►
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
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
South
and
West
trans
panel.
My
name
is
councilor
Hannah,
Bethel
and
I'll
be
chairing.
Today's
meeting
could
I
remind
everyone
that
today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
lead
city,
council,
YouTube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
South
and
West
plans
panel
deals
with
the
applications
from
the
south,
Northwest
and
west
of
the
city.
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
relevant
information
from
applicants.
A
G
Good
afternoon
a
council
Angela
Moneta
from
the
Department
of
Hill
Ward
and
newly
elected
councilor.
Thank
you.
K
Well
good
afternoon,
yeah
I
am
councilor.
Colin
Campbell
can
I
just
say
how
nice
it
is
to
see
some
fresh
faces
around
the
table.
I,
wouldn't
let
you
think
you've
got
to
draw
on
the
Short
Straw
here.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Everyone
moving
to
the
agenda
could
I
ask
the
clerk
to
go
through
agenda
items
number
one
to
five.
Please.
A
Brilliant
thanks
very
much
item
number
six
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
11th
of
May.
Do
members
accept
these
minutes
are
a
true
and
correct
record
I'll,
assume
they're,
correct
and
less
indicated
otherwise,
yeah
move
him.
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
masses
arriving
arising.
C
A
Any
matters
are
rising
from
the
minutes:
right,
lovely,
in
which
case
we'll
move
straight
to
a
gender
item
number
seven,
which
is
a
reserve
matters,
application
for
layout
scale,
appearance
and
landscaping
for
the
erection
of
67
dwellings.
Pursuant
to
an
outline
approval
at
the
former
Airedale
Mills
Moss
Bridge
works,
Town
Street,
rodley
Leeds
and
before
I
asked
Mike
to
present
the
application
I'd
like
to
bring
in
the
legal
advisor
to
the
panel.
Please.
M
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
wanted
to
deal
with
two
preliminary
factors
before
the
application
is
presented
to
you
by
members
and,
firstly,
I'm
very
conscious
that
there
are
new
members
on
the
plans
panel
today
and
therefore,
if
members
have
not
attended
on
each
occasion
during
the
application
process-
and
you
want
to
take
part
in
the
decision-making
process,
it's
really
important
that
you
have
appraised
yourself
fully
of
The
Facts
of
this
application.
M
The
second
point
that
I
wanted
to
make
was
in
relation
to
site
visits
and
I,
understand
that,
and
the
site
visit
was
undertaken
today
in
order
for
members
to
understand
the
site,
layout,
Etc
and
just
so
that
you're
aware
site
visits
are
a
fact-finding
exercise
for
members
and
it's
there
to
enable
you
to
gain
some
specific
information
in
relation
to
the
site
itself
and
the
planning
issues
and
the
application,
and
also
understand
the
proposal
properly,
so
that
you
can
make
that
informed
decision
during
the
course
of
this
presentation
and
application
today,
when
a
site
visit
is
undertaken,
it's
done
in
consultation
with
the
chair
in
advance
of
that
site
visit.
M
It's
really
important
when
you
do
undertake
that
site
visit
that
you
ask
proper
questions
in
relation
to
the
site.
It's
not
intended
as
an
opportunity
for
objectives
or
applicants
or
other
people
to
Lobby
or
argue
their
case.
You
as
members
must
remain
impartial,
whilst
you're
on
that
site
visit
and
gather
as
much
information
as
you
can
in
relation
to
the
application
that
you're
now
determining
I
just
wanted
to
underscore
that,
just
because
we
have
got
new
members
and
a
site
visit
was
undertaken
earlier
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Many
thanks:
could
we
now
move
to
Mike
to
present
the
application.
B
B
This
first
slide
just
to
give
members
an
overview
of
the
site.
This
is
the
location
plan,
giving
the
site
boundary
such
triangular,
in
shape
with
moss
Bridge
Road
to
the
Eastern
side.
Access
to
the
site
is
taken
from
Town
Street
of
a
moss
Bridge
Road
through
the
swing
Bridge
into
the
development
Society
itself,
and
the
swing
Bridge
also
provides
access
to
ruddling,
Nature,
Reserve
and
rodley
Cricket
Club.
B
This
site
provides
context
to
the
development
site
itself
the
picture
tool.
Sorry
this
is
an
overview
of
the
site
as
well.
Just
in
addition
to
the
the
first
slide,
just
even
members,
the
aerial
view
you
can
see
ruddling
each
Reserve
to
the
north
of
the
site,
with
the
Cricket
Club
and
obviously
Town
Street
and
the
access
over
the
Leeds
and
Liverpool
canal
and
the
river
air
to
the
Eastern
side
of
the
site.
B
This
slide
provides
context.
The
development
site
itself,
the
picture
to
the
left
shows
the
access
into
the
site
where
the
adopted
Road
will
be
installed,
along
with
the
general
changing
levels
sloping
down
into
the
development.
The
central
picture
shows
the
tour
path
back:
towardsley,
City,
Center
and
you'll.
Note
the
existing
mature
trees,
which
are
a
feature
of
this
boundary
outside
the
existing
storm
returning
wall,
the
existing
walls
in
a
state
of
disrepair
and
it
features
large
gaps
along
the
turpath
itself.
