►
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
Welcome
everybody
to
the
meeting.
This
is
the
development
plans
panel
and
my
name
is
councilor
Caroline,
Gruen
and
I'll
be
chairing
the
meeting.
Today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
city
council,
YouTube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
the
need
to
be
present.
So
could
I
now
invite
members
to
introduce
themselves?
Please
I've
already
done
so
and
we'll
move
to
Martin.
First.
B
A
J
Yeah,
as
members
know,
as
a
result
of
the
election
being
called
for
the
4th
of
May
we're
currently
in
the
pre-election
period
of
heightened
sensitivity,
which
we
refer
to
as
the
perder
period.
J
Council
groomers
asked
me
to
just
advise
members
that
the
purpose
of
the
perder
period
is
not
to
prevent
the
council
from
carrying
out
its
normal
business,
but
it
is
to
prevent
the
business
being
conducted
by
the
council
being
used
or
having
the
potential
to
be
perceived
as
being
used
to
secure
any
electoral
Advantage.
As
such,
please
treat
the
panel
meeting
as
a
normal
meeting,
but
be
mindful
of
debate
that
amounts
to,
or
could
reasonably
be
perceived
to
among
to
electioneering.
Thank
you.
A
L
I,
oh
sorry,
we'll
do
them
afterwards.
A
L
Under
gender
number
one,
there
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
inspection
of
documents
under
item
number
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
under
item
number
three.
There
are
no
late
items
noted
and
under
agenda
item
number
four
organized
members
to
declare
any
interests.
L
A
Can
I
thank
councilor
garthwick
for
substituting
on
this
meeting?
Thank
you.
We've
got
the
minute
so
I'd
like
to
take
accuracy
and
matters
arising
together.
Please
and
I
know
that
Adam
has
an
issue
that
he
wants
to
raise
from
the
minutes.
M
Thank
you
chair.
It
was
more
materializing
regarding
the
Leeds
local
plan,
2040
consultation,
that
members
will
be
aware
of.
We
closed
that
consultation
on
the
24th
of
March
and
just
to
update
members.
We
had
a
good
to
announce
in
terms
of
responses
received,
so
we've
had
roughly
a
thousand
responses
to
that
consultation
with
a
split
of
about
700,
circus
750,
smart
surveys,
which
are
our
electronic
questionnaire
and
about
250
emails.
M
We've
so
far
had
about
450
site
submissions
as
part
of
the
call
for
science
exercise.
Members
will
recall,
though,
that
that's
not
closing
at
the
same
time
that's
an
ongoing
process
for
the
time
being,
which
will
close
but
later
on
during
the
process.
So
we
feel
it's
been
a
positive
process.
M
There's
still,
some
engagement
exercises
ongoing
as
as
we've
explained
throughout
I,
think
I
think
that
we
feel
this
is
the
beginning
of
the
process
in
terms
of
Engagement,
so
those
many
more
opportunities
for
consultation
throughout
the
spring
and
the
summer.
A
Thank
you,
Adam.
Are
there
any
points
or
questions?
Anybody
would
like
to
add
or
query
lovely.
Thank
you
for
the
catch
up.
That's
great.
Can
I
welcome,
councilor,
Lam
I
believe
this
is
the
first
DPP
you've
attended
since
you
were
Paulie,
so
welcome
back,
it's
nice
to
have
you
there.
A
So
we
are
now
on
the
main
substantive
item.
Please,
under
item
number,
seven
I.
C
Used
yeah
thank
you,
chair,
so
I
bring
today
a
report
and
a
draft
technical
guidance
note
on
the
issue
of
co-living.
C
This
has
been
drawn
together
with
assistance
from
colleagues
in
plans
and
policy
and
development
management.
It's
also
been
pulled
together
using
previous
notes
and
best
practice
from
from
our
cities.
You
may
recall
that
we've
had
previous
briefings
on
this
subject
over
the
last
two
years
and
for
those
that
sit
on
plans,
you
may
have
already
seen
some
co-living
proposals
coming
through
the
planning
system,
so
in
summary,
co-living,
it's
still
a
relatively
new
concept
of
housing
or
model
of
housing.
It's
largely
appeals
to
younger
professionals.
C
Looking
for
more
communal
living,
it's
characterized
by
relatively
small
individual
private
units
supported
by
communal
facilities
such
as
shared
kitchens
shared
lounges.
So
the
model
shares
some
similarities
to
Modern
student
accommodation,
but
it
is
distinct
in
planning
terms
and
attracts
different
end
users,
neither
the
mppf
nor
the
Leeds
local
plan
campaign
policies
which
specifically
refer
to
co-living
and
whilst
we
drafted
a
pbsa,
the
purpose-built
student,
accommodation
and
HMO
houses
in
multiple
occupation
and
co-living
SPD,
as
was
a
couple
of
years
ago.
C
That
was
originally
intended
to
include
new
guidance,
and
it
was
decided
at
that
time
and
a
development
plan
panel
back
in
December
2020.
But
following
legal
advice,
because
there
wasn't
a
policy
hook
that
we
removed
that
Co
element
living
from
that
SPD.
C
As
such,
it's
likely
to
sort
of
fit
between
sewer,
generous
I.E,
a
use
without
a
use
class
or
in
some
cases
it
can
fall
within
a
C3
dwelling
houses.
A
sort
of
typical
residential
use.
C
So
we've
been
working
as
officers
internally
to
an
internal
guidance
note
which
hasn't
been
published
previously,
it
was
agreed
that
officers
required
more
time
to
monitor
schemes
coming
through,
to
evaluate
and
better
understand
how
the
model
was
coming
forward
and
being
operated.
C
However,
it's
recognized
that
there
is
currently
the
potential
for
an
inconsistent
approach
to
co-living
Applications,
without
that
formal,
visible
guidance
on
the
issue,
so
in
the
short
term
deciding
that
we
would
sort
of
formally
publish
a
position
on
co-living
it
hopefully
will
help
to
ensure
that
there's
a
consistent
decisions
being
made
that
officers,
applicants
and
members
will
be
able
to
work
from
the
same
guidance
and
in
addition,
the
note
also
offers
the
opportunity
to
clarify
the
council's
broad
approach
to
co-living.
C
In
the
longer
term,
we
recognize
that
the
current
policy
vacuum
is
best
addressed
for
new
planning
policy
adopted
for
the
Leeds
local
plan.
2040,
which
specifically
can
address,
or
at
least
recognize
co-living,
so
the
brief
covers
material
considerations
around
location,
affordable
housing
as
well
as
the
size
of
units
and
the
size
of
community
facilities
and
the
access,
and
particularly
the
focus
on
that
qualitative
access
to
communal
facilities.
C
We
also
highlight
the
importance
of
the
opportunity
of
post
occupancy
surveys
in
the
monitoring,
which
will
be
really
helpful
to
inform
those
longer
term
policies
for
the
Leeds
local
plan
2040.,
as
the
draft
document
is
now
in
the
public
domain,
we've
also
had
some
initial
developer
feedback,
which
some
of
which
may
be
useful
to
relate
to
panel
today.
The
first
one
I
think
is
a
really
positive
one.
Is
that
the
say
the
document
provides
a
balanced
note.
So
that's
that's
welcome.
C
It
does
raise
question
as
to
whatever
happened
to
the
draft
SPD
on
on
the
pbsa
and
HMS
so
space
standards.
It
is
noted
that
that
has
drifted
and
that's
due
to
resourcing,
but
Our
intention
is
still
to
progress
that
pbsa
and
hmso
SPD
on
Space
standards.
It's
not
an
easy
title,
I
have
to
say,
there's
also
some
concern
raised
on
the
space
standards
referenced
and
the
aggregate
approach
between
private
and
communal
space.
C
We
specifically
don't
give
a
calculation
within
the
document.
We
do
say
that
each
scheme
has
to
be
assessed
on
its
own
merits
and
we're
using
the
space
standards
at
the
end
ndss,
which
is
about
37
square
meters,
to
to
aggregate
out
where
the
private
space
in
co-living.
It
certainly
is
not
going
to
meet
that.
So
it's
it's
looking
at
the
aggregate
of
what
is
being
provided
elsewhere
within
the
schemes
to
look
about,
but
we
don't
provide
a
specific
calculation
because
there
are
different
models.
C
There
are
different
layouts
that
coming
forward,
so
to
do
so
at
this
stage,
I
think
would
to
make
it
to
to
owners.
They
have
said
that
as
a
crude
proxy,
we
perhaps
need
a
strong
qualification
that
will
be
looking
at
other
aspects
of
sort
of
qualitative
communal
revision
within
schemes.
C
Developers
have
also
raised
the
link
from
page
or
remote
page.
It
was
a
different
page
in
your
documents,
but
page
10
of
the
appendix,
where
we
reference
link
to
policy
h10
and
the
accessibility
criteria
set
within
that
they
have
highlighted
that
that
is
a
specific
compliance
to
a
C3
use
and,
as
as
I've
said,
co-living
can
sort
of
trip
over
into
that
sewer,
generous,
so
I
think
we
just
need
to
to
just
clarify
the
wording
and
the
links
around
that,
however,
really
strongly.
C
We
should
sort
of
be
encouraging
access
and
equality
to
to
all
for
for
all
development
schemes
and
I,
don't
see
why
co-living
schemes
should
be
treated
any
differently
and
shouldn't
have
provision
to
for
accessible
access.
C
Finally,
just
onto
the
recommendations
really
to
note
and
comment
on
the
contents
of
the
draft
technical
planning
guidance
and
that,
subject
to
those
comments
received
David
Chief
planning
officer
sat
next
to
me,
will
approve
the
technical
guidance
note
and
will
we
then
use
it
in
the
determination
of
planning
applications
from
the
point
of
publication,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
Thank.
A
Sorry,
thank
you
very
much
Catherine.
As
this
is
development
plans
panel
and
not
not
a
formal
decision-making
panel
as
in
applications,
we
can
take
questions
and
comments
together.
So
if
anybody
would
like
to
comment
so
first
of
all,
I've
got
Colin
not
unusually,
and
then
I've
got
councilor.
Anderson
can.
C
N
Apologize
chair
for
arriving
slightly
somebody's
closed,
Arlington
Lane
and
not
not
told
me
about
not
Arlington,
but
Lisa
then
tell
me
about
it.
So
I
had
a
nice
tour
to
get
here.
K
N
Number
one
is
as
you
as
Catherine
said,
we're
in
in
Uncharted
Territory.
Here
aren't
we.
