
is
a
fairly
consistent
theme
across
many
of
the
objections
that
we
have
received
in
terms
of
the
concerns
that
such
measures
that
we're
proposing
can
be
demonstrated
to
be
viable
or
not
vulnerable.
B
People
again
broad
support
for
the
council,
setting
specific
policies
to
account
for
vulnerabilities,
particularly
in
flood
risk
areas,
with
strong
support
from
the
environment
agency
on
poland,
new
policies
that
could
do
with
safe
access
and
egress
in
flood
risk
areas
and,
finally,
on
flood
risk
in
terms
of
permitted
development
rights
and
poorest.
B
Paving
this
related
to
the
issue
of
paving
over
front
gardens
primarily
and,
as
members
will
recall,
it's
a
it's
a
thorny
issue
and
a
challenging
area
to
consult
on
because
of
the
limitations
that
the
local
authorities
currently
have
in
terms
of
committed
development
rights,
meaning
that
you
don't
need
planning
permission
to
pay
for
your
front
gardens.
And
this
is
something
that
we
try
to
explain
through
the
consultation
which
I
think
has
been
understood.
B
B
I
think
frustration
that
local
authorities
don't
have
those
powers,
but
some
interesting
policy
areas
coming
out
of
haringey
about
restricting
the
developable
area
of
a
site,
which
is
something
that
I
think
we
need
to
investigate
a
little
bit
further
to
see
how
that
could
work
in
leeds
and
whether
that's
applicable
or
not,
but
that's
that
was
sort
of
muted
by
by
some
representators
about
a
way
that
we
could
get
around
some
of
the
committed
development
rights
issues.
B
So
that's
something
for
us
to
go
away
and
further
think
through
topic,
three
green
infrastructure,
again,
broad
support
for
heightened
gi
policies
within
the
local
plan
update
and
a
particular
theme.
That's
emerged
from
a
number
of
consultes
related
to
the
need
for
this
topic
of
green
infrastructure
to
merge
with
a
blue
infrastructure
topic-
and
I
know
members
of
a
development
plan
panel
have
considered
this
issue
before.
I
particularly
remember
council
alum
raising
such
issues
before
we
went
out
to
consultation.
B
We
made
some
amendments,
the
consultation
material,
to
try
and
take
account
of
that.
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
clearly
those
changes
haven't
gone
far
enough
to
to
to
for
all
consultants,
so
that's
clearly
again
something
that
we
need
to
take
on
board
and
and
reflect
how
we
can
better
bring
in
blue
infrastructure
into
the
into
the
documentation
and
fundamentally
how
we
can
better
reflect
blue
infrastructure
into
new
policies.
B
Biodiversity.
One
of
the
the
the
comments
that
stood
out,
I
think,
as
well,
was
the
recognition
of
the
ecological
emergency
rather
than
necessarily
just
a
climate
emergency,
and
I
think,
whilst
lots
of
representations
may
have
not
used
those
words,
I
think
the
intent
of
that.
It's
not
for
me
to
summarize
necessarily,
but
I
think
the
intent
of
that
still
comes
through
from
a
lot
of
representations.
B
I
think
as
well
you'll
remember
that
the
question
about
biodiversity
was
largely
centered
around
biodiversity
net
gain
the
national
picture
through
the
environment
bill
is
to
have
a
10
biodiverse
net
gain,
and
the
question
was
whether
leads
should
be
looking
to
go
further
than
that
and
again
it
was
a
mixed
picture.
B
The
majority
of
support
from
the
representations
have
been
analyzed,
do
support
going
further,
but
concerns
about
the
viability
of
such
an
approach
do
also
come
out
and
the
practicality
of
that
come
out
through
the
development
industry
as
well.
So
there
is
there's
a
split,
but
I
think
broad
support
for
going
further,
but
we
obviously
need
to
think
carefully
about
how
that
could
work
trees.
Finally,
no
not.
Finally,
but
next
there's
I
mean
as
to
be
expected.
B
I
think
there's
strong
support
for
heightened
policies
to
protect
existing
trees
and
to
plant
more
as
part
of
new
developments,
with
broad
support
for
going
further
than
the
three
for
one,
which
is
the
current
replacement
ratio.
Other
comments
included,
you
know
consultees,
recommending
the
use
of
software
called
I
tree,
which
is
used
to
capture
the
values
of
carbon
orchestration
on
site,
which
I
think
is
a
tool
that's
been
developed
by
the
university
of
leeds
on
that
topic
of
carbon
sequestration.
B
There's
concerns
have
been
raised.
I
think
from
some
members
of
the
development
industry,
certainly
not
all,
but
some
about
how
burdensome
it
may
be
for
developers
to
have
to
audit
carbon
sequestration
levels
of
trees
on
all
sites.
So
that
was
a
query
or
a
concern
raised
by
some
some
representators.
B
Something
that
clearly
came
out
from
the
forestry
commission
was
and
other
representations
to
be
fair
was
the
need
for
diversity
of
tree
species,
particularly
to
resist
against
disease,
wiping
out
a
population
on
a
site,
and
the
forestry
commission
have
advocated
the
use
of
a
tool
called
the
wait
for
it.
Ecological
site
classification
decision
support
system
which,
whilst
it
may
need
a
snappier
title,
is
at
least
free
to
use,
so
has
that
in
its
favor,
and
it's
really
useful
to
get
those
kind
of
comments
from
the
forestry
commission.
B
Those
kind
of
technical
tools
that
we
can
use,
which
is
exactly
that's
one
of
the
key
elements
about
this
consultation,
was
to
try
and
find
out.
Also,
I
think
another
key
theme
that's
come
out
from
from
the
tree.
B
Section
is
also
about
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people,
saying
that
the
real
emphasis
should
be
on
protecting
what
we've
already
got
particularly
trees
and
hedgerows,
with
a
stronger
policy
definition
of
things
like
ancient
and
veteran
trees,
with
the
woodland,
trust
and
natural
england,
providing
technical
guidance
on
these
and
unrelated
points
as
well,
which
is,
is
hopefully
going
to
be
useful.
B
Moving
forward
nature
conservation,
I
think
comments
from
the
environment
agency,
suggested
that
it
would
be
important
to
strengthen
the
monitoring
of
the
leeds
habitat
network
and
the
importance
of
enhancing
the
connectivity
between
different
habitats
as
well
for
the
obvious
benefits
of
wildlife
moving
around
sites.
B
B
There
was
also
concerns,
however,
raised
about
going
beyond
national
policy
again
rather
than
using
local
policy.
So
I
think
that
further
justification
of
why
local
policy
is
required
is
obviously
going
to
be
need
to
be
a
key
theme.
Food
production,
which
is
a
relatively
new
topic
for
plan
making,
at
least
so.
It's
been
particularly
useful
to
read
this
of
guidance
and
advice.
That's
been
provided
through
the
consultation
on
this.
B
I
think
some
of
the
strong
messages
coming
out
of
that
are
the
the
needs
for
growing
space
as
part
of
developments
and
that
redundant
space
and
land
can
and
should
be
much
better
utilized
and
lots
of
sort
of
interesting
ideas
about
hydroponics
and
things
like
that
about
how
we
can
more
effectively
use
our
land
and
buildings
to
grow
to
grow
food.
B
And
finally,
in
green
infrastructure,
green
space
and
we'll
recall
a
particular
question-
was
about
improvements
to
the
city
centre
and
there
was
strong
support
for
better
access
to
green
space,
particularly
for
the
city
centre,
on
grounds
of
public
health
and
access
to
nature,
with
particular
support
for
green
roofs,
roof
gardens
and
green
walls,
making
a
contribution
as
well.
But
it's
certainly
fair
to
say
that
a
lot
of
response
respondents
made
the
point
that
this
shouldn't
just
be
about
the
city
centre.
B
It
should
be
about
the
whole
city,
particularly
the
inner
area
and
difficulties
of
accessing
green
space
in
those
areas,
and
there
were
further
comments
from
groups
such
as
a
little
woodhouse
neighbouring
a
neighborhood
planning
forum
related
to
the
need
for
the
council
to
better
understand
the
types
of
green
space
that
should
be
required
on
individual
sites.
B
Representatives
felt
that
the
20-minute
neighborhood
concept,
which
is
one
of
the
central
themes
of
the
place-making
topic,
was
something
that
the
local
plans
should
definitely
try
to
embrace.
But
there
were
questions
about
how
it
could
be
applied
across
the
city
and
that's
something
that
came
through.
I
think
in
some
of
the
webinar
webinars
meetings
that
we'd
had
about
how
how
this
concept
can
be
applied.
B
B
There
was
felt
there
was
the
feeling
that
the
concept
needed
to
better
align
with
housing,
delivery
and
potentially
would
therefore
require
a
review
of
site
allocation
plan
allocations
and
distribution
as
well
in
terms
of
the
presumption
against
cars,
which
again
was
a
question
which
I
you
know
obviously
has
got
strong
links
between
the
transport
strategy
vision
as
well.
The
broad
support
for
this
concept,
with
many
feeling
that
this
needed
to
go
hand
in
hand
with
improvements
to
active
travel
and
public
transport.
B
It
was
important,
though,
to
recognize
the
caveat
that
many
who
did
respond
recognize
the
importance
that
many
people
do
need
access
to
cars,
for
reasons
of
disability
or
for
access
to
employment.
So
there
was,
I
think,
quite
strongly
expressed
that
need
for
us
to
recognize
that
there
will
be
exceptions
here
and
be
understanding
of
that
and
then
finally,
on
place,
making
the
use
of
sustainability
checklist
and
there's
broad
support
for
the
use
of
these
to
ensure
that
new
developments
were
addressing
well-being
and
climate
change
issues.
B
Although
there
were
some
objections
who
felt
this
could
lead
to
unnecessary
red
tape
and
finally,
sustainable
infrastructure.
So
hs2
was
the
first
topic
of
the
sustainable
infrastructure
and
again
general
support
for
a
policy
on
this
topic.
B
However,
representatives
requested
a
sort
of
broadening
of
the
scope
and
a
greater
emphasis
on
things
like
northern
powerhouse,
rail
and
the
trans-pennine
upgrades,
which
they
felt
were
actually
more
important
to
the
city
than
hs2,
also
a
kind
of
re-emphasis
of
the
importance
of
ensuring
permeability
and
active
spaces
underneath
fire
ducts
and
a
sort
of
a
plea
that
the
wider
integration
of
the
hst
scheme
with
the
whole
city.
B
Rather
than
just
the
station
should
also
be
a
consideration
of
the
policy
as
well
in
terms
of
mass
transit,
again
general
support
for
policies
relating
to
mass
transit,
strong
messages,
though,
that
mass
transit
couldn't
be
at
the
expense
of
existing
bus
and
rail
networks.
Whilst
this
goes
perhaps
beyond
what
the
planning
policy
could
could
do,
it's
obviously
an
important
something
for
us
to
reflect
on
as
a
council
as
part
of
the
the
regional
delivery
of
mass
transit.
B
It
was
also
suggested
that
safeguarding
the
routes
would
be
premature
at
this
stage
when
there
are
no
details
about
the
specific
routes
which
I
think
makes
sense,
and
there
should
be
strong
links
between
the
routes
and
the
overall
spatial
strategy.
In
order
to
maximize
the
benefits
of
the
scheme,
then
elise
bradford
airports
strong
support
for
a
new
policy
on
the
airport
to
guide
future
development,
with
some
feeling
that
policies
should
be
used
to
restrict
future
growth
at
the
airport.
B
Others,
however,
feeling
the
emphasis
should
be
placed
in
improving
public
transport
service
access,
given
the
difficulties
local
authorities
have
in
attempting
to
restrict
emissions
from
aviation
in
terms
of
how
that's
prescribed
nationally
and
internationally
and
then
finally,
digital
connectivity.
B
Unsurprisingly,
I
think
strong
support
for
new
policies
on
this
some
caution
from
from
some
members
of
the
development
industry
on
going
beyond
national
policy
and
building
regulations,
I
think
only
because
the
there's
current
regis
legislation,
which
is
being
drafted
and
a
concern
that
we
weren't
out
of
step,
I
didn't
there's,
certainly
been
no
feeling
that
digital
collective
connectivity
is
not
an
important
issue.
I
think
it's
just
how
it's
addressed,
but
the
vast
majority
of
people
wanted
strong
policies
within
the
local
plan
to
help
address
that.