B
The
development
seeks
to
retain
the
trees,
along
with
the
installation
of
a
new
three
meter,
wide
ecology
buffer
within
the
development
site,
and
this
provides
separation
between
the
tour
path
and
the
Leeds
and
Liverpool
canal.
The
picture
on
the
right
shows
the
Rodney
Nature
Reserve
access
back
towards
the
tour
pathan
bridge
where
the
site
visit
was
conducted
earlier
this
morning
within
the
development
site
itself,.
B
B
The
Eastern
area
of
the
site
and
you'll
know
various
mature
trees,
along
with
the
photo
on
the
left,
and
this
area
shows
the
ecology
buffer
and
it's
to
remain
as
an
ecology,
buffer,
providing
eight
meter
separation
between
the
development
and
the
river
air
and,
again,
all
the
trees
along
that
extent
of
the
riverbank
to
be
retained,
turn
into
the
development
site
itself.
This
slide
shows
the
first
sight
plan
you'll,
know
notice
the
mix
of
properties
which
includes
detached
semi-detached
and
terraced
properties,
along
with
a
four-story
apartment
block
to
the
southern
area
of
the
development.
B
So
there,
if
you
can
just
see
on
the
on
the
screen,
it
relates
to
the
change
of
orientation.
To
these
three
dwellings,
which
now
address
the
rivers
or
the
frontages,
face
the
river
itself
and
the
Dual
Frontage
Frontage
property.
Is
this
property
here
so
that
in
essence
features
a
frontage
on
this
side
and
a
frontage
allowing
Outlook
over
the
river.
B
You'll
note
the
linear
row
of
properties
of
dollings
to
the
east.
These
consist
of
three
and
four-story
townhouse
properties
there.
Along
that
extent
of
the
the
boundary
on
the
side
of
the
site.
B
B
The
central
dwellings
are
typical,
two-story
properties,
with
the
exception
of
a
single
m43,
fully
accessible
Bungalow,
which
is
up
to
the
top
portion
of
the
site
and
that's
to
comply.
Obviously,
with
accessibility
policy,
Southern
portion
of
the
site
features
an
apartment
block
with
its
parking
area,
along
with
an
area
of
up
and
green
space
to
the
rear.
There
are
10,
affordable
units
proposed
consistent
of
a
mixture
of
house
types,
including
three
Apartments.
B
Unless
the
scheme
provides
or
is
considered
to
provide
a
policy
compliant
amount
of
affordable
housing,
an
increased
Green
Space
contribution
of
50
000
pounds
is
to
be
obtained,
leading
to
a
hybrid
approach
of
on
and
off
site
delivery,
along
with
ecology
matters
considered
a
priority
in
this
instance
due
to
the
location
of
the
site.
The
contribution
is
to
be
obtained
by
the
outlying
section
106
agreement
members
previously
requested
the
area
of
Green
Space
to
the
rear
of
the
apartment
block
was
made
available
for
all
residents.
O
O
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
to
the
members,
if
you
recall
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
what's
happened
there,
but,
as
you
can
see,
it
was
changed,
but
we
still
have
captured
the
comments
that
were
mentioned
earlier,
but
I'm
sure
members
will
raise
that
again
later.
I
just
thought,
I'd
point
out
it's
slightly
different,
but
Mike
has
identified
what
the
update
is.
Thank
you.
B
This
slide
shows
the
three
and
four-story
townhouse
properties,
along
with
the
topography,
change
in
levels
towards
the
top
path
side
of
the
development.
These
properties
are
to
be
erected
in
stone,
with
an
integral
garage
and
Juliet
balconies
to
the
front
minor
design.
Changes
have
been
made
to
include
the
provision
for
consistent,
Stern
heads
and
Sills
to
the
window.
Openings
as
requested
by
members.
B
This
slide
shows
the
detached
properties
again
replicating
the
design
and
appearance
of
the
townhouses.
Further
minor
changes
have
been
made
again
to
the
heads
and
Sills,
with
the
insertion
of
additional
windows
and
mock
window
openings
to
break
up
the
bulk
amassing
of
the
previously
blank
Gables
goodbye.
B
This
slide
shows
the
four-story
apartment
block
again
finished
in
stone,
replicates
the
Juliet
Balcony
features
of
the
dwellings.
Amendments
have
been
made
again
to
reflect
those
proposed
to
the
dwellings,
Etc
heads
and
Sills,
and
the
window
openings
to
create
a
consistent
and
appearance
and
Rhythm
to
the
apartment
block.
The
apartment
block
sits
to
the
southern
portion
of
the
site,
away
from
the
Nature
Reserve
to
reduce
its
visual
impacts
and
move
any
bulk
away
from
the
entrance
to
the
development.
B
B
B
This
slide
is
for
members.
Information
officers
have
requested
the
request
of
the
members
previously
the
exploration
of
reorientating,
the
proposed
townhouse
properties,
along
with
replicating
these
within
two-story
properties.
Via
these
design
discussions
with
the
applicants,
the
slide
provides
an
overlay
with
the
townhouses
addressing
the
canal,
including
the
requirement
for
an
additional
access,
road
and
driveways
to
the
front
of
the
dwellings.
B
So
in
essence,
if
the
dwellings
are
reorientated,
the
dwellings
will
have
their
frontages
this
side
with
the
parking
and
the
access
road
and
additional
access
road
will
be
taken
into
the
development
here,
as
you
can
see
from
the
indicative
layout,
it
demonstrates
the
new
Access
Road.