This
is
new,
so
what
we
do
I
suppose
didn't.
We
shouldn't
take
a
precedent
from
elsewhere
and
I
know
it's.
It's
often
mentioned
that
this
is
effectively
students,
Mark,
II,
actually,
I.
Don't
think
we
we
should
think
of
it
like
that
and
I
I
think
we
need
to
establish
a
principle
and
then
perhaps
we
could
talk
about
the
detail.
N
Think
if
you'd
come
to
us
and
you
wanted
to
convert
a
house
into
an
HMO
like
this
we'd,
be
saying
no,
so
it
seems
to
me
that
we
have
to
look
at
what
are
we
trying
to
do
with
these,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
developers
are
looking
at
this
as
a
method
of,
in
effect,
creating
extra
value
by
not
producing
units
of
a
size
that
we
we've
fought
for
a
long
time
to
obtain
and
I
know
they
talk
about
this
communal
space,
but
I
think
if
you're
talking
about
adults
and
we
can't,
we
can't
limit
the
age
of
those
adults.
N
You
know
you're
saying
mostly
it's
related
to,
as
for
suppose,
the
younger
end,
but
actually
we
can't
condition
that
you
can't
say
nobody
over
25
could
Livia,
so
it
should
be
all
age
ranges
and
I
just
have
this
concern
of
effectively
creating
these
very
large
hmos,
which,
though
they
may
start
off,
well
managed
with
no
guarantee
that
that
management
will
continue
or
even
that
the
model
will
continue
and
I.
I
also
would
flank
up
at
this
point,
because
I
was
thinking
about
as
I
came
in,
we
all
know.
N
Don't
we,
when
we
sit
on
City
plans,
in
particular
the
way
developers
come
to
work
to
us
and
say
we
can't
afford
to
do
X,
Y
and
Z
because
of
in
effect
the
viability
and
it
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
ought
to
ask
the
district
valuer
how
they
would
assess
viability
on
one
of
these
units,
because
I
think
we
all
have
worries.
N
Don't
we
that
the
the
current
method
for
build
to
rent
viability
is
skewed
in
favor
of
the
developer,
in
that,
if
effectively
it
undervalues
the
property,
because
there's
no
final
sale
cost.
So
it
would
seem
to
me
that
I
would
be
interested
to
know
when
we
get
one
of
these.
That
comes
along
with
a
with
that
sort
of
claim.
N
We
can't
it's
not
viable
to
do
what
you
want
us
to
do,
whatever
conditions
we
set
down
where
we
are
but
I
I
do
think
that
I
really
would
like
us
to
get
a
very
clear,
steer
or
create
a
very
clear
statement
of
principle
in
relation
to
this
type
of
accommodation,
because
I
have
real
concerns
about
what,
as
I've
said,
is,
is
in
effect
a
glorified
giant.
Hmr
I
can
talk
about
the
detailing
later,
but.
A
Thanks
very
much
councilor,
Campbell
and
I.
Don't
want
you
to
misinterpret
this
remark
as
my
support
for
this
type
of
co-living,
but
I
would
observe
that
there
are
some
differences
between
an
HMO
as
we
know
it,
and
this
kind
of
development
in
that
this
is
purpose
built
and
it's
not
on
a
street
of
family
houses
and
it's
not
built
specifically
for
very
young
adults.
There
are
differences,
but
nevertheless,
I
think.
A
lot
of
the
points
that
you
make
out
do
need
our
careful
consideration.
We
we
are
due
for
Dale
Robinson
to
arrive.
A
E
B
Come
about
first
I,
I,
think
I,
think
I
understand
the
points
that
councilor
Campbell's
making
and,
in
a
sense
that's
that's
the
reason
for
the
for
the
technical
guidance.
So
the
reason
that
we
we
have
this
link
to
our
existing
policy
Suite,
which
seeks
to
provide
quality
accommodation
within
leads,
is
because
we
have
in
front
of
us
a
different
model
and
you'll
know
that
we're
not
building
enough
enough
houses
quickly
enough.
That's
that's!
B
That's
a
a
one
of
the
the
mppf's
most
recent
announcements
was
around
the
need
to
to
to
boost
the
supply
of
housing
delivery.
So
we
have
a
developer
and
we
have
a
model
entering
the
market
which
seeks
to
build
that
scale
on
a
particular
type
of
scheme.
Now,
that
will
add
to
add
variety
to
the
the
amount
of
options
available
to
people
to
to
to
to
take
accommodation
within
leads,
because
we
already
have
built
to
rent
going
on
within
the
city
center.
B
We
already
have
purpose-built
student
accommodation,
which
is
necessarily
limited
and
and
in
some
circumstances,
On
The
Fringe
of
the
city
center.
We
have
some
owner
occupied
housing.
What
this
will
do
is
this
will
diversify
the
the
type
of
housing
offer
to
leads
and
and
in
a
sense
as
a
local
planning.
Authority
Our
obligation
is
to
determine,
what's
in
front
of
us
and
what's
submitted
to
us,
and
this
guidance
assists
Us
in
doing
that,
within
the
context
of
the
way
in
which
we
would
like
new
homes
to
come
into
the
city.
B
So
I
think
the
question
around:
is
this
model
on
its
own
terms
viable
and
what
are
the
the
the
the
development
viability?
N
What
hockey
simply
to
say
this
provides
a
diversity,
mobile
homes
provided
by
diversity,
I'm,
simply
saying
I'm,
not
sure
this
may
this,
actually
is
the
diversity
we
might
want,
or
I
might
want,
not
sure
about
everybody
else.
I'm.
K
Generally
comments
in
respect
of
paragraph
2.4,
we
talk
about,
there's
no
used
Class.
What's
the
view
of
your
professional
body
on
this,
because
don't
you
because
you
men,
you
reference
London!
Well,
anybody
I
mean
everything
is
always
london-centric
in
this
country.
Even
the
professional
bodies
are
so.
What
are
the
professional
bodies
been
saying
about
this,
because
the
London
authorities
probably
would
have
been
shipping
policy?
K
Have
they
come
up
with
any
anything
that
they're
planning
to
do
and
as
such,
what
conversations
have
they
had
with
the
inspector
as
to
how
they
may
be
wanting
to
interpret
things
and
have
there
been
any
refusals
or
any
applications
gone
to
an
inspector
nationally
on
this?
And
what,
if
anything,
can
we
draw
from
that
positively
negatively?
You
know:
is
there
anything
that
we
could
so
that
we
can
make
an
informed
decision
in
terms
of
paragraph
3.6?
K
Now
there'll
always
be
people
who
want
more,
but
if
we
could,
if
you
can
come
up
with
a
minimum,
then
these
are
effectively
the
minimum
standards
that
we've
consulted
on.
We've
got
evidence
to
back
it
up.
So
if
we
do
turn
someone
down,
because
they've
got
two
smaller
space,
we
can
say
well.
We've
got
the
consultation
that
back.
That
confirms
that
this
is
what
is
anticipated
and
then
the
other
one
which
was
on
the
affordable
housing.
K
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
government
were
trying
to
incentivize
and
try
and
help
out
people
like
nurses
and
various
other
things
to
get
cheaper
accommodation.
Is
there
anything
we
can
see,
because
you
do
reference
that
nurses,
the
NHS,
might
be
the
potential
for
this,
but
when
it
comes
to
Affordable,
is
there
any
800
to
1200
pounds
is
a
heck
of
a
lot
of
money?
You
know
so.
K
Is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
build
on
what
incentives
the
government
are
putting
in
place
to
try
and
get
accommodation
for
what's
seen
as
important
workers,
key
workers
or
whatever
phrases
or
anything
we
can
use
in
there
to
give
you
help
and
support
to
make
sure
that
a
number
of
the
places
in
these
buildings
are
for
people
whose
incomes
aren't
anywhere
near
affording
that
level
when
you
multiply
them
up
as
to
what
incomes
that
they've
got
and
then
the
final
thing
is,
should
we
be
putting
something
in
about
climate
change
so
that,
when
they're
building
these
buildings,
they
are
putting
in
energy
sources
that
are
renewable,
sustainable
as
a
bare
minimum?
K
C
I
think
there's
five
there,
that's
fine
I'll
start
at
the
beginning,
so
yeah
others
of
us
have
defined
it.
London
are
ahead
of
the
game
on
this,
but
they
have
put
it
in
their
policy
and
I
think
that's
the
difference
between
London
and
Leeds
others
how
grappling
with
the
same
sort
of
vacuum
in
terms
of
the
the
use
class
definition
and
and
how
it
falls
between
sewer,
generous
and
and
residential.
C
So
it
is
really
down
to
I,
think
individual
local
planning
authorities
and
how
they
Define
it
and
where
they
put
it
within
policy.
In
that
definition,
Liverpool
have
recently
grappled
with
that
similar
vacuum
and
they've
produced
a
similar
planning
policy
advice,
note
of
which
we've
sort
of
stolen
little
bits
from
but
taken
that
that
sort
of
guidance
they've
also
recently
successfully
defended
an
appeal
for
a
co-living
scheme,
and
that
was
based
or
the
the
grounds
were.
C
On
the
failing
to
me,
the
local
plan
policies
on
housing
mix
now
co-living
its
games
are
generally
100
one
bed
because
of
the
model
in
the
format
that
they
come.
They
come
in
as
a
one
bed.
Private
space
with
communal
facilities,
I
have
to
say
that
we've
stayed
pretty
silent
on
mix
because
of
that
model,
and
we
would
have
to
sort
of
again
look
at
whether
the
model
of
co-living
schemes
bring
forward
different
sized
units
and
then
I
think
it
becomes
something
else.
C
The
Liverpool
scheme
was
also
contrary
to
the
internal
space
standards
and
Liverpool
uses
the
same
NDS
based
standards
that
that
Leeds
does.
The
appeal
case
in
in
Liverpool
was
given.
Well
we're
not
sure
how
much
the
the
guidance
note
was
given
sort
of
material
weight
to
the
determination,
but
it
certainly
did
did
did
sort
of
help.
C
C
You
referenced
paragraph
3.6,
which,
for
those
that
haven't
got
the
document
in
front
of
them,
refers
to
the
Strategic
housing
market
assessment,
which
was
taken
updated
in
2017
and
we're
just
currently
in
the
process
of
updating
that
it's
likely
that
we
won't
have
a
response
until
August
this
year
and
that
will
input
in
an
influence.