B
So
that's
the
topics
and
just
to
go
into
next
steps
just
to
just
to
clarify
the
way
forward
on
that,
so
the
consultation
analysis
will
hopefully
be
concluded
this
month
and
that
will
help
us
produce
a
a
full
consultation
report
for
the
consultation
which
will
go
into
further
detail
on
this
report
has
done,
but
we'll
also
show
the
council's
response
to
some
of
the
key
issues
that
have
been
raised.
B
The
next
step,
as
well,
which
happens
in
parallel,
is
addressing
the
gaps
in
evidence
that
we
have.
Obviously
the
consultation.
One
of
the
purposes
of
the
consultation
was
to
raise
a
lot
new
evidence
that
we
could
help
use
to
to
perfect
the
some
of
the
policies.
B
There
will
still
inevitably
be
some
gaps
that
we
know
that
we'll
need
to
to
fill
in
order
to
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
policies,
so
we
need
to
fulfill
those
gaps
as
well,
and
we
also,
obviously
the
the
the
main
purpose
of
this
is
to
be
working
up
detailed
policy
options
and
that's
something
that
we
we
obviously
can
start
to
be
doing
now
as
well.
B
So
a
lot
of
these
things
are
happening
in
parallel,
but
obviously
it's
really
important
that
we
make
sure
that
we've
fully
accounted
the
consultation
responses
before
we
we
go
too
far
on
on
any
of
these
other
issues.
I
suppose
the
only
final
thing
to
say
is
just
to
thank
everybody
who
took
the
time
to
make
representations.
B
It's
very
much
appreciated,
but
we
recognize
that
there's
a
lot
of
information
on
our
website
and
it's
really
appreciated
that
people
take
the
time
to
provide
us
with
such
vital
information.
So
yeah
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
that,
and
I
think
that's
it
from
me.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
adam.
That
was
an
excellent
report,
well
summarized,
and
all
that
process
involving
lots
of
residents,
stakeholders,
businesses,
community
groups,
interested
parties
and
whatnot
yeah.
There's
a
lot
been
a
lot
to
digest
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks
going
through
this.
It's
a
it's
a
really
interesting
report.
I
mean
broadly
I
mean
how
many
times
did
you
type
broad
support?
A
Look
at
chemistry,
we're
going
in
the
right
direction.
Clearly,
there's
differences
opinion
on
us
to
quite
the
question
travel
with
policy
in
in
some
directions
too
far
too.
Not
enough.
I
think
some
of
the
usual
suspects
made
some
of
the
perhaps
made
some
of
the
comments
we
might
expect
where
they
prefer
against
the
policies,
but
I
want
to
open
david.
Did
you
want
to
you're
leaning
in
in
that
way
that
you're
going
and
it's
I've
learned
to
pick
that
up?
Sorry.
K
No,
I
think
I
think,
adam's,
given
a
very
fair
summary
of
the
comments,
and
I
think
it's
interesting.
Isn't
it
the
the
different
sides
of
the
argument
that
have
come
to
the
fall
in
terms
of
those
comments
being
expressed?
But
you
know
we
are
now
moving
into
the
nitty-gritty.
Aren't
we
we've
had
the
scoping
exercise
and
now
we
need
to
be
thinking
very
carefully
about
policy
wording
and
how
that
can
be
supported
with
the
necessary
evidence.
K
So
this
is
a
key
transitional
phase,
but
I
think
in
the
mix
at
this
point
in
the
process,
it's
probably
worth
just
reminding
ourselves
that
we
have
these
sort
of
key
drivers
for
change.
In
the
background
haven't
we
we've
got
the
obviously
cop
26
until
the
12th
of
november.
We
don't
know
what
that's
going
to
bring
in
terms
of
national
international
policy,
then
how
will
that
translate
down
into
planning
and
elsewhere?
K
A
Yeah,
thank
you
planner
officer.
I
mean
it
is
a
fundamental
role
of
this
planned
document
to
be
able
to
give
as
an
example,
colleagues
in
development
control,
the
surety
and
plans
chairs
and
plans
panel
members,
the
surety
that
they
can
look
at
development
and
the
plans
that
we
have
supporting
their
decisions
will
get
us
towards
our
contributions
to
net
zero
for
future
development.
That's
where
we
need
to
be.
A
I
think
this
is
a
big
step
in
the
in
the
way
on
that
there's
a
lot
of
good
in
the
report
and,
like
I
said
some
usual
suspects,
making
the
usual
comments,
but
with
that
folks,
does
anybody
want
to
raise
any
points
or
questions?
I've
got
council
for
guru,
then
council,
college
and
council
lab.
D
Well,
I
just
want
to
say
what
a
good
positive
piece
of
consultation
this
has
been
and
what
an
excellent
quantitative
outcome
we've
had
to
go
on.
I
think
it's
a
really
good
guide
very
well
put
together
report.
I
welcome
it,
but
I
think,
as
my
colleague
jim
said
earlier,
it's
an
excellent
example
of
consultation,
and
I
hope
we
go
from
strength
to
strength
with
our
approach
to
consultations
dead,
easy
to
access
dead,
easy
to
fill
in
really
good.
B
I'll
answer
the
second
question:
first,
I
don't
have
to
hand,
I
don't
have
the
information
on
on
all
of
the
developers
who've
who
responded
generally
it's
via
agents
or
the
home
builders
federation
who
acts
on
behalf
of
a
number
of
home
builders,
but
we
can
obviously
supply
that
information.
It
will
become
publicly
available
because
one
of
the
tasks
I
didn't
list
under
the
next
steps
is
we
need
to
go
through
the
process
of
kind
of
redaction.
So
we
can
make
these
comments
available.
B
So
everybody
can
see
what
everyone's
said,
which
I
think
is
important
part
of
the
consultation
process
as
well.
The
first
question
about
presumption
against
car
use.
What
does
that
mean?
It
wasn't
particularly
defined
in
the
consultation.
I
think
it
was
more
about.
Should
we
be
resisting
developments
which
rely
upon
cars
for
access.
B
So
that
was
one
of
the
the
main
drivers
for
that
that
kind
of
policy,
but
also
and
that's
what
the
planning
system
can
do,
obviously
there's
an
awful
lot.
The
transport
strategy
is
doing
about
it
as
well,
which
we're
very
obviously
very
conscious
of
those
linkages
there
and
not
duplicating
that
kind
of
stuff.
But
yeah.
That's
that's.
D
Kind
of
an
example
of
that
sorry,
I
forgot
to
turn
the
nike
off.
Thank
you
for
that,
and-
and
I
find
that
quite
reassuring,
actually,
because
the
reason
I
ask
the
question
is
a
lot
of
our
discussions
in
plans.
D
Panels
are
all
about
parking
and
cars
and
parking
spaces,
and
is
there
enough
and
etc,
and
I
thought
there
might
be
and-
and
I
would
agree
with
providing
less
parking
facilities
as
car
use
decreases,
but
I
actually
feel
the
reality
of
the
situation
is
that
a
lot
of
other
things
have
got
to
change
a
great
deal
before
car
use
decreases.
So
we
did,
we
did
approve,
I
think,
a
school
with
no
parking.
D
Do
you
recall
that
I'd
quite
like
some
feedback
on
how
that's
going
so
I
think
it
was
just
just
reassurance
really
that
the
the
policies
would
be
following
the
changes
in
other
parts
of
the
council
and
wider
abroad.
A
I
think
yeah
just
my
partner,
I
think
the
language
presumption
against
class
is
clumsy.
It
doesn't
really
need
to
be
in
print
again.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
it's
helpful.
I
think
it
gives
the
wrong
impression
when
actually,
when
you
think
it,
it's
actually
the
opposite
in
a
way.
In
a
sense,
it's
the
opposite
of
exclusively.
It's
included.
You
know
trying
to
make
it
you
don't.
I
Thank
you
chair.
It
was
a
very
good
report.
Thank
you
very
much.
It
was
very
interesting
actually
as
well.
I
suppose
my
first
thing
is
a
plea
that
we
do
crack
on
and
get
on
with
our
policies.
There
are
always
changes
proposed
by
the
government,
there's
always
something
on
the
horizon
and
they
never
meet
their
targets.
I
So
so
it's
I'd
just
be
concerned
that
I
don't
want
officers
to
sit
back
and
wait
for
any
outcomes
over
the
next
few
weeks,
because
even
they
won't
mature
and
convert
into
government
policy.
Quick
enough
for
me,
and
I
also
want
to
sort
of
ask
that
we
don't
deviate
from
what
we've
consulted
on
too
much.
I
I
would
much
prefer
that
we
actually
get
on
with
getting
our
policies
established,
policies
established
and
then
maybe
perhaps
have
a
list
of
other
policies
that
we
then
need
to
follow
through
with
especially
you
know,
with
the
what
the
comments
the
environmental
agencies
have
made.
There
were
a
couple
of
things
that
I
also
liked
in
the
report
that
came
through
from
from
other
people.
One
of
the
mature
trees
should
be
heavy,
be
treated
as
as,
if
they've
got
a
tpo
on
it.
Do
we
need
a
policy
for
that?
I
How
do
we
bring
that
in
one
of
them
about
grass
verges
being
protected
and
and
finally
one
on
food
production
protecting
our
quality
agricultural
land?
In
horses,
we
have
good
quality
agricultural
land.
If
you
go
onto
the
national
website,
look
at
the
land,
but
it's
owned
by
a
developer
and
he's
just
sitting
on
it
and
he's
just
and
it's
great
that
the
biodiversity
has
improved
there.
I
saw
deer
in
there
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
but
you're
just
starting
to
think
now.
I
B
Thank
you,
councillor,
collins.
I
think
the
the
plea
for
cracking
on
and
not
delaying,
I
I
think,
hopefully,
we
sort
of
set
our
stall
out
a
little
bit
with
that
earlier
in
the
in
this
year.
I
think
we've
tried
to
consistently
raise
in
this
of
the
risk
sections
of
the
report
that
what
we
could
do
is
wait
for
the
planning
reform
to
to
play
out.
B
We
could
see
what
that
looked
like,
and
then
we
could
move
forward
with
with
policies,
but
I
think
we've
been
fairly
clear
that
you
know
dpp
had
been
fairly
clear,
that
that
wasn't
the
approach
that
we
wanted
to
take
and
there's
there's
just
there's
bigger
risks
with
waiting
than
there
are
with
moving
forward.
It's
not
a
risk-free
choice.
Is
it
and
we
could,
like
you
say
it
reflected
on?
We
could
wait
quite
a
long
time
for
clarity
on
a
lot
of
these
things
and
still
be
waiting.
B
So
I
think
it
is.
Absolutely
officers
are
fully
fully
aware
of
the
need
for
for
moving
forward
on
that
in
terms
of
sort
of
not
deviating
from
from
from
the
scope
too
much.
I
think
one
of
the
I
mean
this
report
very
deliberately
doesn't
respond
to
the
issues
that
are
raised
because
we're
still
in
that
interim
period,
so
I
think
it's
important
not
to,
but
I
think
one
of
the
the
responses
that
that
can
be
potentially
raised
to
some
of
these
issues
could
be
well.
B
Is
there
an
awareness
through
the
local
development
scheme,
that
there
is
a
plan
to
have
a
local
plan
update
too,
which
includes
other
policy
areas,
and
so
many
of
the
objectives
may
feel
that
actually
with
more
certainty
about
what
the
council
are
trying
to
do
with
the
local
plan
update
2
on
some
of
these
topics
that
actually
the
scope
of
local
update,
one
doesn't
need
to
change.
But
that's
something
that
we,
you
know.
That's
that's
a
an
impromptu
response.
B
I
suppose
that's
something
that
we
need
to
more
carefully
consider
as
part
of
the
the
full
report
of
consultation
and
and
further
discussions,
obviously
that
we
have
with
members
in
january.
In
terms
of
the
last
point
about
food
production
land
there
are,
I
guess
there
are
limitations.
Aren't
there
between
what
the
planning
system
can
do
in
terms
of
compelling
agricultural
land
owners
how
they
use
their
land?
B
So
therefore
can
make
landowners
consider
what
their
alternatives
are,
and
if
land
is
most
appropriate
for
agricultural
uses,
that's
his
that
may
be
the
only
route
forward,
but
yeah,
I
think
further
work
probably
needs
to
be
done
in
terms
of
what
the
planning
system
can
do
and
what
all
the
parts
perhaps
of
the
regulatory
system
can
do
that.
Maybe
it's
outside
planning.
A
Yeah,
it's.
What
can
we
nudge
as
well?
How
can
the
plan
you
can't
solve
everything,
but
it
can
be
a
big
nudging
factor
which
is
really
important,
just
to
say
welcome
to
the
students
that
joined
us
midway
through
our
debate.
I
think
it's
lies.