However,
this
is
considered
it
would
impact
upon
the
ecology,
buffer
and
the
existing
mature
trees,
including
encroaching
Under,
The
Canopy
areas,
and
there
is
potential
impacts
for
the
route
protection
areas.
B
It
also
indicates
that
insufficient
space
is
provided
within
the
proposed
rear
garden
areas
if
they
were
to
reorientate
the
properties
like
this.
Assuming
that
the
obviously
the
rest
of
the
developments
layout
Remains
the
Same,
and
this
would
create
insufficient
space
to
where
the
rear
of
the
properties
and
is
considered
to
have
adversely
impact
upon
amenity.
B
Again,
just
for
members
information
through
those
design
discussions
and
the
final
slide
provides
members
with
a
section
in
relation
to
the
proposed
changes
to
the
townhouses.
The
top
section
outlines
the
current
layout,
showing
the
proposed
townhouse
type
properties
with
rear
Gardens
adjacent
to
the
existing
ecology
buffer
of
the
proposed
ecology.
But
for
pardon
me,
the
lower
section
shows
how
the
proposed
changes
to
the
traditional
type
I.E,
providing
two-story
properties
would
relay
and
affect
the
levels.
B
B
We've
received
further
representations
from
councilor,
carlill
and
rodley
nature
reserve,
which
highlight
the
following
matters:
the
extents
the
biodiversity
management
plan
states
that
no
trees
are
to
be
removed
within
the
ecology
areas,
and
these
are
to
remain
protected,
amended
details
have
been
submitted,
which
previously
indicated
several
trees
were
to
be
removed.
These
have
now
been
corrected.
Ecology
buffers
are
areas
of
complete
habitat
and
Wildlife
protection.
Nothing
in
these
areas
should
be
removed
or
cleared,
nor
should
works
in
those
areas
disturb
the
environment,
buffer
zone
or
river
banks.
B
Comprehensive
plans,
including
annotations,
should
be
provided
showing
how
these
areas
will
be
protected,
along
with
a
strategy
on
how
interference
will
be
avoided.
The
position
of
the
proposed
drainage,
outfall
pipe,
has
been
moved,
Downstream
of
Rodney
Nature
Reserve,
which
is
welcomed.
However,
the
position
indicated
is
not
yet
fixed
and
marked
on
plan
and
that's
described
as
location
to
be
agreed.
Ruddling
Nature
Reserve
should
have
input
into
the
position
of
the
outlet,
and
this
should
be
written
into
the
final
position.
B
Finally,
the
reorientation
of
the
proposed
plots
facing
the
river
creates
concerns
in
that
the
ecology
buffer
could
be
compromised.
Due
to
this
officers
have
raised
these
concerns
with
the
applicant
and
requested
clarification
on
the
point,
so
the
applicant
is
to
provide
amended
information
to
ensure
consistency
between
the
agricultural
impact
assessment
and
the
biodiversity
diversity
management
plan
separately.
Additional
representations
have
been
received
from
councilor,
Andrew,
Carter
and
Amanda
Carter
is
in
following
concerns
issues
with
the
operational
parameters
of
the
bridge
and
failures
of
the
bridge,
along
with
safety
issues.
B
So,
in
conclusion,
officers
conclude
the
proposals
address
the
remaining
reserved
matters
for
the
layout
scale,
appearance
and
Landscaping,
whilst
redeveloping
a
Brownfield
site
within
the
site
allocations
plan
officers
consider
weighing
the
balance
of
the
material
considerations
and
attaching
appropriate
weights
to
the
relevant
planning
issues.
The
proposals
are
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
outlying
conditions
and
section
106
agreement.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thanks
very
much
for
that,
there's,
no
speaking
rights
on
this
application,
so
we'll
move
straight
to
questions
to
officers.
If
any
members
have
any
how's
that
Finnegan.
J
Turning
to
en1
and
this
particular
one,
that's
about
generating
10
percent,
the
electricity
needs
of
these
new
houses
on
site
with
Renewables
or
whatever
at
this
particular
point
copy
spy
calculations.
You
need
to
be
generating
a
hundred
thousand
kilowatt
hours
per
year,
taking
at
these
properties
to
have
a
heat
pump
and
other
such
things.
B
And
we
have
an
environmental
plan
but
I'm
not
aware
of
having
the
specific
figures
to
actually
demonstrate
that
I'm,
not
aware
of
the
figures
themselves.
J
I
mean
it's
rather
a
Deja
Vu
feeling
they've
got
of
this,
because
I
keep
asking
for
these
details
and
the
maths
behind
it,
rather
than
just
accepting
it'll,
be
all
right
on
the
night
count.
So
you
don't
need
to
worry
about
having
these
particular
figures,
we
are
serious
about
fighting
climate
change
and
the
climate
emergency.
Then
I've
asked
for
these
figures,
probably
over
the
last
two
years.
I
consistently
go
back,
I'm
told.
J
Don't
worry,
we'll
get
these
figures
here
at
this
particular
point,
there
is
no
guarantee
that
en1
is
satisfied
at
this
particular
Point
without
clear
scientific
evidence
that
it
is
and
I'm
disappointed
that
we
haven't
got
the
figures
to
the
developer.
Had
the
figures,
does
anybody
have
the
figures
or
are
we
just
guessing.