C
Our
our
draft
policies
on
so
it
will
certainly
be
a
key
part
of
that
evidence
base
that
you
reference
and
as
I
say,
you
know,
we
we
recognize
that
there
is
a
void
and
a
vacuum
in
our
own
policies
and
our
own
local
plan
and
that's
something
that
the
local
Plan
update,
2040
can
can
look
at,
and
the
schmar
evidence
can
can
feed
into
that.
C
C
Similarly,
in
terms
of
affordable
housing,
we've
sort
of
said
each
Case
by
its
case,
it's
most
likely.
That
would
take
a
commuted
sum
but
who
who
could
go
and
occupy
that?
That's
something
that
we'd
need
to
look
at
and
that's
something
that
the
post
occupancy
surveys
might
give
us
more
evidence
on
any
last
point
on
climate
change
policies.
This.
This
technical
guidance
note
is
very
much
specifically
to
provide
that
sort
of
evidence
on
the
qualitative
sort
of
role
between
co-living
and
housing.
C
It
doesn't
pick
up
on
all
the
policies
of
the
local
plan.
It
does
specifically
state
that
other
policies
will
apply
to
cases,
and
so
all
our
emerging
climate
change
policies
through
emerging
the
ones
that
we
currently
have
and
ones
that
are
emerging
through
local
Plan
update
one-
would
apply
to
schemes
as
they
come
through.
So
all
of
the
environmental
considerations
will
be
applicable.
M
F
M
Yeah,
it
was
just
to
read
a
point
that
Catherine
made
in
terms
of
the
the
Liverpool
decision
and
the
question
they
Council
Anderson
asked
about
sewage,
generous
definitions
and
yeah.
So
to
reiterate
that
in
that
appeal
decision,
Liverpool's
position
was
that
it
was
sui
generous.
The
inspector
doesn't
necessarily
disagree
or
agree.
He,
the
the
inspector,
says,
if
you're
familiar
with
inspectors
reports
that
probably
won't
surprise
you,
but
I'll
quote
the
application
form
describes
the
use
as
being
sui
generous.
M
Both
parties
agree
that
this
is
a
this
is
appropriate
to
classify
the
use
in
this
way
and
I
have
no
reason
to
take
a
different
view.
So
the
inspectorate
I
think
at
large
would
probably
be
hopefully
applying
that
consistently.
So
we
can
take
some
confidence
that
it
is
a
silly
generous
use.
I
You
Jeff
I
have
to
agree
entirely
with
councilor
Campbell
surprising,
no
one,
because,
especially
especially
with
regards
to
the
the
minimum
space
standards.
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
enough
to
say
that
that
37
meter,
Square
should
be
spread
around
I'd
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
if
it
was
37
meters,
and
that
is
that
is
the
minimum
space
for
a
flat
and
then
you
can
just
add
more
shared
shared
like
rooms
and
things
like
gyms
and
things
like
that.
On
top
of
that,
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
co-living
as
concept
is
not
a
New
Concept,
which
I
said
I
think
last
time
that
this
was
was
raised.
I
It's
been
around
in
Leeds
for
decades
entirely
organically,
with
people
coming
together
to
do
it
themselves
and
choosing
to
live
that
way,
and
it
works
very
well
for
for
those
people
and
it
all
you
know
it.
It
works
very
well
for
people
who
choose
to
live
together.
I
I'd
I'd
be
really
concerned
about
conflict
between
residents
and
how
would
that
be
resolved?
I'd
be
concerned
about
often
have
have
to
step
in
to
sort
out
disagreements
between
shared
housing,
tenants
and
things
like
that,
so
it
there
isn't
a
unipole
for
this
kind
of
accommodation,
so
I'd
really
be
concerned
about
people's
mental
health
with
that
and
the
impact
on
people's
well-being.
I
Also,
the
the
proposed
rent
per
month
is
absolutely
obscene.
800
1200
I,
don't
I'm
really
not
into
that
at
all.
I
do
feel.
If
that
is
going
to
be
the
kind
of
sum
that
we're
looking
at
then
it
should.
It
should
really
be
possible
for
the
37
meter
square
plus
the
the
shared
rooms
shared
use
rooms,
dining
rooms,
kitchens,
and
things
like
that.
You
know
they
I
can't
see
how
that
wouldn't
be
viable.
I
I
won't
say
the
thing
about
dystopian
got
a
big
big
run,
lined
up,
but
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate.
Thank
you
chair.
Thank.
A
A
It's
a
very
small
private
space
and
then
you
are
living
all
of
the
rest
of
the
time
with
other
people
and
in
terms
of
student
accommodation,
our
students
sharing
a
house.
You
tend
to
get
groups
of
friends
together,
saying:
let's,
let's
go
to
a
house
and
share
a
house
together:
let's,
let's
create
a
project
for
us
to
live
in
the
case
of
projects
like
lilac,
councilor,
McKenna,
I,
hope,
I'm,
not
stealing
your
funder.
A
group
of
people
came
together
who
wanted
that
style
of
living.
A
Who
then
created
it
and
who
now
interview
people
before
they
can
they're
allowed
to
buy
a
property
there
or
move
into
that
development,
because
it
is
so
important
that
they
want
to
live
that
life
and
that
they
are
prepared
to
do
what
it
takes
to
sustain
that
way
of
life
and
if
you're,
in
a
tiny
little
space
like
these
Studios
and
you're.
With
other
people
that
you
might
not
know
for
the
whole
of
the
rest
of
the
time
that
does
raise
alarm
Bells
with
me
in
terms
of
neighborly
relations
and
how
that
might
pan
out.
A
So
this
is
a
different
sort
of
development
and
it
could
have
people
moving
into
it
at
any
time
at
any
stage
in
their
develop
development
of
their
career
working
life
or
otherwise
it
could
even
have
a
mix
of
students
in
actually,
if
they've
got
rich
parents
I
just
think
we
have
to
think
about
the
lifestyle
we're
building.
For
that.
That
would
be
my
view
on
the
things
that
you've
said
and
I
agree
with
what
you've
said
about
affordability,
too.
A
I
think
we
need
some
and
I
think
that
councilor
Anderson's
idea,
I,
think
it
was
of
having
some
reserve
for
key
workers
is
a
really
good
idea
and
if
there's
any
way,
we
could
bring
that
about.
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
without
a
doubt.
Yeah.
Would
any
officer
like
to
comment
on
councilor
Brooks's
comments.
D
Just
on
the
the
management
Point
chair,
I
think
Council
Brooks
had
raised
us
to
the
city
plans
panel
I
think
at
the
time
the
developer,
promoting
the
cool
living
scheme
was
talking
about
sort
of
the
management
responsibilities
inside
of
the
building
and
trying
to
put
a
regime
in
place
that
sort
of
safeguarded
people
I
think
we
recognized
at
the
time
to
that
debate
that
it
was
a
key
issue
and
clearly
in
terms
of
schemes
coming
forward,
they're
key
questions
to
ask:
aren't
they
in
terms
of
the
internal
management
arrangements
and
the
responsibilities
and
the
safeguarding
to
make
sure
that
you
know
residents
are
living
in
a
secure
environment,
so
I
think
it's
a
very
valid
point
to
make
sure.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
have
to
say
the
conversation
I
mostly
agree
with
I
assume
that
if
there
is
anything
for
cars
that
there'll
be
electrical
EV
charging
and
all
our
climate
policies
and
will
will
be
part
of
the
package.
Incidentally,
about
a
lilac
that
you
mentioned,
I
have
had
one
or
two
complaints.
They
do
interview
people
for
tenancy
and
it's
very,
very
socialistic.
They
work
out
the
rent
at
10
of
your
earnings,
which
is
great.
The
last
I
had
done.
E
Wouldn't
we
all
love
that,
but
they
do
have
a
policy
regarding
age
and
people
in
the
60s
have
been
turned
down
because
they're
seeking
to
have
more
families.
Seeing
as
this
is
an
issue
today
about
age,
you
know
I
mean
they
do
their
own
thing.
They
self-manage
it
they're
great
people,
I
live
in
the
same
street
as
the
men.
You
know,
we've
worked
on
lots
of
environmental
project
checks
together,
but
they
do
have
an
age
criteria
yeah.
E
What
what
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
in
I
I
as
I,
say
your
comments
and
others
are
something
that
we
should
be
concerned
about
and
needs
a
resolution,
but
I
wonder
these
Flats,
putting
aside
the
smallest
of
the
spaces,
they're
designed
for
one
person
living
what's
to
stop
two
people
sharing
a
couple:
is
there
any
anything
that
says
it
has
to
be
for
one?
It
would
make
so
much
more
economic
sense
if
a
couple
or
or
a
couple
of
nurses,
or
whatever
shared
you
know
and
I,
do
think.
E
Key
workers
should
be
a
a
really
good
consideration
that
Barry
has
made,
but
that
had
a
few
little
issues,
I
think
that
we
do
need
to
hold
out
and
if
it
should
come
to
committee
and
I
know,
this
is
jumping
ahead,
I
think,
given
what
we've
done
in
the
past,
that
we
we've
always
taken
as
the
city
plans
panel
until
these
issues
are
resolved
because
it'll
be
examined
very
carefully
in
a
very,
very
forensically
and
I'll
leave
it.
That's
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
Jim
any,
would
officers
like
to
come
in
on
that
or
are
you
happy
to
know
Martin.
B
Coming
on
a
general
Point,
chair,
I,
I,
think
I
I
do
understand
where
members
are
coming
from
in
terms
of
this
new
type
of
development
and
I.
Think
part
of
the
issue
is
it's
difficult
to
understand
what
it
is?
B
It's
not
necessarily
A
lived
experience
or
a
lived
residential
experience
that
people
around
this
table
would
be
looking
for,
but
what
it
is
doing
is
it's
providing
an
option
on
that
ladder
on
that
housing
ladder
for
recent
graduates,
for
young
professionals,
who
don't
otherwise
have
that
opportunity
or
don't
want
to
move
in
to
build
to
rent
accommodation
and
some
of
what
we're
hearing
from
the
sector
is
that
there
is
a
desire
to
maintain
that
shared
living,
that
social
living
and
that
connection
with
other
people
other
like-minded
people
of
similar
age
within
the
residential
offer,
which
I
think
this
is
trying
to
trying
to
to
to
to
to
meet,
but
just
to
comfort
members
that
there's
several
things
that
I
think
we
will
commit
to
to
try
to
get
that
evidence
about
what
this
lived
experience
is
going
to
be
like
in
Leeds
within
co-living,
should
they
be
approved
within
the
city.