Beckett,
yeah
you're.
Most
welcome
we'll
try
to
keep
you
awake.
H
Yeah,
well,
I'm
not
the
right
person
to
keep
people
awake,
but
I'll
do
my
best,
but
welcome
to
you
all
anyway,
so
I
think
I'm
down
to
six
points
now,
so
I
wanted
to
make
so
first
well,
you've
just
covered
it.
Actually
we
should
be
referring
to.
This
is
local
plan
update
one
for
those
of
us
that
sat
through
the
the
sap
remitta?
It
was
frequently
referred
to
as
that,
but
it
needs
to
be
clear
that
there's
more
to
come.
H
B
H
H
So
that's
something
that
doesn't
need
to
be
looked
at
and
factored
in
that
yeah.
If
you're
in
them
in
the
inner
ring
road,
then
yes,
you
can
can
make
that
choice
but
outside
the
ring
road,
not
quite
so
easy.
D
D
I
do
agree
with
those
points
that
have
been
made
about
outer
city
areas
and
public
transport
will
have
to
change
very
substantially
before
you
can
choose
not
to
have
a
car
in
an
outer
city
area.
Yeah.
H
Yeah
to
occur,
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
all
members
are
aware
that
weatherby
itself
as
a
major
settlement
defining
the
core
strategy
does
not
meet
the
core
strategy:
accessibility
standards
even
from
the
center
of
weatherby,
so
any
development
fails
straight
away,
and
that
can't
be
right.
We
can't
necessarily
address
it
through
this,
but
public
transport
does
need
to
change
to
to
fix
that
on
blue
infrastructure.
I
was
pleased
a
that
we
got
it
in
in
the
first
place
and
b,
it
chimed
with
certainly
my
instincts
that
it
wasn't
going
far
enough.
H
H
It
ties
in
with
the
fifth
aspect
about
infrastructure
and
I'd
say
I
wonder
if
we
should
be
looking
at
our
sewerage
as
because
it's
a
creaking,
victorian
infrastructure
designed
that
our
human
waste
ends
up
in
the
rivers
that
are
actually
have
a
really
important
function
and
if
we
keep
building
more
houses,
I'm
putting
just
adding
and
adding
and
adding
to
the
problem.
So
I
would
really
like
to
see
some
thought
about
policies
to
to
address
that
going
forward
on
biodiversity.
H
One
thing
in
policy
terms:
I
think
we've
got
to
look
at
it's
far
too
easy
and
you've
already
seen
developers
coming
forward.
We'll
just
do
it
off-site
we'll
just
do
it
we'll
just
do
it
we'll
build
what
we're
going
to
build
and
we'll
do
it
off-site
we'll
destroy
the
biodiversity,
that's
here
and
plant
some
trees
or
hedgerows
and
something
somewhere
else
that
that
should
be
the
absolute
last
resort
and
even
possibly
further
down
the
line
than
that.
H
I
think,
and
the
policy
wording
needs
to
be
crafted
very
carefully
to
give
panels
the
opportunity
to
say
no
we're
not
having
you
have
not
tried
anywhere
near
hard
enough
to
to
come
up
with
an
on-site
solution
to
protect
and
enhance
what's
already
there
and
then
the
final
two
points.
What
in
the
sap
remittance,
martin
elliot's,
I
thought
gave
an
undertaking
that
hmcas
would
be
looked
at
in
local
plan,
update
one
it's
not
in
the
report.
H
So
I
wonder
if
you
could
give
us
some
clarification
on
that
and
then
the
final
bit
is
you'll,
be
aware.
Some
of
us
have
made
representations
about
employment
land.
Given
that
we
don't
have
enough,
it
seems
sensible.
We
should
be
doing
that
in
local
plan
update
one
rather
than
leaving
it
to
local
plan,
update
two.
So
and
that's
not
here.
So
that's
all
my
points,
I
think-
and
I
hope
everyone's
still
awake.
B
In
terms
of
employment
land,
I
suppose
the
issue
is
what
is
the
connection
between
that
and
the
climate
emergency
and
is?
Is
that
what
this
plan
should
be
doing?
Do
we
agree
that
the
scope
should
be
related
to
the
climate
emergency,
which
I
think
was
that
was
the
original
view
of
development
plans
panel
and
the
view
of
executive
board?
And
so,
if
we're
saying
that
local
plan
update,
one
should
now
be
addressing
issues
of
employment
land.
I
suppose
it's
what
what
is
that
connection?
H
If
you
don't
have
enough
land
allocated
for
employment,
which
we
don't,
then
you
don't
have
a
plan
led
process,
which
means
it
will
come
where
it
comes.
If
you
have
it,
if
you're
going
to
address
the
climate
modes,
you've
got
to
address
how
people
are
going
to
get
to
work,
what
mode
of
transport
they're
going
to
use.
So
I
would
say
I
would
put
back
at
you
actually
it's
essential
as
part
of
the
climate
emergency
to
say
not
only
where
are
people
going
to
live,
but
where
are
they
going
to
work?
H
How
are
they
going
to
get
there?
What's
the
mode
of
transport,
what
type
of
land
are
we
going
to
use?
So
if
there's
a
shortage
of
employment
land,
what's
to
stop
the
developer,
that
owns
the
piece
of
land
and
counts,
the
consequence
might
not
get
some
houses.
I
could
put
some
offices
there
and
you'd
have
trouble
saying
no,
because
you
haven't
got
enough
land
for
employment.
B
I
understood
thank
you
I
I
suppose
at
the
moment
the
provision
of
employment
land
is
being
considered
through
the
sacramental
and
obviously
key
pieces
of
information
have
been
presented
through
that
the
council
are
attempting
to
address
part
of
that
shortfall
through
the
sacramental.
A
A
A
Third
point
is-
and
this
is
particularly
aimed
at
members
of
plants
panels-
do
we
want
to
be
determining
future
major
applications
in
this
city
under
the
policies
we're
going
to
develop
from
this
in
2022,
or
do
we
want
to
be
in
the
site
allocation
trenches?
Once
again,
I
would
strongly
suggest
we
don't
want
to
be
anywhere
near
the
slight
allocations.
Trenches
we've
all
got
the
dents
in
our
hats.
A
For
that
as
it
were,
I
really
you
know
I
think
at
the
moment,
if
it's
not
in
the
sap,
it
ain't
happening
great,
but
we
need
these
in
policies
in
place
as
soon
as
humanly
possible,
so
that
we're
determining
bigger
we've
determined
in
all
sorts
of
applications
under
the
right
policies.
Because
of
the
climate
emergency,
I
would
suggest.
I
I
think
it's
things
like,
for
example,
just
as
an
example,
the
10
biodiversity
improvement
that
should
be
for
a
development
employment
site
equally
for
a
housing
development
site.
So
it's
it's.
What
what
policies
we're
bringing
forward
could
actually
accommodate
both
to
protect
land.
We
have
from
being
developed
for
employment
just
because
we
haven't
put
that
title
in
there.
H
So,
just
at
the
the
point
I'm
trying
to
whether
I've
done
it
clumsily
or
not,
we
have
land
allocated.
We
have
sufficient
land
supply
for
housing.
That
kind
of
worms
doesn't
need
to
be
opened
at
this
point
in
time.
We
do
not
have
enough
land
allocated
for
employment,
that's
a
kind
of
worms
that
doesn't
need
to
be
addressed
because
it's
a
if
there's
no,
if
there's
no
allocation,
it's
a
free-for-all.
K
Thank
you
yeah.
I
mean
it's
a
valid
point:
you're,
making
councillor
lamb.
We
are
looking
at
the
employment
component
as
part
of
the
sap
middle
in
terms
of
that
particular
site,
so
that
will
help
with
our
overall
supply
position.
I
mean
clearly
in
terms
of
employment
land.
There
is
a
district,
discrete
topic,
but
related
to
climate
emergency.
More
generally,
because
everything's
connected
to
everything
else,
isn't
it
and
the
question
is:
where
do
you
stop
in
terms
of
scope?
K
I
think
the
brief
we
had
through
this
panel
was
to
have
a
very
focused
scope
in
canvas
views
through
the
consultation
process
to
make
sure
that
we
could
gain
some
momentum
in
terms
of
these
policies,
and
I
think
the
process
that
councillor
walsh
has
described
in
getting
these
policies
established
and
embedded
and
then
using
those
as
a
framework
to
inform
subsequent
local
plan
updates
would
be
very
helpful
because
if
we
can
look
at
those
other
policy
areas
through
the
lens
of
these
new
policies,
I
think,
in
terms
of
your
concerns
about
free-for-all
counselor
lama.
K
I
think,
in
terms
of
existing
policies
we
have,
if
there
are
speculative
proposals
on
open
land,
it's
likely
to
be
green
belt
land,
if
that's
in
outer
areas
and
therefore
those
green
belt
policies
would
apply
to
those
sites.
So
that
would
enable
us
to
tackle
speculative
proposals,
but
in
terms
of
the
whole
issue
of
employment,
land
supply,
it's
something
that
we're
mindful
of
and
something
that
we
are
starting
to
work
on
and
clearly
it's
a
very
thorough
piece
of
work.
K
H
No,
no
they're,
not
they're
they're,
kept
closed
deliberately
because
the
room
has
got
air
conditioning
and
an
air
filter.
If
you
open
the
windows,
it
disturbs
that
so
we're
safer
with
them
closed.
There's
a
sign
behind
you
that
tells
you
yeah
now
do.
A
B
Yeah
other
than
to
say
I,
I
don't
think
I
I
know
that
the
views
obviously
were
expressed,
but
also
respected
through
representation,
and
I
don't
think
you're
alone
in
expressing
those
views.
So
obviously
we
need
to
take
those
views
away.
We
need
to
properly
consider
them
and
obviously
they'll
be
brought
back
to
development
plans
panel
in
terms
of
certainly
the
employment
land
position,
but
others
as
well.
I
think
just
going
through
your
earlier
comments,
counsel
in
terms
of
hmcas.
B
My
understanding
is
that
that
will
be
better
looked
at
through
local
update
two,
rather
than
local
plan,
update
one
for
a
more
consistent
approach
to
the
the
spatial
delivery
of
land.
Your
point
about
biodiversity.
I
think
it's
similar
to
councillor
collins
point
that
people
who
know
far
more
about
the
environment
bill
than
me
would
be
probably
better
to
comment.
B
My
understanding
is
of
the
environment
bill
is
that
there
isn't
necessarily
an
order
of
categorization
of
what's
most
important
in
terms
of
the
10
net
gain,
so
whether
it
should
be
first
delivered
on
site
and
then
only
after
not
being
able
to
be
delivered
on
site,
it
should
be
delivered,
as
part
of
say,
a
biodiversity
bank,
which
is
a
separate
site
elsewhere.
So
I
think
you're
right
and
I
think
people
have
made
the
view
in
the
comments
that
we'll
need
to
go
beyond
the
provisions
of
the
environment
bill
in
our
policies.
B
If
we
want
to
ensure
that
delivery
happens
on
site,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
we
obviously
need
to
bear
in
mind.
The
environment
bill
isn't
going
to
do
this,
for
us.
Welcome
as
many
of
its
provisions
are
the
points
about
sewerage,
I
suppose
it's
the
limitations
of
the
planning
system
in
terms
of
what
it
can
do
about
those
kind
of
essential
infrastructure.
B
Clearly,
you
know
it's
a
comment
well
made
and
we'll
go
in
and
and
further
consider
it,
but
I
suppose
it's
working
with
other
agencies
in
terms
of
that
delivery
and
how
that
can
be
improved.
I
think
that
was
it.
If
sorry,
if
there's
one.
A
E
E
I
know
you
must
have
been
really
annoyed
anyway,
so
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
the
food
production
side
of
things,
I
can
see
there's
a
lot
of
enthusiasm
around
sort
of
urban
food
production,
but
I
am,
I
am
a
bit
concerned
about
things
like
contamination
and
how
we
would
how
we
would
reduce
that
or
eradicate
it
like
what
kind
of
level
of
contamination
is
acceptable
and
things
like
this
and
also
who
would
who
would
pay
for
it?
E
So,
oh
and
also
would
it
impact
on
biodiversity
at
all,
and
also
would
it
impact
on
the
immunity
of
residents
overall,
because
there's
obviously
a
lot
less
space
in
the
inner
areas.
For
for
this,
I've
got
something.
E
Oh
yeah,
digital
connectivity.
E
E
There
was
mention
of
the
current
national
policy.
I
know
that's
being
revised.
What's
what
is
current
national
policy?
What
is
going
to
what's
looking?