B
We
would
we
could
request
the
figures
and
we
have
suggested
conditions,
obviously
for
compliance
with
the
M1
and
the
N2.
The
properties
do
feature
airsos
heat
pumps,
which
was
requested
by
members
previously,
and
the
provision
of
water
but
switch
I
suppose
is
a
slight
Improvement.
However,
we
could
request
those
details
through
an
assessment
of
the
conditions.
J
Not
to
labor
support,
but
do
all
roofs
have
solar
panels.
So
all
of
these
roof
have
solar
panels
to
help
resistors
with
achieving
our
obligations
under
en1,
because
on
previous
applications,
we've
been
told
some
upseller
panels
and
some
don't
and
interestingly
enough,
usually
the
ones
that
have
solar
panels
tend
to
be
the
ones
that
are
the
affordable
housing,
which
I
think
this
panel
has
raised
similar
concerns
about
at
this
particular
point.
So
so
they
all
have
solar
panels
or
is
it
just
the
you
know,
Rick's
properties
that
are
having
solar
panels?
Do
we
know.
B
D
Just
quickly
touching
on
the
planet
solar
panels,
just
obviously
because
a
lot
of
business
is
down
to
design.
It
was
at
a
particular
point
in
relation
to
the
orientation
of
the
property
in
terms
to
the
maximum
efficiency
of
the
panels,
because,
obviously,
there's
no
pointing
having
to
sell
the
panels
in
the
wrong
direction
because
they
won't
generate
very
much
so
was
it
a
case
of
they
did
an
assessment
and
airtos
heat
pumps
got
a
better
return
to
meet
the
requirements
than
inefficient
angling
of
the
solar
panels.
B
I'm
not
actually
sure
if
the
applicant
has
explored
the
option
of
solar
panels.
They've
proposed
SRC
pumps
in
this
instance,
so
we
would
obviously
assess
that
through
the
the
energy
requirements
and
the
submit
information.
Sorry.
D
B
It's
sorry,
sorry,
plans
have
gone
up
from
up
there.
It's
the
Eastern
side
is
the
canal
side
and
the
western
side
is
the
Riverside.
So
it's
orientated
as
you
look
at
East,
so
West.
If
that
makes
sense,.
O
G
A
K
Just
on
on
the
en1
en2
and
you
you
say
we
could
request
those
figures
I'm
slightly
surprised.
We
don't
request
them
anyway,
and
it
would
seem
to
me
that
in
future
we
should
be
requesting
them,
because,
if
nothing
else,
my
good
friend
Council
Finnegan-
will
ask
this
question
next
time
and
it'll
solve
a
lot
of
problems,
I
suppose
the
other.
The
other
point
is
that,
if
we,
if
we're
not,
if
we're
not
sure
that
they
meet
en1,
Oren
too,
then
they're
not
policy
compliant.
K
So
at
the
moment
we're
not
sure
this
is
a
policy
compliance
scheme
and
I.
Suppose
the
question
I
might
ask
is,
as
you're
probably
going
to
ask
for
the
figures
now.
If
they
come
in
and
they
it's
not
policy
compliant,
what
recourse
would
we
have.
B
Yeah
I
think
I
do
take
that
point
and
what
we
would
do,
obviously,
through
the
attachment
of
the
conditions,
we
would
consult
with
our
energy
officer,
who
would
assess
the
plans
in
details
of
the
technical
expert
to
make
an
assessment
at
that
stage.
Obviously,
if
they're
not
compliant
with
the
requirements,
they
couldn't
discharge
that
condition
so
in
essence,
they
would
still
have
that
condition
of
the
development.
A
Sorry,
just
just
before
you
come
back
with
a
follow-up,
I
think
Steve's
just
going
to
add
a
little
bit
and
then
I'll
bring
you
back
in
Council
Campbell.
K
Right,
okay,
well,
so
are
we
are
we
saying
that
we
can
guarantee
that
we
will
not
accept
the
we
will
not
they
will
not
sorry.
We
will
not
sign
off
this
condition
unless
they
meet
EM1
and
en2.
H
Thank
you,
chair
Steve,
mentioned
about
the
parking
for
the
Bungalow.
H
H
A
Can
I
just
remind
councilors
at
this
point
as
questions
and
we'll
come
on
to
comments
afterwards?
Please
councilor
Smith,
your
next.
Please.
I
Well,
do
we
have
any
details
of
that
because,
obviously,
with
it
being
ecology
buffers
to
to
pretty
much
all
the
way
around
you
know,
lighting
can
can
adversely
affect
Wildlife,
as
we
know,
and
disorientate
a
lot
of
flying
insects
and
and
birds
and
things
as
well
bats.
And
what
have
you
so
would
like?
I'd
like
that
and
the
other
thing
is
you've
dealt
with
a
lot
of
the
parking
condition,
12
parking
laid
out
in
accordance
with
agreed
details,
blah
blah
blah.
I
You
haven't
mentioned
anything
about
off
the
site,
parking
I'm,
very
familiar
with
the
area,
I'm
very
familiar
with
how
busy
it
gets
with
the
nature
reserve
and
the
Cricket
Club.
This
will
obviously
put
extra
pressure
on
the
area.
I
would
suggest
that
we
as
an
absolute
minimum
need
parking
permits
on
the
streets
opposite
to
be
considered
because
it
will
push
parking
onto
the
neighboring
streets
and
the
residents
are
already
under
immense
pressure
with
parking.