B
The
first
is
the
Shema
and
specific
questions
in
the
housing
survey
to
see
if
there's
a
a
known
demand
within
the
city
for
this
type
of
development.
The
second
is
the
post-occupancy
survey,
which
is
not
something
we
tend
to
do,
but
something
that
I
think
we're
going
to
commit
to
do
to
really
explore
what
the
lived
experience
of
people
living
in
in
computer
schemes
is
and
and
I
think.
B
The
the
next
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
that
I
understand
the
points
you're
making
around
key
workers,
but
this
is
technical
guidance
to
guide
existing
policy
that
we've
got
within
the
plan.
So
it's
not
setting
new
policy,
it
has
to
clarify
to
the
industry
and
ensure
consistency
that
we're
applying
the
policies
we
already
have
in
in
a
consistent
way.
So
we
don't
have
a
policy
seeking
key
worker
accommodation
for
for
housing.
B
We
have
a
policy
on
affordable
housing
and,
and
this
guidance
is,
is
setting
out
how
that
policy
on
affordable
housing
will
be
implemented.
Now
key
worker
housing
policy
for
co-living
might
be
something
that
you
wish
to
explore
through
Leeds
local
plan
2040,
and
we
can
certainly
discuss
that
at
the
time,
but
I
think
for
now.
B
This
guidance
has
to
really
respond
to
what
we
already
have
within
the
development
plan.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
clarifying
that
Martin
councilor
Carlo.
F
Thank
you,
chair
dew
points
on
it
really.
A
F
Mean
I've
got
some
concerns
based
on
quite
a
lot
of.
What's
happened
in
the
discussion
as
well.
I
mean
what
one
of
my
major
concerns
is.
If
we
see
lots
of
these
types
of
schemes,
developed
I
have
real
concerns.
It
may
push
up
the
price
of
what
I
will
call
space
standard
schemes
for
separate
apartments
and
probably
end
up
pricing
some
people
out
of
those
in
favor
of
other
areas
and
I-
think
that's
not
something
we'd
want
I'd
want
to
see
here.
F
If
something
came
through
for
this,
something
that
definitely
Quantified
a
reason
why
it
was
like
this
scheme
and
why
that
communal
space
was
there
and
what
it
would
be
used
for,
because
the
option
is
you
live
in
a
space
standards,
defined
apartment
of
your
own
somewhere
in
the
city
center
and
can
then
access
a
GMO
restaurant
wherever
you
wish
to
the
rest
of
the
time
in
the
city
center?
If
it's
going
to
be
in
one
building,
I
think
it
really
does
need
to
be.
F
There
needs
to
be
a
reason
for
it,
so
this
doesn't
become
a
standard
that
effectively
makes
a
race
to
the
bottom
in
in
some
of
this
I
guess.
The
other
concern
I
have
is
around
the
scale
because
we
talked
about
shared
housing.
Yeah
six
people
living
together
in
a
big
house
in
in
Hyde
Park
is
experience.
I've
had
that
I'm
sure
many
have,
but
that
is
a
certain
number
of
people.
F
F
If
there's
suddenly
hundreds
500
of
these,
let's
say
in
a
real
big,
purpose-built
development.
That's
a
lot
of
people
looking
to
use
a
communal
space
and
possibly
a
lot
longer
to
wait
for
it
depending
what
it
is
and
I
think
I.
Would
you
know
you
can't
really,
regardless
of
the
communal
space,
you
can't
do
what
you
want
to
in
that
communal
space.
If
there's
already
lots
of
other
people
taking
up
at
the
time
and
that's
the
real
concern,
I
have
with
it
how
how
that
fits.
F
So
if
you
fancy
a
quiet
reading
somewhere
that
isn't
your
small
private
apartment,
what
do
you
do
if
there's
15
other
people
in
that
communal
area,
making
lots
of
noise
and
I
think
that's
a
real
concern,
I
have
and,
and
so
I
think
something
needs
to
be
there
around
the
scale
or
maybe
the
size
of
the
buildings
that
would
be
allowed
in
this.
So
suddenly
you
haven't
got
500
people
clamoring
all
to
make
dinner
at
one
time
in
a
particular
area.
F
The
other
side
is
that
point
that
we've
touched
around
the
the
period
of
living
student
Apartments.
Yes,
you
could
study
something
incredibly
complex,
that
might
take
you
many
years,
but
in
a
way
there's
a
a
maximum
prescribed
limit.
You
will
stay
in
a
in
a
purpose-built
student
scheme
and
for
most
people
that
would
be
a
maximum
of
three
years.
If
they're
doing
a
standard
undergraduate
and
many
people
obviously
move
on
to
different
types
of
accommodation
in
that,
whereas
these
would
be
for
somebody
to
live
for.
F
Take
your
point
around
choice,
but
I
think
choice
is
an
illusion
if,
if
cost
is
where
your
choice
is-
and
that's
my
real
concern
over
these
but
I
think
something
around
regardless
of
that,
I
think
something
around
scale
doesn't
need
to
be
looked
into
there.
How
many
communal
areas
you
may
have
per
the
number
of
separate
Apartments
would
be
of
interest
to
me
and
whether
they
were
restricted
to
say
that
20
people
30
people
or
whatever
it
may
be,
so
you
can
guarantee
it's
it's
not
too
many.
A
I
recall
is
going
to
see
some
student
accommodation
in
the
center
of
town,
but
I
can't
remember
the
exact
location
and
they
did
have.
It
was
organized
in
sections,
so
there
were
I
think
two
living
rooms.
All
three
I
can't
remember,
but
there
were
several
versions
of
each
shared
space
which
presumably
were
designed
to
tackle
some
of
the
issues
you're
describing
but
I'll
ask
officers
to
come
in.
B
So
check
I
think
that's
absolutely
right,
so
so
the
purpose
councilor
Khalil
of
of
having
the
aggregated
approach
to
this,
the
the
personal
and
the
shared
is
that
there'll
be
almost
like
a
pro
rata.
So
as
as
a
development
gets,
bigger,
you'll
find
more
shared
spaces
and
the
intent
with
the
the
technical
guidance
is
to
make
sure
that
the
amenity
and
the
security
and
the
access
to
that
space
is
is,
is
is
on
each
floor
at
least
so.
There'll
be
a
kitchen
on
each
floor.
B
There'll
be
a
lounge
on
each
Etc
you're
not
having
to
go
up
and
down
stairs
in
order
to
access
these
things.
But
you'll
find
the
more
people
that
are
around
you.
The
bigger
you'll
find
the
facilities
and
the
more
of
them
you'll
find
because
of
the
need
to
aggregate
that
to
to
to
to
personal
space
standards.
F
I
think
that's
good
and,
and
take
that
point
I,
just
what
you
said
there,
that
was
the
important
was
more
shared
spaces
and
I'm,
not
sure.
There's
anything
in
this
document
that
gave
me
confidence
that
the
more
people
you
had
the
more
shared
space
is,
you
would
have,
rather
than
just
the
same
number
of
very
large
spaces,
which
isn't
necessarily
the
same
thing
and
I.
Think
it's
something
we
on
an
application,
I'd
be
looking
at
it
very
carefully,
I'm,
just
not
sure
what
grounds
we'd
have
to
justify
that
in
any
way.
A
I
also
think
the
point
sorry
I'll
bring
you
back
in
a
moment.
Jim
I
also
think
the
point
that
you
made
about
this
not
necessarily
being
a
living
experience
that
people
around
this
table
would
be
seeking
and
and
therefore
perhaps
that's
reflected
in
some
of
the
comments.
A
Maybe
but
I,
don't
think
the
issue
of
feedback
from
those
who
are
currently
living.
This
experience
is
absolutely
key.
B
We
can
certainly
gather
that
intelligence
because,
because
there
are
cool
living
schemes
across
the
country
and
the
the
proposals
of
those
schemes,
I
think
I'm
sure
will
be
Keen
to
to
to
inform
us
of
of
their
residence
views.
But
I
think
the
other
aspect
of
this
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
for
members
to
visit
a
scheme
and
actually
walk
around
a
scheme
and
understand
what
it's
like.
So
we'll.
Look
into
that
as
well.
A
Thank
you,
I
do
have
councilor
golf
work
down
and
then
I'll
come
to
Jim.
G
Thank
you.
Yes,
I've
lived
in
a
number
of
different
situations
and
including
student
also
residents
completely
communal
living
with
us
all,
sharing
together,
not
as
student
shared
house,
but
it's
a
deliberate
one
when
we
were
older
and
has
a
lot
of
politics
around
it
and
also
I've,
then
rented
out
space
in
my
own
house
for
actors
or
mature
students
who
are
here
for
a
brief
amount
of
time.
People
who
are
relocating
and
want
to
live
here.
G
Some
of
the
sorts
of
people
that
are
listed
here
and
so
I
do
know
a
bit
about
what
makes
it
work
and,
of
course,
that
was
with
sharing
the
kitchen
and
bathroom
with
me.
So
they
had
a
room
and
what
I
tended
to
find
and
saw
was
that
the
older
people
were
the
more
space
of
their
own.
They
needed
and,
of
course,
once
people
made
friends
they
wanted
to
have
their
own
space
to
bring
them
to
which
wasn't
just
a
bedroom.
G
So
I
can
see
the
need
for
this
so
I'm
concerned,
as
many
said
about
the
cost.
It
wouldn't
suit.
All
of
the
people
that
I've
just
listed
it
would
be
too
much,
but
I
think
it
could
be
still
a
valuable
short-term
thing,
but
slightly
different
I.
Imagine
from
an
apart
hotel,
which
we
also
see,
but
looking
into
the
more
into
the
detail
I,
it
says
an
on-site
concierge
or
Management
Services
and
Management
Services,
which
might
be
available
24
hours,
but
as
just
about
everybody
knows
where
there's
a
phone
number
that
says
24
hours.
G
G
On
the
other
hand,
having
somebody
on
site
who
can
take
responsibility
for
security
or
whatever
might
happen,
will
obviously
put
the
price
up
and
I
totally
understand
that,
and
then
people
you
have
to
weigh
those
things
going
on
to
purpose
built.
I'm
wondering
whether
this
means
actually
totally
new
build
where
carbon
considerations
could
obviously
be
taken
into
account
and
it
could
be
made
environmentally
good
or
whether
it
just
means
a
shell
of
a
larger
building,
which
we
have
a
number.
In.
My
ward,
for
example,
which
have
been
turned
into
student
Flats,.
N
Sorry,
just
diving
in
the
direct
line
building
down
by
Dartmouth
Square,
we
went
to
look
around.