What's
it
looking
to
be
shaping
up
as
for
future
national
policy
and
what
kind
of
gaps
will
there
be
in
terms
of
what
it
is
that
we
want
as
a
city
to
to
fill
that
sort
of
gap
like
what
is
the
shortfall?
B
Thank
you,
council
brooks
in
terms
of
food
production.
I
I,
I
think,
certainly
using
urban
areas
that
we
know
have
got
previous
history
of
contamination.
That's
that
that
could
certainly
be
an
issue.
It's
an
issue
for
food
production,
but
obviously
it's
be
an
issue
for
any
use
really,
because
contamination
would
need
to
be
remediated.
I
suppose
one
of
the
advantages
of
some
forms
of
food
production
such
as
say
hydroponics,
is
it
wouldn't
even
need
to
go
into
the
land
it
wouldn't
it
could
sit
on
top
of
it,
provided
that
could
be
made
safe.
B
B
I
think
that's
a
really
important
point
because
I
think
I
think
sometimes
people
look
at
farmers
fields
and
see
countryside
which
is
correct,
but
then
look
at
say,
scrubland
and
think
that
it
doesn't
serve
any
function
when
actually
in
biodiversity
terms.
It
may
be
that
that
scrub
blend
is
actually
far
more
productive
in
terms
of
biodiversity
than
monoculture.
B
Agriculture
is,
I
know.
Obviously
I
think
the
farming
community
is
on
a
someone
I
think
used
the
word
journey
before
on
a
real
journey
in
terms
of
improving
agricultural
land.
There's
a
huge
amount
going
into
sort
of
new
hedge
rows
and
a
lot
more
sustainability
in
terms
of
the
farming
industry,
but
we
we
would
need
to
be
careful.
I
think
that
you
know
things
like
biodiversity
net
gain
still
apply
so
that
if
new
agricultural
opportunities
are
opened
up,
that
it's
not
pushing
out
biodiversity
to
make
way
for
it.
B
So
that's
that's
a
point
very
well
made.
Thank
you.
Digital
connectivity,
I'll
have
to
profess
ignorance,
I'm
afraid
it's
a
kind
of
a
topic.
That's
one
of
the
topic
leads
nasri
nunes
who's,
far
more
well
well-versed
than
I
am.
My
understanding
is
and
I'll
I'll
get
a
response
back
to
you
on.
It
is
that
there
is
the
commitment
from
government
for
this
sort
of
gigabit
connections
and
that's
sort
of
going
to
come
through
legislation.
B
But
how
exactly
that's
due
to
work?
I
don't
think
it
has
been
fully
explored
yet
or
is
at
least
fully
understood.
I
suppose
what
happens
if
there's
further
delay
in
that,
because
I
think
we
support
the
aspirations
of
that
gigabit
connection,
which
is
about
making
sure
that
high-speed
broadband
is
connecting
to
all
new
developments.
B
But
if
there's
any
delay
in
that,
is
there
benefits
in
the
council
having
policies
that
try
and
fill
that
gap?
So
I
think
it's
more
an
issue
of
time
being
the
problem
rather
than
we
think
that
the
new
legislation
doesn't
go
far
enough
in
terms
of
existing
provision.
What
existing
policy
says?
B
It's
obviously
supportive
of
digital
connectivity
in
the
mppf,
but
it's
often
left
to
kind
of
the
discretion
of
developers
now
generally
the
market's
really
supportive
it's
hard
to
sell
houses
if
they
don't
have
a
good
connection
to
the
internet.
So
it's
it's
a
minority
of
cases
where
it
can
become
a
problem,
but
our
evidence
would
suggest
that
it
is
still
an
issue,
that's
not
being
delivered
in
every
single
new
development
so,
which
is
why
we're
keen
to
see
policy?
So
I
don't
think
there's
a
huge
gap
to
be
filled.
B
A
Good
yep
right,
counselor,
taylor.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thanks
for
the
report,
it's
absolutely
marvelous
chair.
All
my
questions
have
been
asked
by
councilman,
councillor,
collins
and
counselor
lam,
but
I'll
go
back
I'll
have
to
say
something
now
for
the
opportunity.
Martin
says
the
work.
Just
speaking,
we
have
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do
so.
I'm
going
to
take
food
for
thoughts.
Let's
take
away.
I
know
we
are
developing.
F
Today
we
are
in
crisis
and
counselor
colleen
says
the
government
won't
move.
In
other
words,
it's
very
slow,
so
I
think
leads
should
have
their
own
policy
and
make
a
start
and
things
because
there's
someone
after
kicked
it
off,
and
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
leeds
kicked
it
off
and
also
the
food
for
thought
is.
We
are
looking
at
new
things
to
come.
What
about
what
we
have
today?
Take
council
housing
for
instance?
F
F
I
went
through
my
kitchen
and
throughout
our
plastic
and
trying
to
try
to
get
ready,
because
I
know
I
think
it's
the
queen
said
it
on
the
news.
I'm
not
doing
it
for
me,
I'm
doing
it
for
the
next
generation
and
we
need
not
just
to
focus
developers
who
are
talking
today.
We
need
to
insist
that
all
housing
that
they
are
built
to
start
build
with
the
requirement
for
the
future,
no
gas
whatever
we
just
need
it.
F
So
I
will
stick
with
agree
with
councillor
lam
for
once
and
counselor
collins
because
they
are
said
what
I
want
to
say,
but
we
do
need
to
get
cracking
it's
no
time
to
waste.
A
I
very
much
agree:
let's,
let's
show
that
leeds
leads.
That's
such
a
hackney
phrase.
It's
really
good.
This
is
really
useful
at
the
same
time,
let's
set
our
own
status
and
somebody
in
the
course
tells
us
we
can't
how
about
that.
I
think
that's
the
way
forward,
but
it
it's
interesting.
It
was
mentioned
at
cop
and
I
swear.
This
is
the
last
time
I'm
gonna
mention
cop,
but
it
was
mentioned.
Somebody
was
speaking.
A
We
need
to
people
generally
need
to
get
into
the
mindset
of
crisis
and
I
think,
that's
actually
quite
a
useful
phrase.
She
was
aiming
at
obviously
national
government
bodies,
but
I
think
we've
tried
to
have
that
for
quite
a
while
now
in
leeds,
particularly
the
way
we've
progressed
this
this
work
as
a
panel.
So
let's,
let's
keep
doing
that
next
up.
I've
got
councillor
campbell.
J
Council
of
colleges
waving
at
you
right,
okay,
it's
a
bit
of
a
shotgun
response
actually,
but
can
I
just
to
start
off?
Can
I
echo
counselor
lamb's
comment
about
employment
land
and
I
appreciate
the
the
reason
we're
not
dealing
with
it
now.
But
there
is
some
urgency
and
I
think,
with
the
best
will
in
the
world
we
we
do
have
current
employment
sites
etc.
J
But
those
of
you
who
are
familiar
with
my
favorite
planning
application
in
otley
at
the
moment
will
be
surprised
to
hear
that
development
plans
officers
are
attempting
to
negotiate
out
of
providing
employment
land
on
that
site.
J
J
I
I
think
it's
it's
interesting
for
me.
Who's
been
sitting
on
plants
panels
for
almost
since
the
year,
not
that
the
the
response
has
been
very
interesting.
J
I
think
to
the
the
the
consultation,
because
it
just
shows
to
me
how
people's
attitude
has
changed
quite
dramatically,
and
I
would
say
it's
quite
dramatically
this
century
and
some
of
the
things
that
we're
being
told
people
are
effectively
demanding
that
we
do
would
never
have
happened
20
years
ago
and
that's
a
good
thing,
because
I
think,
despite
you
know,
it's
easy
to
point
fingers
at
people,
but
generally
the
population
has
got
the
message
that
you
know
it
can't
be
business
as
usual.
We
have
to
do
something
right.
J
J
I
am
somewhat
concerned
about
the
number
of
times
you
mention
the
word
viability,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
find
particularly
on
plans
panels
is
that
viability
is
waved
at
us
constantly,
there's
a
reason
for
not
doing
things
now.
I
consistently
say:
actually
it's
not
about
viability.
This
is
how
much
it
costs
you
can't
expect
us
to
subsidize
by
not
asking
for
certain
things.
So
we
don't
ask
for
green
space.
We
don't
ask
for
affordable
housing.
J
J
I
was
interested
because
alan's
raised
on
modern
occasion,
the
the
three
form
principle
and
the
view
that
seems
to
be
prevalent
is
that
actually
the
three
for
one
is
not
enough
again,
if
only
we
could
hit
three
for
one
on
most
developments,
I'd
be
happy,
but
certainly
if
we
could
do
that,
I'd
be
even
happier
food
production.
J
I'm
just
wondering
what
people's
perception
was
when
they
answered
that
question,
because
if
you
sort
of
say
that
you
touched
on
that
point,
an
area
of
scrub
land
actually
is
doing
more
for
the
environment
than
any
growing
food
on
it,
and
I,
I
think
I'm
wondering
if
most
people's
most
public's
perception
was
around
things
like
allotments,
that
sort
of
thing,
rather
than
as
maximizing
the
yield
on
fields
round
where
alan
represents,
and
so
I
just
wonder
how
we
we
balance
that,
because,
if
you
were
to
say
to
me
actually
we'd
like
to
chop
down
all
these
trees
and
plant
corn
on
there,
I'd
probably
say
no,
that's
not
a
good
idea,
all
right,
but
in
itself.
J
J
I
was
going
to
say
interventions.
That's
the
right
word
that
would
that
actually
produce
a
better
response.
So,
for
example,
if
you
talk
about
elements
of
the
war
valley
there,
it
actually
might
be
better
to
create
a
swamp
for
whatever
better
word,
because
the
biodiversity
that
that
produces
and
the
carbon
capture
wetlands.
Sorry
sorry,
is
that
sorry.
I
J
Well,
you
know
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
we
shouldn't
automatically
assume
that
if
you
stick
loads
of
trees
on
this
place,
it'll
be
better
because
actually
in
one
or
two
sites,
it'd
certainly
be
worse
mass
transit.
Actually,
I
think
we
should
be
protecting
the
route.
I
know
it's
still
a
twinkle
in
somebody's
eye,
but
if
you
do
not,
we
we
found
actually
with
with
did
I
say,
the
original
tram
idea
and
subsequently
the
trolleybus.
J
J
I
mean
we
did.
We
went
down
to
lobby
for
a
high
speed
link
to
leeds
then,
and
we're
still
not
a
lot
nearer
in
my
opinion
quickly,
and
you
you'll
be
pleased
to
hear
this
green
space.
J
I
I
don't
understand
the
comment
that
well.
As
you
know,
if
you
sit
on
plants
panels,
I
always
say
that
a
lot
of
the
green
space
associated
with
city
centre
developments
in
particular
is
basically
window
boxes,
and
we
really
should
say
no
don't
bother
aggregate
it
all
together
for
four
or
five
developments
to
make
a
meaningful
space.
Just
like
we've
done
by
the
playhouse.
J
I
don't
understand
the
comment
about
hard
landscaping
being
better
because,
generally
it's
not
the
also
the
other
bit
is
again.
We
go
back
to
this
issue
here,
which
strikes
me
as
developer.
Comment
that
if
you
increase
the
green
space
within
development,
then
you
potentially
pass
it
on
the
higher
cost
to
the
residents.
J
I
know
that
the
model
for
developers
is
in
fact
to
pass
the
green
space
over
to
the
residents,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
that
becomes
part
of
the
cost
of
living
there
yeah.
You
know
you,
you
can't
simply
say
well,
actually
we
don't
want
to
pay
for
the
grass
cutting
so
put
another
flat,
another
half
a
dozen
flats
on
there
that
that's
illogical
to
me.
Finally,
your
comment
about
presumption
against
cars
which,
as
you
said,
is
a
bit
of
a
clunky.
J
I
I
think
I
would
prefer
is
to
use
the
phrase
hierarchy
in
that
the
hierarchy,
the
hierarchy
of
development
should
be
pedestrians,
cyclists,
cars
and
so
the
phrase
you
know
effectively
car
free
development.
J
I
have
to
say
I
don't
believe
because
of
the
public
transport
issue,
but
about
other
things,
I
don't
think
people
are
going
to
everybody's
going
to
give
up
their
car
at
20
35.
Is
it
when
we've
got
to
have
an
electric
they're,
not
they're,
going
to
have
electric
one,
but
within
the
development?
J
A
I
I
tend
to
agree
in
a
in
a
movement
hierarchy.
Pedestrian
cycle
is
public
transport
than
private
cars.