I
E
B
In
terms
of
the
lighting
scheme,
we
don't
have
a
specific
scheme
drawn
up
that
condition
as
a
consequence
of
us
Consulting,
our
nature
officer.
So
obviously,
through
attachment
of
that
they
will
be
required
to
draw
up
a
lighting
scheme.
We
will
then
reconcile
our
NH
office
to
HR
that
impacts
on
bats
and
ecology.
Etc
is
mitigated
through
appropriate
lighting
and.
A
C
How
long
were
we
waiting
for
this
park
has
been
considered
in
relation
to
what
this
development
requires,
and
it's
in
that
respect?
It's
it's
policy
compliant
with
regards
to
off-site
parking,
the
nature
reserve
and
the
Cricket
Club
have
got
their
own
parking
anyway.
So
what
what
other
parking
do?
You
think
might
be
displaced.
I
Thank
you
well,
I,
don't
know
whether
you've
ever
been
when
the
Crickets
play
in
and
the
Nature
Reserve
have
an
event
on
and
the
park
cars
are
just
everywhere.
I
So
when
you
add
in
this
development
and
the
visitors
to
this
development
and
whether
there
is
enough
I
mean
I
know
it's
compliant,
but
we
all
know
that
there
are
parking
pressures
on
new
homes
when
they're
developed
in
this
way,
where
you've
put
two
spaces,
there
might
be
three
cars,
for
example,
so
that
third
car
has
got
to
go
somewhere.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
safeguarding
the
Nature
Reserve
parking
because
they
will
need
their
parking
and
the
Cricket
Club,
obviously,
but
I
think
there
will.
I
I
So
we
do
need
the
parking
residence
parking.
Please.
C
Well,
we've
not
considered
it
in
terms
of
providing
additional
parking
for
the
Cricket
Club
and
and
their
the
the
nature
reserve
and
their
activities.
We've
looked
at
it
solely
as
to
whether
this
development
is
compliance
in
terms
of
parking
and
each
of
the
houses
do
have
two
spaces
and
there's
there's
space
actually
on
the
internal
roads
for
that
size.
For
for
the
the
required
visitor
park
into
the
to
this
development
as
well.
O
Sure,
sorry
to
intervene
again,
I
do
understand
the
comments,
but
obviously
the
purpose
of
these
playing
applications
is
actually
to
accommodate
and
deal
with
the
potential
problems
that
might
be
created
by
the
site
that
we're
looking
at
not
pre-existing
problems
but
I.
Think
John
could
probably
comment
on
this,
but
certainly
the
Cricket
Club
has
quite
an
extensive
car
park.
I
understand
yeah,
so
the
likelihood
of
that
over
spilling
I
suppose
is
probably
minimal,
I'm,
not
so
sure
about
the
the
Nature
Reserve,
but
again
I'm
not
sure.
O
We've
had
any
problems
so
far
if
it's
spilling
up
Moss,
Bridge
Road,
so
there's
no
real
reason:
I,
don't
suppose
why
it
would
spill
into
the
site
and
we've
heard
that
the
site
itself
is
compliant
and
provides
enough
car
parking
to
kind
of
phrase
wash
its
own
face,
which
is
really
what
we're
considering
today.
If
that
helps.
I
It
does
say
thank
you,
but
as
I
say,
we
all
know
when
we
get
a
development
of
this
size
in
across
the
city,
that
there
is
always
displaced
parking
as
a
result
of
this
and
I'm
just
trying
to
Future
proof
that
to
avoid
problems.
E
From
counselor
commence
with
parking,
and
it
doesn't
matter
where
we
are
in
the
city
when
there's
an
event,
it's
going
to
always
be
issue
with
parking.
It
is
today,
and
it's
going
to
be
tomorrow
and
Beyond.
I
quite
understand
the
your
comment,
but
I
don't
think
that
something
that
really
need
to
be
bedded.
A
Councilor
Taylor:
it's
got
to
be
questions
to
the
officers,
I'm
afraid,
not
open
debate.
J
J
10
of
the
electricity
needs
of
this
particular
Community
need
to
be
generated
on
site,
we're
told
by
the
planet.
There
are
no
solar
panels
at
this
particular
point,
so
I'm
perplexed
Italian
utterly
by
how
that's
going
to
happen.
Abort
I
am
told
that
we
can
condition
it.
You
don't
need
to
worry
about.
It
counts,
we're
going
to
condition
it.
J
Can
the
legal
officer
give
a
cast
iron
guarantee
that
under
circums
those
circumstances
where
en1
is
not
satisfied,
and
therefore
the
conditions
not
also
satisfied
that
this
will
lead
to
a
refusal
of
this
particular
application?
That
is
likely
to
be
appeal.
Proof
as
well.
M
Thank
you,
councilor
in
relation
to
en1
and
compliance.
The
route
by
which
compliance
can
be
achieved
can
be
through
various
measures.
It
could
be
through
airport,
it's
air
source,
heat
pump
or
solar
panels.
It's
about
the
cumulative
impact
there
has.
You
may
disagree,
but
in
relation
to
the
question
that
you
have
of
me,
yes,
it's
entirely
appropriate
that
you
condition
it.