Didn't
we
for
one
of
these,
so
that's
an
existing
building.
It's
not
a
new
build.
G
Otherwise
it'll
just
be
some
sort
of
rabbit
Warren
of
in
an
old
building
which
could
be
not
properly
sound,
proofed,
let
alone
other
carbon
issues
there
and
and
I
just
wondered
whether
a
window
is
required
because
looking
at
the
plans,
I
couldn't
see
a
space
for
a
window
and
the
thought
of
spending
time
in
a
windowless
little
little
container
is
really
unattractive
and
bad
very
bad
for
mental
health,
because
somebody
who
doesn't
actually
want
to
go
and
mix
Community
very
much
and
you're.
G
A
C
Thank
you.
This
was
meant
to
be
a
cross-section,
so
you've
got
an
internal
wall
with
a
door
accessing
from
a
corridor,
and
then
the
external
wall
with
a
window
admit
it's
not
very
clear.
C
It's
just
showing
that
the
sort
of
different
space
configurations
within
private
area,
one
of
the
things
that's
been
picked
up
as
a
comment
externally
as
well
internally
I,
should
say
is
that
we
should
also
give
examples
of
that
sort
of
communal
space
as
well,
by
providing
a
diagram
illustrating
sort
of
private
space
configurations.
C
It
almost
gives
that
emphasis
on
that
private
space,
rather
than
the
relationship
to
really
what
we're
putting
in
the
text
in
that
qualitative
interaction
with
with
the
space
so
yeah
I
can
I
can
take
away
that
that
illustration,
and
and
re-look
at
that
for
clarification.
Definitely.
A
E
Oh,
it
was
a
very
brief
one
chair
and
you
you
started
to
cover
it,
and
Martin
did
did
a
dresser.
Last
time
we
had
a.
We
felt
that
a
visit
was
very,
very
important.
That's
what
we
did
when
we
looked
at
student
accommodation.
First,
we
couldn't.
You
know
we
had
the
same
worries,
so
we
arranged
some
visits
and
when
we'd
seen
it
and
we'd
seen
the
social
area
of
the
gym
and
the
cooking
areas,
we
were
satisfied
and
come
up
with
a
policy
at
the
time.
E
I
believe
we
were
offered
to
visit
one
in
London,
but
I
think
we
got
a
bit
concerns
about
the
cost
that
I
believe
that
was
the
only
one
available
at
the
time
where
I
did
see.
Mark
here
Martin
say
that
there
are
places
around
the
country,
not
necessarily
London
and
I,
think
we
were
just
worried
about
the
expenses
and
I
think
and
I'm,
like
I,
hope,
I'm
allowed
to
say,
but
I
don't
think
they
had
offered
a
pay
for
us
and
I
think
it
was
rightly
turned
down
because
of
the
political
implications.
E
A
Yes,
I
agree
a
visit
and
also
some
feedback
from
people
who've
been
living
there
for
a
period
of
time.
Long
enough
to
have
a
view
about
it
is
my
preferred
option:
I,
don't
know
which
order
you
put
your
hands
up
in,
but
I'm
taking
counselor
lamb,
because
it's
first
time
is
contributing.
O
Okay,
thank
you,
chair
yeah,
it's
been
an
interesting
conversation.
I
can
see
both
sides
of
it
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
those
things
we
really
have
to
take
care
to
get
it
to
get
it
right
because
I've,
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
colleagues
have
raised
are
extremely
valid
and
you
could
end
up
building
significant
new
ghettos
in
the
and
this
is
if
you're,
not
careful,
and
it's
not.
This
isn't
guided
right,
conscious
as
well.
O
We
don't
have
huge
amounts
of
time
to
play
with,
so
we
need
to
be
Fleet
to
foot
to
get
this
guidance
down,
otherwise
we're
stuck
with
nothing
to
assess
applications
against,
and
that
could
lead
to
even
worse
outcomes,
because
we
might
find
ourselves
forced
on
plans
panels
to
give
permission
to
things
simply
because
of
the
lack
of
a
guidance
note.
So
I
think
we've
got
to
get
something
in
quickly
and
practically,
but
we
also
need
the
flexibility
to
review
it
quickly.
O
So
we
don't
suddenly
find
that
we've
got
dozens
and
dozens
of
schemes
with
permission
only
to
find
the
first
one
gets
occupied
and
we
think
we've
made
some
terrible
mistakes,
but
we've
already
approved
another
six
or
seven.
So
I
think
we
just
got
to
stay
a
really
steady
path
through
that
I
wouldn't
want
to
sit
here
and
say
it's
because
it's
not
what
I
would
want
to
live
in.
That
doesn't
mean
there
are
lots
of
other
people.
O
I'd
really
like
to
see
the
evidence
base
and
the
the
sort
of
housing
needs
assessment
that
identifies
where
how
many
people
are
looking
to
live
in
this
kind
of
situation
and
where
specifically
because
it
kind
of
sounds
like
it's
geared
up
to
city
center,
but
does
that
preclude
somebody
from
coming
to
an
outer
area
and
saying
well,
there's
nothing
in
there.
That
says
we
might
think
it's
not
appropriate
for
other
locations,
but
have
we
said
that
in
the
guidance
and
that's
something
to
think
about
as
well?
O
It's
not
just
about
because
we
see
it
with
hmos.
There
are
some
places
where
I
can
think
of
my
own
Ward,
whether
hmos
that
are
just
people
with
completely
different
values,
sets
living
side
by
side,
and
you
just
built
a
conflict
straight
away.
It's
not
that
one
is
right
and
one
is
wrong,
but
putting
them
next
to
each
other
is
a
recipe
for
disaster,
and
we
need
to
think
about
that
sort
of
that.
O
So
I
don't
support
a
visit
and
a
bit
more
understanding
of
people's
lived
experience,
but
I
think
we
just
have
to
be
really
careful
with
this.
A
Yeah
I
would
agree
and,
and
I
would
add
to
those
comments
that
we
need
to
be,
and
this
probably
isn't
in
the
technical
guidance
I
accept.
But
we
do
need
to
be
careful
about
the
speed
and
the
quantity
at
which
we
develop.
We,
we
really
do
need
to
build
a
few
and
test
and
see
rather
than
flood
the
city
with
them,
and
then
find
that
they're
not
working
as
we
thought
they
would
so
I
think
that's
important
too
I've
got
councilor
Campbell
and
then
Council
Brooks.
N
N
I
think
we
we
you
keep
saying
to
us
young
professionals
and
they're
they're,
hoping
to
continue
their
Student
Life,
but
the
difference
between
young
professionals-
and
maybe
old
professionals
too,
is
that
they
don't
go
home
at
the
weekend
of
the
school
or
the
holidays
or
take
the
washing
home
and
things
like
that.
So
it's
a
different
and
I
said
that
at
the
very
beginning,
it's
a
different
type
of
accommodation,
we're
providing-
and
we
should
not
be
saying
this
is
follow-on
student
accommodation
because
it
isn't
and
I
know.
N
We
talked
about
feedback
about
the
feedback,
I
suppose
and
the
comment
that
that
I
might
not
want
to
live
there.
N
But
I
think
there
are
two
reasons:
one
is
your
feedback
might
be
colored
by
the
fact
that
you
don't
know
anything
else,
because
if
you've
left
home
gone
to
a
purpose-built
student
block,
you
know
what
it
was
like
at
home.
You
know
what
it
was
like
in
the
student
block,
but
you
don't
know
any
other
experience,
which
is
probably
a
good
reason
for
build
for
a
shared
house
with
a
friend.
N
Actually,
because
you
learn
a
lot
and-
and
you
could
say
to
me,
would
I
want
to
live
there
and
the
answer
is
no
I
wouldn't
and
that's
because
I
can
afford
better
and
I
think
that's
the
key
I
can
afford
better
and
that's
what
worries
me
is
that
if,
for
example,
I
couldn't
afford
better
I
would
end
up
there.
Does
that
sound
bad
end
up
there?
That's
not
quite
well,
it
didn't
quite
come
out
and
it
was
meant
doing.
N
That
was
that
one
I
need
to
ask
the
question
about
two
bedrooms,
because
if
you've
got
a
two
bedroom,
you
could
have
children
there.
So
how
do
you
protect
the
children
from
everybody
else
on
the
Block?
All
right?
That
really
worries
me
and
I
I.
Think
if
I
go
to
page
page
seven
on
the
appendix
we'll
look
at
four
one
and
I
ask:
would
we
be
saying
that
each
of
these
units
contributes
to
our
housing
numbers,
so
each
of
these
Flats
would
be
technically
well
you're
shaking
it
not
need
ahead.
That's
right!
Fine!
N
That's
good!
I'm,
like
Alan
here
I
think
it
should
apply
everywhere.
I,
don't
I'm
not
happy
about
some
of
the
policies
we
just
done
for
the
city
center,
we
should
apply
the
same
criteria
across
the
city,
I,
think
and
on
four
six.
You
talk
about
assessing
where
there's
sufficient
communal
space
ovens
fridges,
kitchens
Etc.
N
N
Etc,
like
everybody
I,
these
are
really
pokey
little
Studios.
They
are
not
big
enough.
All
Star,
you
know
my
view
on
the
size
of
units
and
I've
banged
on
about
it
for
years
now.
Why,
with
this
model,
do
we
stick
people
in
substandard
accommodation?
These
are
too
small.
Let's,
let's
not
muck
about.
Let's
just
say
that
directly.
Now
we
cannot
accept
them.
This
small
I
think
if
you're
an
adult
you
need
a
separate,
bathroom
and
I
think
you
need
a
separate
bedroom.
N
Not
a
bed
sit
come
kitchenette,
which
is
what
these
are
space
standards,
I
I'm
I'm
with
you
I
think
37
was
37.
Square
meters
is
small
and
that's
the
minimum
space
I
think
we
should
be
accepting
affordables.
N
I
think
we
should
contribute
to
the
affordable
City
in
the
same
way
that
every
other
block
does
and
I
know
in
the
city
center
there's
a
partial
for
buying
them
out
effectively.
We
should
be
asking
for
that
affordable
contribution
and
the
comment
around
on
410
about
the
the
price
point
of
800
to
1200.
That's
a
month.
N
N
That
is
just
I,
believe,
that's
just
an
impossible
price.
We,
you
know
my
other
favorite
topic,
Green
Space.
You
know
everyone's
coming
to
that
one.
N
If
you,
if
you're
building
these
blocks
with
two
three
four
hundred
people
in
they
need
somewhere
to
sit
outside,
look
out,
look
out
the
window.