I
think
I
would
add
to
that
is
the
need
to
facilitate
the
fact
that
we
now
have
a
an
online
economy.
That's
shaping
movement
and
shaping
traffic
patterns,
and
you
know
every
second
vehicle
past
my
house
is
some
amazon
or
dpd
truck
or
whatever
different.
That's
changed
right
and
off
morrison's,
regular
idea.
So
that's
changed.
That's
that's
something!
That's
coming
out
in
the
last
36
months.
Hasn't
it
that's
really
grown
beyond
all
expectations.
A
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
It's
been
really
very
interesting.
Listening
to
all
the
comments
from
counsellors,
the
report
was
particularly
good
and
thank
you
for
that.
I
certainly
enjoyed
reading
it
and
it's
very
heartening
to
me,
as
you've
said
yourself
chair
that
there's
so
many
people
now
concerned
with
climate
change
that
they
get
it.
They
really
do
get
it
and
they're
responding
positively.
C
There
was
just
just
one
thing
that
really
there's
two
things
that
interest
me
in
the
report
that
hasn't
been
touched
on.
I
like
the
idea
of
mature
trees
being
treated
as
if
they
had
a
tpo,
because
it's
all
right,
knocking
a
mature
tree
down
and
planting
three
saplings
and
they
want
carbon
sequestrate
for
20
30
40
years.
You
know
and
we
lose
all
that,
so
I
think
maybe
we
should
think
about
that
as
a
policy
and
the
other
one
which
I
I
found
interesting
was
the
comment
by
the
civic
trust.
C
Amongst
others,
says
you
report
alan
adam,
raise
the
view
that
new
developments
may
no
longer
need
to
be
located
close
to
services
due
to
increased
digital
connectivity,
limiting
the
role
of
physical
proximity.
I
find
that
very
interesting
and
clearly
a
conflicts
with
our
idea.
There's
place
making
a
20
million
20-minute
neighborhood,
but
it
is
an
interesting
comment
and
alan's
industrial
lack
of
industrial
land.
C
It's
changing
all
the
time
alan
now
officers.
Now
then
they
won't
be
building
offices
we'll
be
struggling
to
fill
them,
and
maybe
we
ought
to
I'm
not
against
industry,
I'm
not
in
against
the
old
workshop
where
we
produce
things
and
that
alone
has
er
effects
on
the
climate,
but
offices.
Now
you
know
we
we
we're
nowhere
near
getting
people
back
at
their
desks.
You've
only
got
to
look
around
this
place.
I
I
walk
around
here
and
I'm
I'm
probably
the
only
one
who
sat
on
a
desk
working
out
on
occasions.
B
I
think
I
mean
certainly
on
the
first
point,
about
mature
trees
and
tpo's.
I
think
that
the
issue
that
we
have
there
and
I
think
it's
a
really
sort
of
noteworthy
recommendation.
The
the
issue
is
that
the
restrictions
on
how
we
apply
tpo
as
a
set
nationally
at
the
moment,
I
think,
as
we
try
to
explain
in
the
consultation
material,
is
that
their
tpos
are
established
based
on
amenity
value
of
of
a
tree
rather
than
the
amount
of
carbon
that
it
sequesters,
which
is
something
that
we
obviously
recognize
in.
B
The
consultation
is,
I
think,
causing
big
problems
in
terms
of
our
ability
to
protect
trees.
My
understanding
is
that
we
have
lobbied
government
to
try
and
look
at
this,
and
hopefully
we'll
see
some
movement
there,
but
obviously,
in
the
meantime,
and
through
this
document,
we
need
to
pursue
every
avenue
that
we
can
to
see.
If
we
can
do
anything
about
it
on
terms,
yeah
can.
J
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
tprs,
but
if
you
look
at
conservation
areas,
for
example-
and
I
think
about
the
one
in
ottawa,
we
have
a,
we
do-
have
policies
in
relation
to
trees
in
conservation
areas,
which
is
slightly
different
to
tpo.
So
it
may
well
be
possible
for
us
to
expand
that
conservation
area.
A
A
A
H
Well,
we
already
have
the
ability
to
put
blanket
tpos
in
areas
so
whether
you
can
just
use
that
mechanism.
I
know
we've
got
one
in
weatherby,
that's
outside
of
the
conservation
area,
but
there's
a
blanket
tpo
covering
a
huge
area,
and
you
can
we're
looking
at
that
for
another
part
of
our
ward
as
well.
A
Yeah,
I
know
I
know
I
just
want
something
that
will
stand
up
from
this
from
the
carbon
angle.
So
if
that's,
if
that's
a
man,
then
fantastic,
if
it's
something
simple
and
easy,
you
know,
or
or
if
nicole
and
the
legal
team
have
to
get
wizzy
with
it
and
that's
fine,
but
we
need
something
that
will
stand
from
a
climate
emergency
point
of
view
in
a
class
cabin
sequestration,
point
of
view
that
we
will
end
up
losing
out
in
column
struggles
as
it
were.
B
It
was
just
the
the
final
comment
about
you
know:
digital
connectivity
and
whether
that
reduces
the
need
for
physical
proximity.
I
it's
a
really
interesting
question.
I
don't
have
an
answer,
I'm
afraid
I
think
it's
going
to
move
in
both
directions.
I
think
the
pandemic
proved
the
importance
of
being
able
to
access
things
on
your
own
doorstep.
The
importance
of
active
travel
people
getting
moving
and
how
people
who
didn't
have
the
access
were.
B
So
you
know
damagingly
affected
by
that
and
the
experiences
that
they
would
have
had
during
lockdown
compared
to
others
who
had
great
access
to
services
and
green
space
on
their
own
doorstep
would
have
been
absolutely
poles
apart
and
I'd,
say
some
other
people
in
the
audience
could
speak
far
better
to
that
than
I
could,
but
whether
the
need
for
us
to
be
able
to
you
know
be
able
to
use
digital
technology
means,
therefore,
that
we
don't
actually
need
to
to
connect.
I
don't
know
so
much
of
it
is
about
human
nature.
B
Isn't
it
I
think,
what
what
people
value
from
from
from
connections
so
many
meetings
these
days
can
happen
online.
But
people
still
like
to
have
that
that
connection.
I
think
people
do
want
to
access
services.
You
just
need
to
look
outside.
You
could
order
everything
online
if
you
really
wanted
to,
but
footfall
in
lead
city
center
is
now
bounced
back
to
2019
levels,
which
would
suggest
that
people
do
want
to
be
on
the
street.
B
They
do
want
to
access
things,
but
I
I
don't
have
any
better
insight
than
you
have
to
be
honest
cancer
in
terms
of
what
what
what
it
could
mean
in
the
future.
D
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
think
it
raised
what
you've
just
said
about
digital
connection
and
online
activity
for
meetings
and
work,
etc.
It
just
sparked
in
me
a
thought
about.
D
It
does
have
a
direct
impact
on
our
ability
to
provide
green
space,
because
people
had
a
very
different
experience
when
they
were
staying
at
home
all
day
and
they
had
to
seek
exercise
somewhere
and
those
without
anywhere
to
seek
exercise
suffered
really
badly,
and
I
I
know
that
for
a
fact,
because
I
was
doing
some
charitable
phone
calls
to
elderly
people
and
they
became
immobile
over
that
period.
So
our
responsibility
to
plan
in
usable,
green
space
is
hugely
increased,
with
digital
connectivity.
J
C
And
I
don't
expect
the
answers,
but
it's
certainly
fruitful
thoughts
and
the
chair
made
a
point
a
while
ago
of
that,
every
second
truck
coming
down
the
street
is
amazon
or
arcadia
or
whatever
morrisons,
and
that
has
changed
an
awful
lot
of
things.
Not
it's
certainly
during
the
pandemic,
but
you
get
a
feeling
that
it
will
continue
and
don't
even
get
us
going
about
the
food
deliveries.
A
I
Thank
you
chair
thanks
just
I
did
think
this
is
a
very
good
report.
Obviously
I'm
only
subbing
for
barry,
so
I've
not
seen
this
before,
so
I'm
almost
a
fresh
pair
of
eyes,
although
I
do
sit
on
a
plans
panel.
So
a
lot
of
the
issues
have
come
before
us
and
been
debated,
so
the
the
obvious
ones
are
the
the
10
biodiversity
net
gain,
which
almost
never
happens
with
regards
to
trees.
I
believe
that
we
do
need
to
protect
them,
but
we
also
need
to
manage
them.
I
One
of
the
council's
policies
is
no
right
to
light.
You
know
how
does
that
help
a
resident's
mental
state,
for
example?
So
you
know
that
that
needs
to
looking
at,
as
you
know,
either
within
this
or
as
a
separate
thing,
but
one
thing
that
that
has
come
through
to
me
right.
The
way
through
this
this
report
is
the
developers
seem
to
be
shaping
this,
which
obviously
we
don't
want
them
to.
We
need
to
shape
this
so
that
they
do
what
we
would
like
them
to
do.
I
You
know
they've
asked,
for
you
know
a
period
of
time
to
to
bring
these
changes
in
well.
They've
been
in
this
climate
emergency
the
same
length
of
time,
the
rest
of
us
have
and
they
ought
to
be
leading
the
way
and
not
dragging
their
feet
expecting
more
time.
I
You
know
it's
almost
like
the
tails
wagging
the
dog
in
some
some
pieces,
and
we
you
know
we
can't
have
that
so
outside
of
looking
in
as
a
guest
to
the
panel.
I
believe
that
you
know
we
do
need
to
be
holding
the
developers
more
firmly
to
task
over
many
things.
You
know,
we've
said
it
before
that
you
know
the
the
heating
in
in
the
new
homes,
at
the
building,
the
the
biodiversity
on
site
that
they're
taking
elsewhere.
I
B
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
council
smith.
I,
I
think
the
point
about
the
report.
I
completely
understand.
I
suppose
what
I
was
trying
to
do
with
the
report
was
trying
to
show
the
range
of
opinions,
so
that
members
were
aware
of
the
objections
that
there
are
to
some
of
these
policy
areas,
because
I
think
how
we
better
formulate
policies
moving
forward
and
how
we
create
evidence
for
that
needs
to
be
mindful
of
where
the
resistance
is
coming
from,
and
so
it
can
better
address
that
particular
issues
of
viability.
B
If
we
know
where
the
areas
of
resistance
are
we
can,
we
can
do
a
much
more
effective
job,
I
think
of
telling
even
how
everyone's
evidence
to
respond
to
that.
But
completely
take
your
point
to
be
fair.
You
know
when
we
sometimes
in
the
report
might
refer
to
the
development
industry
that
isn't
necessarily
the
whole
of
the
development
industry.
I
think
there
are
a
range
of
opinions
there,
but
the
majority
appear
to
be
raising
issues
about
viability
in
particular
and
you're
right.
B
I
think
you
made
the
point
about
discussions
with
developers
and
I
think
that's
going
to
be
really
important,
because
I
think
we
we
will
have
to
work
work
with
them,
particularly
in
terms
of
issues
like
viability.
I
think
our
approach,
when
we
get
to
an
examination,
is
going
to
be
strengthened
by
an
approach
that
looks
like
looks
collaborative
that
is
collaborative
rather
being
quite
adversarial
that,
on
the
one
side,
you've
got
the
council
on
the
other
side,
you've
got
developers
now
and
maybe
something
slightly
naive
about
how
what
will
happen
in
the
end.
B
But
I
think
that's
the
aspiration,
and
you
know
the
early
discussions
we've
had
with
developers
and
what
comes
through
all
of
their
responses
is
they're,
really
keen
to
engage
and
you're
right
that
they,
they
are
doing
things
related
to
their
own
industry
as
well,
and
some
developers
are
pushing
that
really
far
and
there's
a
lot
of
best
practice
out
there
that
I
think
we
need
to
harness
and
sort
of
show
to
some
of
the
developers
that
are
perhaps
not
as
far
down
that
road.
B
This
is
what
you
can
do.
This
is
what
is
technically
capable
already.
This
is
already
viable,
so
we
can
do
this,
so
I
think
there's
a
there's,
that's
part
of
a
wider
discussion.
We
need
to
have
but
yeah
all
good
points.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
Just
very
quickly,
sorry,
I
think
if
you
point
out
the
scale
of
economies
to
them,
they
might
be
more
inclined
because,
obviously
the
more
they
do
it,
the
cheaper
it
becomes
the
then
it
doesn't
hurt
their
profit
margins
as
much,
which
is
obviously
what
they're
trying
to
safeguard.