You
can
do
it
as
a
pre-commencement
condition
where
a
scheme
is
submitted
for
our
approval
and
no
further
information
or
development
can
take
place
until
that
has
been
approved
by
the
LPA.
M
J
I
mean
heat
pumps
need
electricity
to
generate;
they
don't
generate
their
own
electricity
at
this
particular
point,
so
the
energy
needs
the
electricity
needs
of
these
units
will
be
more
because
we've
got
heat
pumps
as
well
as
all
the
other
electricity
they're
actually
using
at
this
particular
Point
here.
One's
quite
clear
in
saying,
10
percent
of
your
energy
needs
needs
to
be
generated
there.
It's
not
about
savings,
it's
about
generation,
so
they
have
to
find
10
percent
of
the
electricity
needs
which
are
boosted
if
you
like,
increase
significantly
by
the
use
of
heat
pumps.
J
Now
you've
already
heard
there
are
no
solar
panels,
so
I
mean
perhaps
they're
going
to
put
a
giant
windmill
in
the
middle
of
the
thing
or
whatever
at
this
particular.
But
this
is
a
reason
that
I
consistently
raise
this
at
this
particular
point
because
consistently
we're
there
saying,
there's
a
climate
emergency,
we're
doing
this,
we're
doing
that
and
we're
doing
the
other,
and
we
never
get
the
figures
and
we
never
get
an
explanation
of
how
and
one
is
going
to
be
satisfied
because
it
can't
be
there's
no
solar
panels.
J
It
can't
be
unless
you've
got
windmills
or
whatever,
and
it's
not
about
saving
10.
This
is
about
generating
10
in
one's
quite
clear
about
it.
You're
generating
heat
pumps
add
to
that
requirements
and
I
see
little
if
any
evidence
that
we're
going
to
satisfy
that
now.
If
that
is
the
case
and
I'm
right,
you're
wrong
at
this
particular
point,
I
have
the
wordy
that
planning
enforcement
will
come
along,
as
they
often
do
in
all
of
our
words
and
say:
oh
yeah,
but
it's
not
really
down
to
us
to
enforce
it's.
It's
close
enough.
It'll.
D
And
it's
just
to
I
think
maybe
help
us
all
the
legal,
the
definition
of
energy,
because
energy
is
an
action
in
relation
to
electricity
generation.
It's
generated
to
all
forms
of
energy,
particularly
heat
and
I'm.
Assuming
therefore,
what's
taken
into
consideration,
you're
quite
right
in
terms
of
the
electrical
usage
is
the
coefficient.
No
not
coefficient
rate
is
the
actual
replacement
rate
compared
to
gas,
heating
or
other
forms
of
heating
that
the
SRC
pump
is
generating
to
whether
it's
a
one
to
three
conversion,
one
to
five
conversion
Etc.
D
So
on
that
basis,
as
a
supplementary
question,
as
part
of
also
defining
what
energy
is,
are
we
able
to
specify
the
type
or
the
volume
of
improvement
kilowatt
to
firm
of
energy
out
so
basically
to
a
higher
level?
So
it
doesn't
be
one
to
three:
could
we
specify
one
to
five
as
a
minimum
or
whatever
the
industry
standard
is.
O
O
If
it
doesn't
achieve
the
policy
rate,
it
doesn't
get
discharged
now
whether
that
ultimately
leads
to
some
variation,
which
may
who
knows
include
photovoltaics,
I,
don't
know,
but
at
this
point
the
applicant
is
suggesting
it
can
be
done
with
the
ethos
or
c-spumps,
but
then
once
we
have
that
information
and
we've
agreed
it
because
it
complies
with
the
M1.
If
then,
subsequently,
it's
found
out
to
not
be
achieving
that,
then
we
do
have
the
potential
to
enforce
the
condition.
D
This
used
to
be
basically
my
job
many
moons
ago.
So,
if
that's
the
case
and
basically
on
the
submission
of
the
plan,
the
proposal
of
say
the
heat
pump
didn't
provide
enough
of
a
benefit,
whether
that's
asking
for
for
takes
on
there
or
specifying
a
higher
quality
of,
say,
air
source
of
ground
sources
to
get
more
bang
for
our
books.
That
would
be
within
the
enforcement
powers
of
the
planning,
Authority.
G
Thank
you,
chair
I've
got
a
few
questions
but
I'm
thinking
as
well
that
some
would
have
been
already
discussed
before.
Obviously
I
joined
the
piano
I
think
I
were
more
worried
about
the
the
bridge
and
I
think
it's
already
been
as
a
commission
there.
Now
you
know
the
officers
advised
about
the
changes
in
in
the
properties.
G
It's
you
know,
I'm
more
concerned
what
what
that
then
does
to
whatever
that
was
submitted
in
the
first
instance
and
possibly
you
know
I
think
they've
spoken
about
the
it
will
raise
certain
kind
of
like
issues.
So
can
we
just
possibly
understand
whether
are
we
to
have
supplementary
information
on
that
or
are
they
going
to
add
anything
or
it's
just
you
now
telling
us
that
that's
the
change
and
that's
how
it's
going
to
be.
B
Yes,
certainly,
we
basically
There's
a
summary
provided
of
the
changes
I
can
quickly
run
through.
If
needs
to
be
again,
the
changes
that
have
been
made
they're
outlined
in
I,
think
it's
been
basically
included
in
paragraph
three.