We've
got
a
small
space
there
being
used
by
these
people.
Okay,
they're
in
the
wedding
photo
and
it's
fine,
it's
good
for
them,
but
actually
you
need
some
space
to
sit
out
and
I
I
cannot
accept,
and
if
this
is
a
new,
if
this
is
a
new
model,
I
think
we
can
start
insisting
that
we
have
it
on
site.
You
can't
buy
out
of
this.
N
One
I
think
that
if
you've
gone
to
418,
where
it
says,
travel
planning
in
excess
of
50
I
think
that's
too
low.
N
I
think
we
should
have
said
I
think
25
would
be
better
in
my
opinion,
and
so
I'd
like
us
to
just
change
that
if
you
just
bear
with
me
while
I
just
look
at
me
notes,
the
management
is
something
we've
all
raised,
isn't
it
and
that
and
I
have
concerns
about
you
selling
on
there,
the
the
block
or
the
or
the
flat,
and,
as
you
know,
we've
got
this
22-year
rule
for
affordability,
viability
and
they
assumption
that
after
22
years
effectively
the
flats,
the
the
block
ceases
to
exist
well,
I
think
I
think
we
need
some
certainty
about
what
happens
at
the
end
of
the
peer
of
their
period.
N
Will
they
always
be?
Will
they
always
be
a
managed
unit,
or
is
there
capacity
effectively
to
sell
off
a
floor
or
something
like
that?
I
I
agree
with
I
can't
remember
who
said
it,
but
about
the
24
hour
on
site
I
think
we
should
insist
on
that.
That's
not
that's,
not
a
question,
that's
not
a
maybe
that's
it
has
to
be.
There
has
to
be
24-hour
supervision
and
I.
Think
we've
got
another
note
message.
N
A
That
your
list
of
points
complete
I'm
sure
due
notes
have
been
made.
Thank
you.
I've
got
councilor
Brooks
next
and
then
I'll
come
to
councilor
lamb.
I
Thanks
chair,
I'm
I'm
not
really
going
to
go
into
the
detail
of
it
because
I'm
just
straight
up,
not
happy
with
like
or
any
of
it
really
I,
don't
think
any
of
it
is
acceptable.
I
would
like
to
again
Echo
counselor
Campbell's
everything
that
he
said
going
going
to
pompe,
hmos
and
pbsa,
and
this
model
of
dispose
of
co-living.
I
The
thing
is
with
the
HMO.
Is
that
they're
not
managed?
Really
you
can
you
can
have
you
know,
50
100,
150
properties,
managed
by
one
property
company
pbsa
in
in
theory,
is
managed.
I
I
And
I
think
I
think
as
well
in
terms
of
your
HMO
prices
for
one
room
at
the
moment.
It's
about
400
pounds
a
month
which
again
is
absurd,
because
it's
one
room,
absolutely
absurd.
I
I
I
think
I'd,
like
also
to
say
something
about
the
useful
key
workers.
I
feel
like
key
workers
likely
wouldn't
be
able
to
afford
this
kind
of
accommodation.
Even
if
we
wanted
to
live
in
it.
I
So
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
it'll
address
the
need
for
housing
for
key
workers
at
all
and
also
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
majority
of
graduates
would
be
able
to
afford
to
to
live
here
either
because
I
don't
know
about
anyone
else.
But
when
I
was
a
graduate,
I
had
no
pennies
to
rub
together
at
all.
I
So
if
you're
on,
if
you're
on
a
starting
salary
of
not
very
much
you're,
not
going
to
be
able
to
cover
that
I
I,
really
really.
Don't
think
that
this
is
something
that
we
should
be
encouraging
in
the
city.
We
are
not
London,
we
are
leads
and
we
need
to
uphold
our
space
space
standards,
as
councilor
Campbell
has
said,
have
been
so
hardly
fought
for
and
I
will
shut
up
and
go
for
a
week.
A
Too
much
information
Council
rights.
Thank
you
very
much
for
those
comments.
I
have
noted,
Martin.
Writing
all
these
things
down,
I'm
going
to
take
councilor,
Lam
and
then
I
think
we'll
probably
have
to
come
to
a
conclusion.
So
I'll
ask
you
to
just
summarize
the
main
points.
You've
made
a
note
of
councilor
Lambert.
O
Thank
you,
chairman,
I'll,
be
right
to
Liberia,
I,
didn't,
say:
I
didn't
want
hmos
in
my
award,
so
we
just
need
to
be
careful
about
how
we've
drafted
the
policy
to
make
sure
it
works
across
the
whole
city.
O
The
two
quick
points
of
clarification,
I
was
looking
for
were
around
this
800
to
1200
pounds
is
that
all
in
is
that
your
bills
included.
Is
that
your
gym
membership
is
that
you
is
that
factoring
in
if,
if
Energy
prices
suddenly
go
even
more
through
the
roof
than
they
already
are,
for
example,
and
then
the
other
thing
I
was
looking
for
clarification
on
when
it
comes
to
the
amenities.
What
do
the
policies
say
about
them
being
for
the
exclusive
use
of
the
residents
or
could,
for
example,
people?
O
We
see
developments
coming
forward
where
a
gym
wants
to
open
somewhere
and
the
way
they're
going
to
make
that
viable
is
by
sticking
some
co-living
apartments
above
it
or
a
coffee
shop
chain
is
going
to
open
and
put
some
co-living
apartments
above
it
and
that's
really
how
their
business
model
is.
It's
not
really
about
designing
co-living
as
a
concept
it's
about
making
their
business
model
more
viable.
So
how
would
that
all
work.
N
N
We
went
to
look
at
some
student
lats,
purpose-built
student
Flats
a
couple
of
Cycles
ago
with
City
with
plans
West,
actually
at
which
the
communal
space
had
been
reduced,
because
they've
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
people
next
door
to
use
their
communal
gym,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
we
should
be
saying
the
communal
space
should
serve
the
entirety
of
the
development,
which
picks
up
your
point.
I
think,
and
you
can't
effectively
buy
out
of
that
communal
Space
by
saying.
Well,
we'll
buy
you
the
membership
for
this
gym
down
the
road.
A
Thank
you
for
those
questions.
Catherine
can
I
ask
you
to
address
those.
C
C
So
it
covers
everything
that
someone
would
pay
for
the
the
rent
of
the
property,
the
management,
the
access
to
they
are
London
prices,
and
it
was
something
that
had
been
picked
up
that
we
don't
have
that
comparative
for
leads,
so
it
might
be
slightly
cheaper,
but
not
much
in
terms
of
that
exclusive
use
for
residents
again
I
think
we
will
need
to
sort
of
test
that
on
a
case-by-case
scheme
and
that
example
that
you
give
in
terms
of
sort
of
a
an
independent
gym
or
an
independent
coffee
shop,
coming
in
with
co-living
above
see,
very
much
as
a
mixed
use
scheme
is
a
very
different
model
to
a
co-living.
C
O
Yeah,
it's
just
it's
it's
that
thing
that
is.
Is
it
then,
because,
if
it's
being
brought
forward
described
as
co-living
but
you're
using
effective,
what's
a
standalone
building
and
saying
that's
the
amenity
for
for
this
space?
Well,
you
can't
have
it
both
ways.
You're
then,
if
it's
not
a
co-living
scheme,
then
and
I
think
it
just
needs
to
be
crystal
clear
in
the
in
the
guidance
when
it
is
co-living
and
when
it
isn't
co-living.
K
He
suggests
that
I
think
we
could
be
into
viability
issues
here,
because
we've
added
and
we've
said
we'd
like
to
see
this
included,
that
included
and
I
think
a
lot
of
these
developers
would
come
back
and
say:
well,
you
can't
afford
to
do
this.
We
can't
afford
to
do
that
and
that's
where
I
think
we
need
to
get
a
position
from
the
district
value
as
to
what
would
or
wouldn't
be
included
any
viability
analysis
being
done
by
them.
K
D
N
Chair
could
I
also
say:
I
would
not
support
the
phrase
Case
by
case
for
the
simple
reason
that
what
happens
is
we
end
up
with
developers
coming
and
saying?
Well,
I
know
they
do
that
there,
but
we
we're
next
we're
next
door
to
Starbucks
we're
next
door
to
a
dark
kitchen,
we're
next
door
to
a
gym.
We
don't
need
to
do
that.
N
A
Okay,
Martin
I
think
you've
had
plenty
of
material
to
go
out
there.
So
I,
don't
know
whether
you
want
to
attempt
to
summarize
what
we've
covered
yeah.
B
Sure
thank
you
chair
now.
That
was
really
helpful
and
I
think
I
think
it's.
It's
been
really
useful
to
hear
those
comments,
because
I
think
we
need
to
take
this
in
stage
as
members
and
there's
plenty
of
comments
that
we've
had
today,
which
will
help
us
develop
a
policy
through
Leeds
local
plan
2040,
which
Catherine
said
is
going
to
be
the
formal
route
to
establishing
policy
for
co-living
in
the
city.
B
B
I
think
we
need
to
then
focus
in
on
how
we
monitor
the
delivery
of
this
through
in
the
city.
Your
point
share
around
quantity
and
keeping
a
very
close
eye
on
the
numbers
of
approvals,
or
otherwise,
that
are
being
that
are
being
granted
plus
the
fact
I
think.
If
this
is
starting
point
guidance,
then
we
need
to
be
able
to
review
it
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
come
back
either
through
this
panel
or
through
joint
plans
panel
to
say
right
well
what
what?
What?
B
What
of
the
incidences
that
that
have
occurred
through
panel
discussions
and
that
require
us
to
update
this
guidance.
But
what
I'm
looking
for
really
is
is
for
members
to
I.
B
Think
comment
on:
is
this
appropriate
as
a
starting
point
that
sets
minimum
standards
for
us
to
determine
co-living
and
allows
you
to
then
at
individual
planning
applications
to
take
a
view
on
some
of
that
detail
notwithstanding
I
think
the
points
that
we're
going
to
take
take
away
on
the
scaling
up
point
the
the
point
around
genuinely
shared
facilities,
a
member's
happy
for
us
to
make
those
minor
changes
to
the
document
and
and
publish
it.
A
D
Just
going
to
say,
chair
I
mean
in
terms
of
making
the
adjustments
to
the
document,
we
could
take
it
back
through
plants
panel
chairs,
just
to
give
shares
reassurance
that
the
matters
that
have
been
debated
today
have
been
reflected
upon
and
updated
in.