A
And
in
addition,
when
we've
had
discussions
with
developers,
it's
very
clear
that
that
within
developers
there
are
people
in
those
companies
that
get
it
and
what
they
want
from
us.
Is
the
certainty
and
sureties
to
win
those
arguments
corporate
within
their
own
organizations.
That's
clear
to
see
amongst
a
lot
of
the
big
developers,
including
some
of
those
with
the
series
less
than
stellar
reputations,
they're.
Clearly,
people
within
those
organizations
that
get
it
and
want
to
win
those
arguments.
Council,
hayden.
E
Thank
you
chair.
It's
been
who
knew
that
development
plans
panel
could
be
so
much
fun.
I've
really
enjoyed
this
meeting
and
it's
an
excellent
report.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
after
the
swamp
discussion
that
armley
has
its
own
hippopotamus.
E
It
does
from
a
previous
time
thousands
of
years
ago
yeah
no,
but
about
ten
thousand,
I
think
but
yeah
when
when
leeds
was
yeah
a
small
swamp
yeah.
Basically,
so
I
believe
it's
in
the
lead
museum
but
yeah
just
no.
I
have
a
father
who
likes
to
you
know
tell
tales
to
tell
stories
he's
irish,
so
just
picking
up
on
the
weatherby
point
about
public
transport.
E
If
I
hadn't
been
driving,
I'd
only
just
been
allowed
by
the
consultant
to
be
able
to
drive
I'll,
have
a
heart
thing,
but
it's
fine,
and
so,
but
it
really
struck
me
when
I
was
talking
to
the
local
community
radio
about
this,
about
how
people
in
weatherby
would
be
able
to
live
without
a
car
or
access
to
a
car,
and
I'm
really
pleased
that
in
east
leeds,
because
we
have
other
communities
in
the
inner
cities
such
as
east
end
park
or
colton
in
my
ward,
whereas
if
you,
if
you
are
older
and
can't
walk
to
the
main
arterial
roads,
then
getting
public
transport
is
really
difficult.
E
So
the
east
leeds
flexi
bus
trail,
it's
not
a
bendy
bus.
They
are,
I
mean
they're
kind
of
more
mini
buses.
So
it's
it's
proving
really
really
popular
and
going
really
really
well
and
I'd
love
to
see
that
kind
of
idea
on
demand
public
transport
being
rolled
out
across
the
city,
but
especially
to
our
more
rural
areas,
they're
really
difficult
for
people
to
get
about
within
the
area
or
within
the
city
and
and
to
other
communities
as
well.
E
So
but
my
two
points
were
going
to
be
on
blue
infrastructure
and
spaces
for
growing,
which
I
think
is
really
brilliant.
It's
been
brought
out
in
this
public
consultation.
My
point
around
blue
infrastructure
is
that
we
need
to
use
our
canals
and
rivers
more.
E
Is
it
17
trucks
can
be
taken
off
the
road
if
we
use
the
canals
to
take
things
into
into
leads.
So
we
need
to
go
back
in
time
really
and
and
not
just
protect
our
blue
infrastructure,
but
to
actually
use
it
in
a
way
of
tackling
the
climate.
Emergency
and
space
is
for
growing.
E
E
So
lockdown
was
a
fabulous
experience
that
way
for
me,
but
I
absolutely
know
that
my
heart
broke
for
those
who
couldn't
drive
to
those
places
when
we
weren't
allowing
them
to
park
in
the
car
parks
and
and
access,
because
if
you
live
in
a
back
to
back-
and
you
know
you
don't
have
those
access
as
I
did
but
in
terms
of
and
we've
got
lots
of,
allotments
things
like
that
in
terms
of
growing
spaces,
I'm
thinking
of
unneutralized
areas,
such
as
the
top
of
buildings
and
looking
really
innovatively
at
greenhouses
on
top
of
buildings
or
roof
gardens
all
those
sorts
of
things
which,
in
new
york
and
everywhere
that
and
other
places
they
are
utilizing
to
grow
food.
A
No
thanks
very
much
right.
I've
got
last
lip
council
collins
and
then
we
need
to
call
the
item
close.
It
is
big
item
and
it
was
always
going
to
be
a
long
discussion.
Do
we
want
to
have
a
break
after
that
finish
this
item
and
then
do
abby's
bit
in
because
he's
been
sat
there
very
patiently
and
it's
an
excellent
update,
abby.
I
Thank
you,
chad.
I
think
I
think
my
request
is
is
fairly
quick
in
the
adopted
course
strategy.
I
We've
got
the
spatial
development
strategy
and
one
thing
that
has
always
concerned
me
is
this
presumption
in
favor
of
infill
development,
and
I'm
just
really
looking
at
mr
feeny
to
say.
Is
this
something
that
we're
going
to
review
at
some
point,
because
it's
it's
those
small
spaces,
those
bits
where
a
developer
might
want
to
put
a
block
of
flats,
or
you
know
some
offices
that
we
might
actually
want
to
keep
to
to
make
it
a
green
space
for
the
community?
That's
already
living
around
it.
I
So
so
it's
just
a
question
as
to
whether
that
is
going
to
be
reviewed.
Maybe
changed.
Expanded
clarified.
K
Thank
you,
council,
collins,
yeah,
it's
a
good,
a
good
question.
It
will
be
subject
to
review,
but
going
forward
in
future
local
plan
updates.
I
think
one
of
the
issues
that's
coming
to
light
through
the
work
we've
been
doing
on
the
climate.
Emergency
policies
is
the
whole
issue
of
sort
of
the
heat
island
effect
and,
if
you
over
densify
the
urban
area,
the
consequence
that
has
in
terms
of
flood
risk
the
need
for
open
space
and
the
connectivity
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
K
So
there
is
a
careful
balance
that
needs
to
be
struck,
but
in
the
simple
answer
is
yes,
the
policy
will
be
revised
at
a
future
date.
Once
we
get
to
that
stage
as
part
of
the
local
plan
update.
All
of
the
policies
in
our
development
plans
have
to
be
reviewed
or
considered
for
review
every
five
years.
So
there
will
be
a
rolling
program
of
all
of
those
policies
being
considered
for
review.
K
Well,
at
this
moment
in
time,
it's
difficult
to
put
a
date
on
it,
but
it
is
a
rolling
program
and
we've
already
talked
about
this
afternoon.
Local
plan
update
too,
and
if
that's
something
that
can
be
considered
as
part
of
the
wider
debate
about
housing,
growth
and
housing
delivery,
then
that's
something
that
would
have
to
be
considered
as
part
and
parcel
of
that.
A
Thanks
like
youtube
right
right
folks,
we're
gonna
take.
I
think,
we've
pretty
much
wrapped
this
item
up
thanks
very
much
adam
and
everyone
who's
contributed
really
helpful.
Let's
wrap
this
item
up
and
let's
come
back
in
just
five
minutes.
Take
comfort
break
so
we
off
are.
We
live
stream
switched
off
temporarily.
A
Again
on
youtube,
so
if
we
move
then
to
agenda
item
a
on
page
27
in
in
your
booklets,
so
that's
the
update
on
hmo,
pbsa
and
co-living
immunity
standards.
Spd
abby
you've
been
super
patient
waiting,
so
floor's.
Yours
thanks.
G
Very
much
chair
yeah,
it's
a
bit
of
a
mouthful
that
the
title
of
the
document,
but
just
just
to
remind
members,
we
brought
the
draft
hmo
pbsa
and
co-living
immunity
standards
spd
to
development
plan
panel
in
december
of
last
year,
and
that
meeting
endorsed
the
draft
of
the
document
and
for
consultation.
G
By
way
of
an
update
for
this
meeting,
there's
just
three
three
key
things
I
wanted
to
update
members
on
in
terms
of
the
progress
of
the
document.
The
first
of
those
is
is
the
consultation
that
we've
done
and
the
follow-up
actions
that
we're
taking
in
response
to
that
consultation.
G
The
second
is
an
update
on
co-living
and
then
the
third
is
just
a
quick
set
of
next
steps
for
where
we
go
next
with
the
spd,
so
just
taking
consultation.
First
then.
So,
following
that
meeting
in
december
of
last
year,
we
undertook
six
weeks
of
the
statutory
consultation
on
the
draft
spd
between
18th
january
1st
of
march
of
this
year.
G
In
total,
we
received
55
sorry,
65
representations
which
cumulatively
cumulatively,
provided
over
500.
Individual
comments
relating
to
the
draft
document
representations
came
from
a
really
wide
range
of
stakeholders,
which
I
was
really
pleased
to
see,
including
residents,
associations,
neighborhood
planning
groups,
landlords
landlords,
representatives,
estate
agents,
developers
playing
consultants
and,
and
others,
and
just
wanted
to
point
someone.
One
thing
out
really
for
members
benefit.
G
A
significant
number
of
the
comments
related
to
the
hmo
section
of
the
document,
specifically
raising
concerns
about
how
the
the
spd
relates
to
a
separate
program
of
work
or
programmes
of
work
that
sit
within
the
council's
housing
service,
rather
than
within
the
planning
service.
G
The
spd
appendix
one
also
sets
out
the
council's
initial
response
to
the
comments
that
have
been
raised
and
and
the
actions
that
we
propose
to
take
in
response
to
those
comments
and
there's
a
very
quick,
quick
summary
and
like
I've
just
touched
upon.
Those
comments
have
been
really
really
particularly
very
helpful
in
terms
of
supporting
and
assisting
our
thinking
for
the
spd,
and
a
helpful
number
of
technical
points
have
also
been
raised
for
us
to
consider
and
properly
address
within
the
next
draft
of
the
document.
G
Work
is
still
ongoing
to
go
through
those
representations
in
full
detail
and
address
the
comments
raised
as
appropriate.
Just
touching
back
on
the
hmo
point
specifically.
G
So,
as
well
as
considering
the
representations
in
detail,
we've
also
been
very
proactively
working
to
address
concerns
raised
within
the
landlord
sector
through
continued
informal
engagement
with
that
sector
to
deal
with
the
concerns
that
relate
more
towards
the
to
the
status
of
the
draft
spd
and
its
relationship
to
those
council
work
streams.
G
I've
noted-
and
this
has
included
a
number
of
really
useful
and
positive
follow-up
meetings
and
presentations
within
the
landlord
sector,
in
particular,
trying
to
seek
a
pathway
to
address
those
concerns
that
have
been
raised
regarding
hmos
other
follow-up
conversations
have
also
taken
place
with
other
stakeholders
for
the
parts
of
the
spd
as
appropriate.
G
This
ongoing
engagement
with
the
landlord
sector
specifically
has
highlighted
an
opportunity
to
address
some
of
those
concerns
that
relate
more
to
the
status
and
what
the
document
is
rather
than
to
the
content
of
the
document
and
by
publishing
an
faq
or
frequently
asked
questions
document,
and
it's
our
intention
that
I'll
be
published
alongside
the
next
draft
of
the
spd
it
will
set
out.
G
You
know
like,
like
I
said,
about
the
status,
how
the
spd
will
be
used
and
how
it
relates
to
those
other
key
council
work
streams
that
take
place
within
the
council's
housing
service,
and
it
will
help
us
to
address
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
properly
and
appropriately
without
having
to
address
them
within
the
content
of
the
draft
sbd
itself.
G
As
well
as
the
publication
of
that
faq
document.
Ongoing
discussions
with
the
sector
have
identified
a
further
opportunity
to
bring
together
a
wider
student
housing
working
group
to
consider
issues
relating
to
the
student
housing
sector
as
a
whole,
including
student
housing,
needs
and
demand
over
long-term
anticipated
growth
in
student
populations
and
and
the
changing
student
population
in
leeds
in
the
long
term,
and
issues
of
affordability,
which
I
know
have
been
of.
G
A
particular
concern
to
members,
have
been
raised
through
various
panel
meetings,
and
it
was
initially
anticipated
that
this
working
group
would
be
would
take
place
in
august,
but
due
to
time
of
year
and
logistics,
and
that's
not
been
possible.
But
it's
felt
that
the
the
convening
of
that
working
group,
which
will
include
members
of
of
council
services,
but
also
the
universities
and
and
key
operators
in
the
sector,
such
as
unipol,
that
that
will
be
a
really
important
opportunity
for
us
to
capture
that
learning
through
the
next
draft
of
the
spd.
G
And
please
report
that
the
since,
since
submitting
the
report
for
the
the
agenda
papers,
that
we've
had
further
confirmation
at
that.
The
first
meeting
of
that
student
housing
working
group
will
take
place
towards
the
end
of
november
or
or
at
worst
in
early
december.
We're
just
waiting
on
a
date
to
be
agreed.