The
main
changes
within
the
report
you've
got
there.
B
B
B
At
the
back
of
the
apartment
block,
the
design
was
discussed
at
last
plans
panel
and
hence
the
slides
just
and
the
discussions
with
the
applicant
about
possibly
reorientating
the
townhouse
type
Properties
or
replacing
those
with
two-story
dwellings
and
that's
been
considered
by
officers
to
create
more
harm
than
in
actually
improving
the
design
which
the
applicant
has
obviously
left
those
houses,
as
as
they
were
previously
for
those
reasons,
and
obviously
the
environment.
Environmental
considerations
that
councilor
Finnegan's
raised
and
we've
just
discussed
about
than
providing
further
mitigation.
G
A
F
Thank
you,
chair
I'm,
just
thinking
about
paragraph
68
of
the
reporter
and
I
want
to
make
sure
I've
understood
correctly.
What's
been
said
about
reorientation
of
the
properties
on
the
southern
boundary.
F
It's
States
here
that
those
sort
of
consideration
was
given
to
reorientating
the
properties,
but
that
the
sort
of
contrary
there
were
Contra
indications
and
that
this
would
sort
of
impact
the
ecology
buffer
alongside
the
canal
now
the
tone
of
the
paragraph.
Well,
it
was
over
a
lot
further
Law
changes.
These
properties
as
I,
would
leave
insufficient
space
to
the
rear.
We
then
finish
up
with
the
sentence.
It's
considered
that
the
general
changes
to
the
previous
layout
and
reorientation
meets
requirements
of
policy.
F
10
address
members
comments
and
thus
is
acceptable.
So,
oh
you
say:
are
we
saying
that
the
reorientation
should
or
should
not
take
place?
I'm
sorry,
I'm,
a
little
loss
of
those.
B
Sorry
yeah
just
for
Clarity
on
that
I
think
what
what
I
was
referring
to
within
the
report.
They
have
actually
reorientated
far
of
the
plots
which
were
towards
the
Riverside,
so
they've
reorientated
those
plots,
but
the
reorientation
of
the
townhouses
is
not
proposed
as
part
of
this
application.
The
reorientation
is
in
relation
to
the
semi-detached
properties,
which
members
pointed
out
of
the
previous
plans
panel
and
the
Dual
Frontage
property,
which
I
think
is
plot
33
from
memory
within
the
report.
A
Thank
you,
councilor.
Any
final
questions
before
I
move
on
to
comments.
No
any
comments
from
officers
on
the
questions.
That's
not
been
put
through
lovely,
in
which
case
do
any
members
have
any
comments
about
the
application.
Council
array.
D
Cheers
trying
to
make
me
not
speak
now,
I
think
on
balance,
it's
a
reasonably
good
application.
It
seems
most
of
the
concerns
have
been
mostly
are
completely
addressed,
I
think
with
reference
to
The
requester
Bungalow
around
the
park,
which
I
think
is
a
sensible
winning
in
terms
of
accessibility.
It's
a
relatively
well
balanced
application
and
I.
D
Think
as
long
as
we've
got
a
surety
that
we
can
enforce
the
relevant
policies
around
the
energy
not
to
the
electricity
but
the
energy,
then
that
would
be
good
and
just
maybe
it's
a
point
of
reference
for
officers.
Maybe
don't
refer
to
it
as
energy
and
reports
that
actually
actually
explain
what
energy
means,
which
is
it's
not
just
electricity
generation.
It's
actually
heat
generation
as
well.
J
Finnegan,
thank
you.
Chair
page
31
is
quite
clear
about
what
Ian
wanna
says
and
says
at
least
10
percent
low
or
zero
energy,
carbon
energy
production
on
site
production
of
energy
on
site.
So
it's
not
about
10
saving
and
the
heat
points
are
going
to
do
that.
If
you
stick
a
heat
pump
onto
a
house,
you
are
consuming
more
electricity.
You
are
not
in
any
shapewear
form
producing
it.
J
Heat
pumps
do
not
produce
zero
carbon
energy
in
any
shapewear
form,
so
we're
down
to
the
same
situation
where
time
and
time
and
time
again,
I
consistently
ask
for
the
evidence
that
en1
is
satisfied
and
we
consistently
told
well
we'll
get
it
later,
and
we
never
see
the
outcome
of
that.
We
never
get
any
of
these
figures
to
confirm
that
this
is
how
the
energy
production
on
site
is
going
to
satisfy.
En1
and
I
am
disinclined
to
support
this
particular
application,
primarily
because
I've
asked
these
questions
time
and
time
again.
J
We
need
to
make
a
stand
if
we're
going
to
put
the
environment
first
at
this
particular
one,
but
I
would
add
an
additional
call,
it
a
condition
or
whatever
you
want
that
before
the
conditions
are
discharged
on
this.
Every
single
panel
member
on
here
gets
the
confirmation
that
we
have
been
offered
by
the
planners
of
how
en1
is
satisfied.
J
So
we
can
see
how
this
electricity
is
generated
and
that
we
can
be
assured
that
en1
is
satisfied
rather
than
just
leaving
it
to
somebody
and
for
it
to
be
left
ultimately
to
planning
enforcement
God
help
us
if
we're
going
to
try
and
make
sure
that
EM1
is
complied
with.
Thank
you,
chair.
O
Sorry
counselor
H
yeah.