The
document
and
I
think
we
are
committed
to
keeping
the
documents
under
review,
given
that
it's
a
dynamic
topic
which
will
be
influenced
by
schemes
up
and
down
the
country.
So
we
need
to
be
able
to
revisit
our
technical
guidance
in
parallel
to
the
housing
market
assessment,
work
being
done
as
well.
A
So
is
panel
oops
that
do
two
people
wanted
to
speak,
councilor
Campbell,
oh,
was
it
counselor
yeah.
O
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
think,
given
the
level
of
concerns
raised
here
today
and
the
significance
of
them
I'd
really
like
to
see
the
updated
guidance
come
back
here
before,
rather
than
because
there's
a
lot
of
issues
very
valid
issues
being
raised,
I'm,
not
sure
I'm
comfortable,
just
a
couple
of
tweaks
here
and
there
and
Away
you
go
I
think
I.
Think
I'd
like
it
to
come
back.
N
C
C
B
B
I
got
that
principle
of
this
guidance
is
that
the
37
square
meters
will
be
agglomerated
between
the
studio
space,
the
personal
space
and
the
shared
space.
Because,
because
that's
the
model
that
that's
that's,
the
co-living
model
you're
not
having
everything
behind
your
closed
door,
so
you
you're,
washing
facilities.
Your
kitchen,
yeah
I,
understand.
N
A
Let
me
actually
what
it
actually
says
in
the
paper
on
page
22
449
is
that
the
minimum
space
requirement
for
a
single
person
is
37
square
meters.
Co-Living
private
Studios
tend
to
be
less
than
this.
That's
what
it
says.
N
True,
they
do
tend
to
be
less
than
this
because
it
saves
you
money,
but
is
that
something
we
actually
we
accept
is
a
reasonable
standard
of
living
for
people.
Elites
and
I
have
to
say
this.
Isn't
sorry
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
going
to
agree
to
that.
F
F
It
was
at
about
this
bike
happens,
but
if
something
came
with
single
private
spaces
at
less
than
37
square
meters,
but
with
communal
space
added
on
to
that
What
policies
would
I
be
using
to
make
my
judgment
at
the
moment
on
that.
So
I
guess.
A
B
Don't
have
detailed
guidance
to
help
you
determine
that
planning
application.
This
provides
linked
to
the
policies
for
housing
and
accommodation
that
we've
got
within
the
current
development
plan.
B
An
approach
to
to
helping
you
assess
a
co-living
scheme
which
takes
the
37
square
meters
that
we
have
within
the
nationally
described
space
standards
and
and
and
seeks
to
ensure
that
in
spreading
that
between
the
behind
door
and
shared
space,
there's
a
focus
on
quality
and
amenity,
which
will
will
outweigh
the
fact
that
that
37
square
meters
isn't
all
personal
to
every
single
person
and
that
that's
the
model
and
that's
what
those
who
are
purchasing
those
flats
or
renting
those
Flats
will
will
be
buying
into.
F
Sorry
I
will
be
brief,
but
I'm
always
a
bit
pedantic
on
those
points
around
that.
But
if
an
application
came
tomorrow
or
something
of
this
kind
panel
may
be
minded
to
refuse
it,
because
the
apartments
were
less
than
37
square
meters,
regardless
of
any
others
face
and
and
I
would
see
that
we
may
have
a
point
in
doing
so
at
the
moment.
Without
the
guidance,
we
would
have
whether
how
that
would
go
on
PLL
I'll
I'll
leave
to
others
to
to
question,
but
but
I'm
not
sure.
F
Delaying
until
we've
been
able
to
have
a
look
at
any
updated
guidances
is
that
much
of
a
considerable
issue
in
the
amount
of
applications
we
may
have
coming
forward.
I
think
there
has
been
a
lot
of
concerns
raised
about
the
model,
the
document
and
what
we
can
put
in
it
and
then
yeah
I
would
prefer
to
see
it
and
have
this
debate
again.
I
think
I,
don't
think.
We've
bottomed
out
all
the
issues
really,
but.
A
D
D
Whilst
we
gain
a
better
understanding
of
what
this
product
is
and
learn
from
the
Strategic
housing
market
assessment,
so
that
we
are
able
to
speak
with
confidence
in
terms
of
framing
a
a
future
policy,
the
challenge
I
think
we've
got
is
that
if,
if
it
takes
longer
than
we
want
it
to
in
terms
of
formulating
this
technical
guidance,
applications
are
coming
in
all
of
the
time.
So
we
do
need
to
try
and
settle
this
sooner
rather
than
later.
Do.
H
Not
going
to
comment
because
I
agree
with
everything
everyone
says
today,
just
one
question:
is
this
flat
accommodating
disabled
with
37
meters?
If
someone
is
in
a
wheelchair,
the
person
could
live
in
the
flat
and
the
circumstances
change
where
they
have
to
be
in
wheelchair.
Is
it
accommodated
for
that.
B
B
So
we
would
expect
the
co-living
to
to
apply
to
that
because
you,
you
might
not
be
disabled
when
you
actually
come
to
apply
or
rent
this
house,
but
you
may
fall
disabled
for
whatever
reason
during
your
occupancy.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
the
the
the
the
accommodation
is
is
sufficient
for
that.
M
Yeah,
it
was
just
about
on
the
the
point
about
the
the
space
standards
and
how?
What
would
what
do
we
do
if
we
don't
have
any
further
policy
on
it,
and
this
is
very
similar
to
the
Liverpool
case,
and
this
is
why
they
partly
why
they
had
they
got
guidance.
But
it's
clear
from
the
inspectors
report
that
they
give
weight
to
the
the
idea
of
that
aggregation
of
space.
So
they
recognize
that
Liverpool
have
a
policy
as
Leeds
does
in
terms
of
the
ndss
standards,
but
it
also
says
now:
I
can
quote
that
said.
M
The
co-living
concept
involves
provision
of
extensive
communal
areas,
and
in
this
way
it
differs
from
standard
Department
schemes.
It
is
therefore
reasonable
to
take
a
broader
view
in
this
case
and
take
account
of
the
communal
areas
when
considering
compliance
with
space
standards.
So
that's
one
inspectors,
View.
M
M
Clearly,
ndss
standards
do
make
are
a
big
factor,
but
they
weren't
the
be-all
and
end-all.
I
think
what
what
scuppered
that
particular
appeal
was
because,
even
with
aggregated
space,
they
couldn't
show
that
they
got
close
enough
to
the
37.
So
we
tried,
through
this
guidance,
to
sort
of
fill
some
of
that
guidance
that
void
by
clarifying
that.
Yes,
we
would
like
that,
but
also
quality
is
a
really
major
consideration,
so
I
think
I.
Don't
think
necessarily.
M
This
is
what
the
reason
why
the
guys
in
season
a
sense
we
don't
necessarily
have
the
luxury
of
saying,
oh
well,
we
don't
have
a
policy.
So
therefore
we
can.
We
could
refuse
everything
on
this
existing
ndss
policy,
because
some
statements
by
inspectors
would
suggest
that
other
material
considerations
could
outweigh
that.
Okay,.
O
M
It's
exactly
the
issue
that
we've
we've
gobbled
with
ourselves
and
I.
Think
our
conclusion
is
that
the
latter
point
that
you
you
come
to,
because
all
this
guidance
really
can
ever
do
is
reiterate
what
existing
policy
is
the
moment
it
starts
to
Veer
away
from
existing
policy
and
starts
to
set
in
effect,
new
policy.
M
Then
you're,
looking
for
a
different
vehicle.
I
think
that
a
guidance
note
is
perhaps
not
your
best
vehicle
for
that
and
that's
where
LLP
2040
comes
in
so
I'm
happy
for
colleagues
to
to
disagree,
but
they
do.
But
my
view
is
that
if
we
did
set,
those
kind
of
minimums
we'd
have
to
be
really
clear
where
the
evidence
was
to
justify
what
that
minimum
was
and
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
clear
where
that
evidence
would
come
from
at
the
moment.
A
Would
other
officers
like
to
comment
on
Adam's
statement?
Okay,
it
seems
we
I
want
to
be
careful
that
we're
not
going
around
in
circles
because
we're
going
to
have
to
find
a
way
of
dealing
with
this
councilor
Campbell
is
councilor
Anderson.
K
Is
right,
there
are
concerns
by
members
here
today.
So
what
is
the
fallback
position
if
we
cannot
agree
something?
Because
we
have
concerns
here
today?
What's
the
fallback
position?
What
are
we
actually
if
we
don't
approve
it
today?
What
are
we
doing?
Do
our
colleagues
and
City
plans
and
what
are
we
doing
to
you
in
terms
of
hamstringing
you
in
terms
of
any
negotiations
that
you
may
or
may
not
be
about
to
have
with
any
perspective?
K
Well,
because
if
people
and
the
final
thing
is
that
she'd
had
comments
from
the
love,
the
development
Lobby
themselves,
so
they'll
have
been
listening
to
this
debate
here
today.
They
will
some
things.
They
will
thought.
Oh,
that's
good.
Other
things
will
have
got
them
really
really
bristling
as
to
what
this
might
end
up
being,
and
so
are
we
leaving
ourselves
open
to
further
challenges
as
a
result
of
com
comments
by
people
like
me
this
afternoon
who
have
made
suggestions
or
it
might
not
be
helpful.
B
Martin
thanks
chair,
I
I,
think
that
was
David's
Point
earlier
Council
Anderson
in
that
we've
got
two
other
plans
panel
chairs
here
today,
so
that
if
we
make
the
amendments
to
the
document
and
then
take
that
back
through
to
plans
panel
chairs
with
the
executive
member
to
have
that
discussion,
and
we
can
reflect
the
comments
that
members
have
made
today,
we
can
write
those
down.
I
I
personally,
think
some
of
those
will
be
appropriate
at
an
individual
planning
application
discussion
for
you
to
make
as
you
as
you
see
fit.
B
K
I'm,
the
world's
worst
at
not
following
this
we've
been
now
given
training
to
be
told
the
develop,
but
if
something
is
policy
compliant,
we
cannot.
We
should
not
be
negotiating
in
the
plans
panel,
whether
we
agree
and
disagree.
That's
the
advice
that's
been
given
to
us,
there's
a
lot
of
gray
areas
in
what
we've
discussed
today
and
it
comes
down
to
individual
interpretation.
How
does
that
hold
us
in
terms
of
the
advice
and
guidance
that
we've
been
given
by
legal?
You
should
not
be
redesigning
it
on
the
hoof.