But
I
think
that's
a
really
key
opportunity
for
us
to
continue
to
work
through
those
issues
that
have
been
raised
appropriately.
G
And
so
that
was
it
in
terms
of
the
consultation
and
then
moving
on
to
co-living.
And
as
as
we
set
out
back
at
dpp
in
december
last
year.
Co-Living
is
an
emerging
form
of
sort
of
purpose-built,
shared
living
accommodation
which
is
getting
beginning
to
gain.
Some
momentum
in
incarcerated
cities,
in
particular
manchester
london
and
sheffield
co-living
schemes
are
also
beginning
to
emerge
in
leeds.
During
the
initial
preparation
of
the
spd
is
considered
that
it
was
an
opportunity
to
include
co-living
within
the
spd
to
set
out
immunity
standards
for
this
form
of
common
accommodation.
G
At
that
time,
it
was
noted
that
there
was
a
need
for
further
clarity
regarding
the
strategic
policy
context
for
co-living,
with
none
of
the
existing
core
strategy
policies
explicitly
referring
to
co-leading
developments.
Although
there
are
a
number
of
of
policies
within
development
plan
that
can
help
us
to
think
about
co-living
developments
through
further
discussions
between
offices
and
detail,
consideration
of
the
issues
relating
to
emerging
schemes
in
leeds,
including
the
representations
that
have
been
made
to
the
consultation,
in
particular
how
best
to
utilize
our
existing
development
plan
policies
to
deal
with
co-living
applications.
G
It's
recommended
at
this
point
that
the
co-living
chapter
or
section
of
the
spd
is
taken
out
in
the
next
draft
and
there
are
a
number
of
key
reasons
for
that,
and
I
just
wanted
to
take
members
through
those
the
first
of
those
being
that
there's
an
explicit
lack
of
a
link
to
policy
h9
within
the
core
strategy,
which
is
the
policy
that
sets
space
standards
and
immediately
standard
expectations
for
new
development
policy.
H9
refers
to
hmos
and
pbsa
specifically,
and
the
supplementary
planning
guidance
will
be
prepared.
G
This
is
something
that
we've
done
for
purpose-built
student
accommodation
and
for
members
that
sit
on
plans
panels
they'll
have
spent.
You
know
a
particular
amount
of
time,
looking
at
purpose-built
student
accommodation
schemes
in
detail
and
working
up.
What
does
good
look
like
for
leads?
I
think
that's
a
similar
type
of
approach
that
we're
seeking
to
advocate
for
here
and
then
by
prematurely,
including
co-living
standards
in
the
spd.
G
A
time
when
the
concept
is
still
very
much
evolving
without
taking
a
scheme
through
the
planning
process
is
the
risk
that,
with
the
council,
is
tied
into
a
methodology
of
dealing
with
co-living
schemes
in
one
particular
way,
without
thinking
about
the
wide
range
of
opportunities
that
we've
got
to
deal
with
co-living
schemes,
and
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
be
tied
into
one
single
approach
when
we're
still
not
fully
confident
of
what
the
concept
is
and
what
that
means
in
leads.
And
then
just.
G
Finally,
I
wanted
to
to
raise
some
members
and
I'm
sure
it
will
be
a
concern
that
that
officers
consider
that
removing
co-living
from
the
spd
at
this
point
doesn't
doesn't
present
or
presents
a
very
limited
policy
risk
in
terms
of
securing
securing
high
quality
and
and
good
amenity
standards
within
co-living
development,
because
we've
got
an
existing
suite
of
development
plan
policies
that
we
can
use
to
secure
that
standard,
as
we
would
expect
for
developments
in
leeds
and
then
just
finally
touching
on
on
the
point
that
I've
raised
already.
Is
that
we
can?
G
We
think
that
the
spd
in
terms
of
immunity
standards
can
be
revisited
at
a
future
date
if
needed,
to
think
about
including
standards
for
co-leaving
developments.
If,
once
we've
worked
through,
you
know
emerging
schemes,
a
potential
policy
approach
through
local
plan
update
number
x,
I
won't
sort
of
print
what
that
might
be
at
this
point
in
time,
but
those
two
things
combined
will
help
us
to
have
a
better
spd
in
in
terms
of
of
the
effect
they'll
have
in
the
future.
G
G
The
initial
timetable
for
the
spd
was
to
come
to
this
meeting
in
november
and
present
you
present
to
you
a
revised
draft
of
the
spd,
but
for
the
reasons
I've
just
set
out
in
terms
of
working
through
those
student
housing
issues
and
working
through
those
co-living
issues,
it's
felt
that
we
should
bring
the
revised
draft
of
the
spd
back
to
you
in
in
january
of
next
year,
which
will
make
for
a
a
very
exciting
meeting
for
you
all,
I'm
sure,
but
it'll
enable
us
to
work
through
those
those
two
key
issues,
and
I
just
wanted
to
to
know-
and
I'm
sure
again
it
will
be
a
concern
for
members
that
by
doing
that
and
coming
back
in
january
of
next
year,
rather
than
presenting
it
today,
we're
not
placing
any
delay
on
on
the
adoption
of
the
spd.
G
A
Thanks
abby,
all
planning
documents
are
interesting.
You
know
that
come
on
thanks
for
that.
It's
really
interesting.
It
is
it's
an
interesting
approach,
we're
adding
co-living
I'm
reasonably
comfortable
with
that.
I
know
council
brooks
has
wanted
to
come
in
and
then
council
collins.
E
The
the
student
housing
working
group-
I
was
just
wondering
if
student
unions
are
going
to
be
invited
to
that
to
have
some
input,
because
I
think
I
think
it's
quite
important
that
the
student
voices
is
taken
into
account
when,
when
looking
at,
when
looking
at
this,
and
then
I'd
just
like
to
get
a
bit
of
clarity
around
the
co-living,
are
there
already
national
policies
in
place
for
co-living
accommodation?
E
And,
if
not,
is
there
anything
sort
of
in
the
pipeline?
That's
going
to
be
coming
forward.
G
Thanks
very
much
on
the
the
student
union
point
totally
recognize
that
it's
not
us.
That's
convening
that
working
group
you.
Nepal
have
offered
to
do
that
to
save
us
resources,
but
I
can
certainly
make
sure
that
we
advocate
for
the
unions
to
be
involved.
In
those
conversations
I
did
consult
the
unions
as
part
of
the
consultation
on
the
draft
spd.
Just
for
you
to
know
so
I
can
I
can
once
we
know
who's
going
to
get
that.
G
I
can
let
you
know
and
can
certainly
feedback
at
the
january
meeting
in
terms
of
how
that
meeting's
gone
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
second
point,
about
national
policies
on
co-living,
there's
there's
a
bit
of
a
gap.
To
be
honest,
I
think
it's
such
a
new
concept.
G
That's
only
really
starting
to
get
quite
a
lot
of
traction
in
major
cities
at
the
moment,
so
there's
there's
nothing
in
the
mppf,
which
is
the
national
planning
policy
framework
on
co-living
specifically,
and
so
I
think,
there's
an
opportunity
there
for
leith
to
define
a
leads
approach,
which
I
think
is
something
that
members
will
probably
welcome
in
terms
of
what
does
quality
look
like.
But
I've
not
heard
anything
at
the
moment
in
terms
of
their
being
activity
at
government
level
to
to
introduce
some
sort
of
national
policy
on
co-living.
E
Thanks
chair:
if,
if
there's
no
current
policies
nationally
on
co-living
and
surely
that
means
that
we
don't
have
to
accept
it
at
all
like
because
they
go
against
space
standards.
E
So
just
like
it's
it's
a
completely
different
thing
for
purpose-built
student
accommodation,
because
the
expectation
is
that
you're
not
you're
not
going
to
be
living
there,
full-time
you're
going
to
be
living
there
as
a
student
in
turn
time
and
then
going
back
to
your
family
residence
in
between
so
like
my
concern
is
that
young
adults
will
be
forced
into
this
kind
of
accommodation,
because
they've
got
no
other
choice.
So
I
I
personally
don't.
E
Don't
support
that
kind
of
housing?
It
worries
me
a
lot,
so
I'm
just
I'm
just
I'm
just
struggling
I'm
struggling
to
understand
why,
if
it's
not
down
in
national
policy,
why
we
have
to
look
at
it
at
all.
You
know
what
I
mean.
K
Sorry,
I'm
sure
you
would
have
been
able
to
answer
it,
but
if
it
helps
council
brooks,
I
think
the
challenge
we've
got
is
that
it's
co-living
is
a
fairly
new
concept
in
late.
I
think
some
of
the
cities
have
seen
proposals
come
forward
already.
I
think
there
are
some
examples
in
manchester
and
in
in
london.
I
think
what
we're
starting
to
see,
though,
are
different
variations
of
a
co-living
model,
and
I
think
we
just
want
to
have
some
time
to
work
through
it
in
terms
of
understanding
what
it's
all
about.
How
does
this
apply?
K
How
does
that?
How
do
our
existing
policies
sit
in
terms
of
space
standards,
the
other
policy
requirements
we
have
from
residential
development
to
try
and
bring
those
strands
together
to
see
how
we
can
be
more
informed
about
those
proposals
and
look
at
them
on
their
merits.
K
So,
there's
still
a
bit
of
work
for
us
to
do
and
a
bit
of
thinking
for
us
to
do
to
look
at
those
emerging
proposals
in
the
round
I
mean
looking
at
it
more
generally,
the
model
seems
to
be
about
meeting
a
particular
type
of
housing
need,
but
we
need
to
fully
understand
that
because
there
are
slightly
different
variations
on
the
same
theme.
So
that's
the
process
we've
got
to.
K
What
we
didn't
want
to
do
was
to
sort
of
set
a
policy
position
as
part
of
this
spd
before
we'd
have
an
opportunity
to
fully
consider
all
of
those
other
issues
in
the
round,
and
we
can
look
at
it
in
a
more
detailed
way
and
bring
something
back
at
a
future
date.
So
that's
where
we've
got
to
if
that's
helpful,.
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
I
think
the
good
points
will
make
council
brooks,
I
think
a
lot
of
us
would
share
those
concerns.
It's
where
this
might
be.
Where
did
we
end
up
with
these
kind
of
proposals
without
sufficient
policy
around
them
policy?
Heft
around
them?
You
know
future
slums
might
be
a
bit
hype
hyperbole,
but
you
know
what
I
mean.
You
do
worry
about
that
kind
of
impact
with
really
small
housing
units
the
developers
might
have
the
best
of
intentions.
K
A
Looking
forward
to
the
student
hmi
workshop,
that
should
be
interesting
lots
to
discuss
about
the
impact
of
hmos,
particularly
on
other
residents,
as
well
as
how
best
to
facilitate
their
use
cool.
In
that
case,
next,
I've
got
council,
collins
and
council
campbell.
I
Thank
you
chair.
Can
we
go
back
a
step
because
I'm
actually
really
confused
as
to
what
the
difference
between
an
hmo
and
and
co-living
actually
is
because
in
hmo
there
has
to
be
immunity
space.
So
could
I
have
an
explanation
as
to
what
the
difference
is
and
hmos
also
have
to
be
registered
with
us,
so
do
co-living
properties
have
to
be
registered
with
us,
because
it's
feeling
at
the
moment
that
co-living
is
a
loophole.
G
So,
as
as
david
rightly
pointed
out,
there's
a
variety
of
different
models,
but
but
as
a
concept,
I
could
probably
best
describe
co-living
as
as
a
purpose-built
block.
That's
that's
shared,
so
you
would
typically
get
small
studio
spaces,
for
perhaps
you
know
a
couple
hundreds
worth
and
then,
rather
than
having
kitchens
living
rooms,
everything
captured
within
the
flat
you'd
have
shared
space
outside
of
the
bedroom
to
make
up
for
that,
it's
it's
generally
targeted
at
recent
graduates
or
new
income,
new
new
incomers
to
the
city
who
who.
G
Don't
necessarily
have
somewhere
long
long
term
to
live,
so
that's
generally
the
type
of
model
it's
quite
hard
to
conceptualize,
but
hmo
provision
is
tends
to
be
within
existing
development,
so
you'll
typically
get
a
house.
That's
changed
to
a
hmo
co-living
is
is
on
a
much
larger
scale
than
that
and
is
generally
purpose-built,
but
without
having
to
try
not
to
generalize
too
much
because
it
is
so
new
and
there's
so
many
different
variations
of
it.
G
But
but
it's
generally
that
in
return
for
your
your
smaller
studio
space
within
a
development,
you
would
get
that
offset
with
shared
amenities,
such
as
shared
kitchens,
co-working
spaces
potential,
other
on-site
amenities
like
gyms
and
food
and
drink
provision
and
things
that,
but,
as
I
said,
it,
changes
from
from
site
to
site
and
from
operator
to
operator.
So
it's
quite
hard
to
encapsulate.
But
it's
it's
more
purpose-built
than
a
hmo
is
hmo
is
definitely
much
on
a
much
more
smaller
scale.
I
It's
not
helpful
because
you're
saying
it's
new,
I
mean
I
lived
in
henry
price
when
I
was
a
student
that
was
a
purpose-built
block.
That
is
exactly
as
you
described
it
bedrooms
with
a
common
room
common
kitchen.
So
so
that
sounds
like
shared
living
to
me,
but
that's,
not
new.
We've
had
that
for
ages,
so
where?
Where
has
the
protection
been
for?
Anybody
who
lives
in
that
block.
I
I
K
I
D
Thanks
chair,
just
it
might
provide
members
with
some
assurance,
so
the
first
thing
we'll
do
when
we
get
an
application
in
and,
like
abby,
said
a
lot
of
the
we
have
to
look
at
them
as
and
when
they
come
in,
because
there
are
some
different
models.
D
But
the
first
thing
we
need
to
do
is
establish
whether
the
four
within
any
existing
planning
use
class
so
would
they
would
they
satisfy
a
c3
and
if
they
do
c3
being
a
residential
dwell
in
in
the
traditional
sense,
then
our
policies
with
regard
to
what
that
requires
will
will
be
triggered.
D
Similarly,
if
there
are
an
hmo
like
you've,
just
the
example
that
you've
just
described
a
smaller
one,
if
we're
moving
forward
to
that,
then
then
those
policies
that
we've
got
would
be
triggered
and
the
difference,
I
suppose,
between
what
what
we've
got
as
a
purpose-built
student
accommodation
and
something
that
sounds
very
similar
but
isn't
for
students.
The
difference
there
is
that
we
do
have
a
used
class
for
student
accommodation
and
again.
For
that
reason
we
have
policies
that
are
triggered.
D
So
was
the
the
kind
of
title
to
this
living
wavelet
with
living
or
or
development,
is
being
called
co-living,
there's
actually
no
plan
and
use
class
and
when
a
planning
use
class
doesn't
exist
so,
for
example,
for
large
hmos.
D
That's
when
you
have
to
look
at
it
as
being
classed
in
in
a
class
of
its
own
and
that's
where
the
policies
may
not
be
triggered,
but
but
it
will
be
completely
reasonable
until
any
policies
that
we
did
have
or
until
the
mppf
caught
up
would
be
entirely
reasonable
to
look
at
what
that
model
more
closely
represented
to
look
at
the
kind
of
requirements
and
standards
that
our
core
strategy
looks
in
those
circumstances.
D
So,
like
counselor
brooke
said
we
would,
we
have
got
space
or
we
will
have
when
this
comes
in,
we
have
got.
We
have
got
standards
for
purpose-built
student
accommodation.
D
This
looks
very
similar,
but
some
of
the
reasons
some
of
the
smaller
room
sizes
for
those
might
be
deemed
acceptable
is
because
students
aren't
there
all
year
round,
and
it
might
be
from
that.
You
would
start
as
a
point,
for
example,
but
say,
but
these
people
are
there
all
year
round
and
therefore
you
need
something
more,
but
we
are
in
that
transitional
position,
but
it
was
just
to
assure
members
that
if
anything
does
fall
within
a
set
use
class
that
already
exists,
then
obviously
we
do
have
the
policies
in
place
for
that.
I
D
E
I'm
gonna
have
to
leave,
but
it's
really
interesting
conversation,
but
I'm
gonna
have
to
leave
because
gotta
get
home
to
my
daughter,
but
it's
yeah.
E
I
just
want
to
say
that
this
is
something
that
we're
going
to
have
to
look
at
quite
careful
closely
and
I'm
really
pleased
about
the
the
conversation
around
it,
because
it
is
something
that
might
be
snuck
in
and
and
not
trigger
our
policies,
as
nicole's
quite
rightly
said,
so
we
need
to
get
really
close
to
it
and
compared
to
where
I
lived
in
birmingham
30
years
ago.
Nearly
all
student
accommodation
is
posh.
J
J
It
certainly
in
the
purpose
built
market
has
has
come
on
quite
dramatically
and,
as
you
know,
I
have,
on
more
than
one
occasion
raised
the
issue
of
space
standards
within
student
accommodation,
in
the
same
way
that
I
used
to
raise
it
in
relation
to
space
standard
on
on
one
bedroom,
two
bedroom.
And
so
I
suppose
I
would
say
it's
a
good
job,
we're
actually
getting
there
on
the
student.
J
But
I'm
I'm
I'm
less
concerned
about
the
purpose-built
student
stuff
because
I
think,
with
the
parameters
we're
working
to
have
been
often
discussed
within
within
plans
panels,
and
so
I'm
fairly
confident
that
we'll
come
up
with
something
that's
our
baseline
for
student
purpose
built
student
accommodation.
J
I
am
really
struggling
like
darn
here
with
the
what's
the
difference
between
an
hmo
and
a
con
living
immunity.
And
apparently
it
said
to
us:
it's
an
hmo
is
an
old
house.
That's
converted
a
bit
like
you
get
a
lot
of
it
headedly,
but
they're,
not
quite
the
same
they're
student
ones.
J
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
the
hmos
which
are
dotted
all
over
the
city
where
effectively
a
group
of
strangers
come
together
and
share
a
house
and
have
a
kitchen
and
sometimes
a
lounge
and
a
toilet,
and
I
don't
know
about
you,
but
I
I
feel
very
concerned
about
some
of
those
and
that
principle.
J
But,
as
I
said
effectively,
a
group
of
strangers
come
together
and
you've
no
real
control
over
who
you
you're,
with
or
who
you
who
you're
sharing
with,
because
it's
the
landlord's
makes
the
decision
about
who
goes
in,
and
it
will
be
something
that,
and
I
think,
if
I'm
brutally
honest
it
in
some
ways
it's
become
the
accommodation
of
last
resort
for
some
people,
because
they
can't
get
an
alternative,
it's
relatively
cheap
and
they
can't
get
an
alternative.
J
J
So
if
we
can
come
to
grips
with
that,
I'm
happy
I'll
in
hmo,
because
I
understand
in
hmo
and
my
baseline-
and
I
said
it
during
the
consultation-
is
people
need
their
own
space
and
that
needs
to
be
a
meaningful
space,
not
just
enough
room
to
get
the
bed
in
okay,
because
you
may
not
wish
to
share
the
communal
sitting
room
with
five
other
people.
You
don't
really
know
or
like
so
there
has
to
be
enough
space,
I
think
for
them.
J
So
in
some
ways
that
needs
to
be
a
larger
space
than
you
might
get
under
under
a
normal
set
of
circumstances,
because
you,
you
need
a
bit
like
the
student
element,
so
we've
said
with
the
student
element,
some
of
you.
Yes,
you
need
to
get
a
bed
in.
You
need
to
get
a
table.
You
need
to
get
a
chair
in
well,
you
need
to
get
two
chairs
in.
So
somebody
can
come
around
and
sit
and
chat
with
you
yeah,
and
it's
similar.
I
think
it's
something
similar
in
relation
to
hmr
the
core
living.
J
J
J
Would
we,
under
our
current
policy,
deal
with
it
as
a
an
application,
for
I
don't
know,
let's
say
a
five-bedroom
flat,
or
would
we
deal
with
it
in
the
same
way
that
we
currently
do
with
student
accommodation.
A
Yeah,
I
think
a
lot
of
that's
going
to
be
covered
at
the
workshop
collin,
but
if
anyone
wants
to
speak
to
the
points
councilman
campbell's
raised
and
I've
got
other
speakers
as
well,
but
this
shows
the
need
for
a
workshop
calling
it
really
does
off.
So
one
that
I
want
to
bring
jim
then
caroline
in
yeah.
C
Thank
you
chair.
Just
following
up
from
your
point,
you
raise
very
important
questions
which
we'll
have
to
deal
with.
I
can
tell
you
colin
that
we
have
two
such
applications
that
we'll
probably
have
to
deal
with
on
the
25th
of
november.
So
I'm
sure
you
could
rehearse
all
those
arguments
to
good
effect.
Then
I
have
had
a
conversation
with
belgium
and
belgium
has
assured
me
would
be
dealt
with
in
the
way
you've
described
so
to
be
learning
from
both
of
us
on
that
one.
C
As
I
say
I
haven't
had
my
brief
yet
so
I
don't
know,
but
you
will
certainly
be
dealing
with
it
under
current
policies
and
I'm
sure
david
and
planners
will
treat
in
that
manner.
As
you
described.
A
Thanks
jim
council
green.
D
Thank
you
chair
you,
you
too,
are
not
the
only
two
to
be
confused
because
it
is
confusing
by
nature,
and
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
need
to
be
really
careful
about
is
is
what
the
need
is
for
this
accommodation,
because
I
I
think
that
developers
will
find
this
very
attractive
because
they're
able
to
achieve
better
dent
or
not
better
greater
density
and
therefore
greater
profit,
so
it
will
become
a
really
popular
building
model.
D
Do
we
need
this
kind
of
shared
living
in
leeds
as
a
lifestyle?
Is
it
something
that
we
want
to
promote?
I'm
told
there
are
a
number
of
examples
in
manchester.
Is
it
sheffield
in
manchester,
certainly
manchester
united,
and
that
we?
This
might
be
the
next
big
thing?
D
Well,
I
think
we
need
to
control
whether
it's
the
next
big
thing
or
not,
because
the
concepts
within
it
are
by
nature
confusing,
even
the
paper
kind
of
interchanges
between
talking
about
the
student
housing
sector,
the
shared
living
concept
and
then
the
fact
that
it
is
actually
for
all
age
groups.
I
don't
think
there
would
be
an
age
limit
on
it.
It's
for
adults
and
forgive
me
students.
I
know
you
are
adults,
but
it's
for
students
and
adults.
D
That
means
it's
for
everybody
who
chooses
to
live
like
that,
or
indeed
doesn't
choose
to
live
like
that,
and
it's
it's
perhaps
an
only
option
because
we
haven't
built
in
other
ways,
so
I'm
very
nervous
about
this
really
really
nervous
about
it
and
I'm
worried
about
making
decisions
on
two
applications
on
city
plans
panel
when
we
haven't
actually
thought
this
through.
Do
we
want
leeds
to
be
a
city
of
shared
living?
If,
if
I
was
a
student,
I
might
welcome
that
particularly
the
top
end
stuff.
D
It
was
much
better
as
you've
said
than
what
I
lived
in
when
I
was
a
student
temporarily,
sometimes
home
for
the
weekends
and
the
and
the
university
holidays
and
so
on,
but
it
wouldn't
suit
me
as
a
young
adult
to
live
like
that.
I,
for
all
the
reasons
colin's
identified,
so
I
I
just
think
we've
we've
got
to
put
our
brain
power
behind
this
before
we
start
accepting
and
approving
applications.
A
A
E
Yeah
I
just
quickly
wanted
to
echo,
like
my
concerns,
is
entirely
about
the
standard
of
living
for
people
living
in
these
in
these
potential
potentially
living
in
these
blocks,
the
space
standards
and
the
potential
impact
on
mental
health
from
living.
In
such
a
small
space
we
have
as
a
city
four
and
four
and
four
for
minimum
space
standards,
so
it
makes
me
feel
ill.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Chair.
A
F
A
B
Very
quick,
yes,
so
the
there's
a
workshop.
In
addition
to
sorry,
do
you
want
to
cancel
on
first
or
sorry
ellen?
I
missed
you.
It
was
just
the
there's.
B
The
martinelli
has
contact
me
to
just
say
that
there's
a
there's,
a
workshop
to
cover
two
items
around
the
transport
spd
and
affordable
housing,
delivery,
partnership
plan
and
obviously,
there's
a
workshop
that
we'd
like
to
organize
for
dpp
members
on
those
too
there's
two
dates
that
look
like
being
useful
to
yourselves
from
a
dpp
member's
point
of
view.
So
we've
got
the
23rd
of
november
1
until
3,
30
or
the
16th
of
december
1
till
3
30.
B
it'd
be
really
useful
to
know
if
there
are
any
dates
that
people
couldn't
make
of
those
two.
So
we
can
arrive
at
one
of
those
either
yeah
and
then
what
is
sorry
november,
the
23rd
one
until
3
30.