B
B
Now
there
will
be
some
new
issues
that
these
planning
applications
raise,
that
it
will
be
right
to
consider
through
the
planning,
application
process
and
I
think
they're
going
to
have
to
be
raised
because
I
think,
because
this
is
new
I-
think
we're
going
to
have
to
receive
a
device
at
individual
planning
committees
and
through
individual
decision
taking
as
to
the
extent
to
which
the
council
in
its
decision
can
go
and
that
will
cover
things
like
key
workers.
B
Concierges
management,
Etc
there'll,
be
a
limit
I
think
to
to
to
the
extent
that
the
the
grant
of
planning
permission
will
be
able
to
cover
all
of
these
issues,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
feel
our
way
on
that.
A
A
There
are
a
lot
of
things
that
members
are
unhappy
with
and
would
want
to
see
again
in
some
form,
so
I
think
I
want
to
discuss
that
with
plans
chairs
as
to
how
we
get
that
information
to
you
I
understand
there
is
unrest,
particularly
about
space
standards,
and
many
other
things
too.
So
I
I
would
feel.
A
G
Yes,
I
think
I
think
what
you
outline
is
very
sensible
and
good
and
I.
Just
repeat
that
I
think
a
visit
to
somewhere
and
hearing
from
people,
because
I
go
round
and
round
in
my
head,
because
I
can
think
of
some
people,
for
whom
what's
proposed
here,
would
actually
be
fine.
That
they're
in
leads
for
maybe
two
three
months
per
two
three
nights
a
week:
they've
got
their
own
home
elsewhere.
They
just
want
a
place
where
they
can
leave
their
stuff.
G
They
don't
want
to
be
all
alone,
so
they
can
mingle
if
they
wish
it
could
be
fine
for
someone
else
who's
there
permanently,
no
for
a
length
of
time.
It
would
be
too
small,
it
would
fit,
but
then
they
might
only
be
there
temporarily.
So
it's
a
really
difficult
one
in
that
way.
For
me
to
to
decide
on.
A
O
The
the
great
strength
of
this
group
is
its
cross
party
and
every
single
person,
without
exception
comes
here
and
works
together
as
one
team
and
taking
it
just
to
chairs
is
taking
that
away
from
everybody
else,
and
it's
it's
not
like.
There's
a
couple
of
little
bits
that
were
was
putting
hairs
about
that.
There's
deep
principal
points
here
that
we're
not
happy
about
and
I
think
it's
essential
that
it
comes
back
to
to
this
body.
O
I
must
and
the
other
point
there
aren't
going
to
be
visits
and
things
before
the
decisions
taken.
The
guidance
is
written
from
what
you've
described
that
isn't
going
to
happen,
because
there
isn't
time
and
everybody's
agreed.
It
needs
to
happen
from
what
you've
said.
That's
not
going
to
happen!
We're
just
going
to
take
the
comments
from
today
issue
some
guidance.
O
My
question
to
Martin
will
be:
is
there
a
workaround
here
to
actually
because
what
we
need
is
new
policy?
That's
the
the
guidance
will
help,
but
we
need
policy.
Is
there
a
work
around
to
say
this
is
a
special
case?
The
rest
of
the
local
plan
updates
is
reviewing
existing
policy
for
this.
We
need
new
policy.
O
Is
there
a
workaround?
That
means
we
can
get
on
with
getting
new
policy
faster
outside
of
local
Plan
update.
A
Too,
just
to
clarify
I
wasn't
suggesting
taking
it
to
plans
chairs.
Only
I
was
suggesting
that
as
an
additional
stage,
okay,
yeah.
Okay,
would
you
like
to
just
kind
of
think
where
we
are
yeah.
N
O
N
Well,
it
took
a
long
time
to
get
the
ones
we've
got,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
living
in
much
better
conditions.
Now,
because
I
argued
two
things.
N
Now
it
would
seem
to
me
if
we're
producing
an
interim
policy,
we
have
a
policy
base
on
which
to
argue
at
an
appeal,
because
at
the
moment
what
we're
saying
is
actually
the
flat
can
be
so
small.
They
could
only
just
get
a
bed
in
it,
provided
the
rest
of
it's
a
big
space
and
that's
not
none
of
us
want
and
none
others
want
people
to
live
in
small
units.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
we
do
have
in
an
interim
and
I'm
trying
to
be
helpful
here.
N
As
an
interim
policy,
we
do
have
something
which
is
our
current
student,
co-living
policies
and
so
I
I
would
quite
think
it's
quite
reasonable
for
us
to.
We
could
argue
that
with
an
inspector,
because
I
think
we
are
trying
to
be
reasonable
and
that's
what
it
is.
I
also
think
that
if,
if
and
you'll
tell
me
I'm
wrong
but
I'm
I'm
going
to
suggest
anyway,
if
we
come
up
with
an
interim
policy
and
we
take
it
to
full
Council
and
full
Council
agree
it
as
an
interim
policy
with
a
fixed
date.
N
A
B
Can
I
just
say,
cancel
Campbell
I,
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
to
use
the
HMO
policy,
and
so
the
student
policy
for
this,
because
this
isn't
student
housing,
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
suggest
is
is
that
we
publish
this
as
draft
technical
guidance
which
would
enable
officers
to
use
it
now,
which
would
at
least
take
us
further
than
we
currently
are
in
terms
of
not
having
any
policy
to
apply
to
it.
B
We
then
have
the
discussion
with
plans
panel
chairs,
including
the
long
list
of
points
that
was
made
today.
We
commit
to
bring
that
back
to
a
future
meeting
of
development
plan
panel,
where
we
turn
that
draft
interim
technical
guidance
into
interim
technical
guidance
and-
and
in
that
way
we
fill
the
void
quickly
to
determine
help
determine
any
planning
applications
that
come
between
now
and
when
the
next
development
plan
panel
meeting
is,
which
is
likely
to
be
May
and
and
I.
B
Think
don't
forget,
councilor
Campbell
that
the
the
Leeds
local
plan
2040
can
gain
weight
as
it
progresses
through
the
process.
So
I
think
if
we
have
a
draft
policy
which
we
work
on,
which
we
evidence,
because
evidence
is
going
to
be
key
to
this
as
well
and
I.
Think
if
even
if
we
took
an
interim
policy
to
full
Council,
we
need
to
have
evidence
to
support
that
policy
if
it
was
a
significantly
different
to
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
now.
B
A
A
N
The
the
thing
that
the
major
concern
is
what
my
sister
said,
which
is
in
effect
you're,
going
to
knock
up
the
draft
guidelines,
which
effectively
will
what
we've
got
in
front
of
us
today,
none
of
which
we
agree,
I,
don't
think
anybody's
anybody
who's
sitting
here
said
yeah,
that's
that's.
Fine.
Every
single
one
of
us
has
said:
there's
something
wrong
with
parts
of
that
and
I
think
we
you
know
if
nothing
else,
no,
let's
park
the
space.
A
Yep
I
I
totally
support
that,
but
Nicole
I
think
wants
to
offer
us
some
advice.
Thank.
J
The
this
guidance
note
is
to
really
set
out
the
local
plan,
Authority's
position
based
on
its
existing
plans
policy,
because
that's
all
we've
got
to
rely
on,
but
it's
really
a
a
publication
of
our
position
that,
just
because
you
come
in
with
a
core
living
scheme
doesn't
mean
that
you
can
automatically
assume
that
we're
not
going
to
ask
for
affordable
housing,
we're
not
going
to
ask
for
certain
space
standards,
we're
not
going
to
ask
for
green
space,
and
so
that
document
sets
out
how
we
believe
all
of
those
exists
and
plans
policies
will
be
applied
to
any
application,
because
because
it's
a
new
kind
of
model
doesn't
mean
that
none
of
those
other
policies
apply.
J
What
we
do
have
to
acknowledge
is
that,
in
relation
to
the
layout,
a
little
bit
like
purposeful
student
accommodation
when
they
first
started
coming
into
the
city,
I
I
I,
remember,
members
were
quite
anxious
about
the
space
standards.
So
so
the
space
standard
will
be
the
starting
point,
but
it
is
a
material
consideration
that
members
will
need
to
Grapple
with
at
an
application
stage
as
to
how
that
communal
space
contributes
to
offsetting
any
shortfall
that
may
or
may
not
be
presented
as
a
unit.
J
So
so
the
guidance
is
really
just
pulling
it
all
together.
So
that
applicants
realize
the
conscious
put
in
this.
You
know
this
unique
scheme
that
then
doesn't
apply,
that
no
other
policies
apply
for
so
I
think
some
of
the
some
of
the
anxieties
that
members
of
of
quite
rightly
acknowledged
I
think
maybe
they
don't
need
to
be
so
anxious
about,
because
our
local
plan
policies
are
there
and
they're
adopted
I.
Think
some
of
the
other
things
say,
for
example,
with
regard
to
key
workers.
J
They
are
things
that
we
will
look
to
when
we
bring
in
a
new
policy
that
is
specific
to
call
living.
But
it's
not
something
we
can.
We
can
ask
for
now
because
you
can't
bring
in
interim
policy
through,
for
example,
a
resolution
of
full
counsel
and
interim
policy
is
a
policy
that's
brought
in
through
through
a
development
plan
policy,
which
is
the
next.
The
next
plan
that
Martin
and
colleagues
have
been
talking
about
so
I
think
I
can
see
why?
Why
there's?
J
There
is
anxiety,
but
we
shouldn't
forget
how
how
much
weight
our
local
plan
policies
actually
carry,
and
this
is
really
that
publication
to
potential
applicants
that
that
policy
still
applies,
albeit
in
some
circumstances.
For
some
policies
there
may
be
additional
material
considerations
that
we
do
have
to
consider.
It
doesn't
mean
that
members
will
consider
that
they
outweigh
the
planned
policies,
but
there
are
things
that
they
need
to
have
regard
to.
J
So
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
with
some
of
the
concerns,
because
the
guidance
is
not
adding
anything
more
to
what
we've
already
got.
It's
just
that
publication
of
our
position
statement
really.
A
Thank
you,
Nicole
very
clear
advice
and
I
think
you'll
be
called
on
frequently
within
the
plans
panels
to
to
give
advice
at
the
points
of
decision
making.
Thank
you,
okay,
anything
more
Martins,
all
right,
okay!
Well,
we'll
finish
this
public
meeting
I
suggest
we
have
a
five
minute
Comfort
break,
even
though
the
times
got
on
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
the
workshop.
Please
thank
you.
Members.