The
comments
are
very
general
about
enforcement
and
their
ability
to
enforce
them,
and,
unfortunately,
I
I,
don't
think
it's
strictly
accurate
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
enforcement
work
that
the
lead
city
council
does
so
I
do
sort
of
Walker
time
a
little
bit
of
the
assumption
that
Lee
City
council's
enforcement
team
do
nothing
but
in
terms
of
the
reference
to
the
ASC
Source
heat
pumps,
which
everybody's
stumbling
over
I
think
Jonathan
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
about
that.
N
Yeah
I
mean
they're
increasingly
being
used
as
a
source
of
energy
production
within
dwellings,
and
up
to
75
of
hate
is
generated
through
these
for
most
dwellings.
So
to
say
that
it's
not
a
producer
of
energies
is
inaccurate,
in
my
view,
and
it's
certainly
beyond
the
10
requirement
of
en1.
In
most
cases,
heat
energy
generation
doesn't
just
relate
to
electricity,
and
so
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
clarify
that
point
for,
for
members
and
panel.
D
And
I
think
I'm,
just
going
to
add
for
my
days,
has
actually
been
an
Energy,
Efficiency
expert
and
actually
talking
about
Airsoft
and
ground
Source
heat
pumps
until
I
never
wanted
to
talk
to
them
about
again
it's
about
the
equivalency.
So
it's
about
for
what
kilowatt
you
put
into
the
equivalent,
how
many
heat
of
kilowatt
out.
So
actually,
if
you
looked
at
the
legislation
and
the
regulations
and
the
training,
this
Council
provides
Council
vinegar,
you
would
understand
there
is
a
difference
because
it
is
about
output,
not
input.
So
you
are
completely
right.
D
A
Okay
members,
thank
you
any
other
comments
at
all.
Councilor
Campbell.
K
This
application
has
been
on
the
go
for
a
long
time
and
I'm
slightly
surprised,
we're
not
better
at
coming
up
with
the
figures
associated
with
with
it.
You
know
we
should
have
dotted
the
eyes
and
crossed
the
t's
by
now.
In
my
opinion
and
and
I
think
it
is
not
unreasonable
for
members
to
feel
they
can't
they.
They
would
only
be
prepared
to
agree
an
application
if
they
could
feel
confident
that
it
would
meet
en1
and
we've
never
tested
that
so
I'm,
never
sure
I,
I,
I,
I.
M
K
Slightly
different
reasons
for
for
being
not
too
happy
with
this.
Those
of
you
who
were
here
last
time
we
discussed
it
know
that
I
raised
a
number
of
issues.
K
It's
the
the
layout
effectively
turns
its
back
on
the
canal
and
the
the
river
and
I
thought
and
and
several
other
members
at
the
time
thought
that
that
was
a
missed
opportunity,
and
so
the
discussion
that
we
had
was
about
the
layout
it's
set
in
in
totality
not
odd
bits
of
the
layout
that
you
might
want
to
tweak,
and
then
we
still
have
on
this
site
housing
units
which
are
not
policy
compliant
and
I
know.
K
We've
been
treated
to
the
argument
that
well,
if
we
shifted
them
a
bit,
then
there's
all
sorts
of
reasons
why
it
can't
happen.
But
what
concerns
me
is
we
started
off
the
discussion
with
non-policy
compliant
properties
on
this
site
and
officers
did
not
say
at
the
beginning.
Perhaps
you
should
be
looking
at
making
The
house's
policy
compliant,
because
if
you
provided
a
different
layout
on
that
site,
you
could
produce
housing.
That
was
policy
compliant.
A
Councilor
Campbell,
just
why
you
stopped
for
breath.
Can
we
just
bring
officers
in
around
whether
the
houses
are
policy
compliant?
Please.
O
O
That
document
does
refer
to
properties
that
may
have
no
passive
surveillance
at
the
bottom
has
has
not
been
obviously
the
optimum
and
therefore
should
be
avoided
if
possible.
But
this
document
actually,
as
I
say,
was
a
guidance
document.
It
didn't
go
through
any
public
consultation,
so
at
that
level
it
it
it
it.
It's
weight
is
not
as
strong
as
a
policy
and
subsequent
to
that.
The
way
that
we
track,
that
is,
to
try
to
avoid
these
properties,
but
in
unique
circumstances
such
as
significant
changing
levels
that
we
actually
have
on
this
particular
site.
O
If
that
passive
surveillance
can
be
achieved
by
other
properties
which,
on
the
drawings
that
my
concern
has
achieved
by
the
properties
across
the
streets,
because
they
are
the
traditional
two-story
with
a
living
room
facing
across
the
street,
then
that's
considered
acceptable
but
as
say,
we
try
to
avoid
them.
But
in
certain
circumstances
we
have
such
significant
changes
of
levels
as
long
as
passive
surveillance
can
be
achieved
by
other
properties,
then
we
do
constitute
to
be
acceptable,
but
it's
not
a
question
of
policy
compliance.
It's
trying
to
adhere
to
the
guidance
that
we
actually
have.
K
I
appreciate
that
officers
and
South
and
West
have
a
different
view
to
other
areas
of
the
city
and
effectively.
This
policy
was
brought
in
following
a
meeting
of
the
joint
plans.
Panel.
Some
considerable
time
ago
was
perhaps
formalized
as
a
as
a
document.
K
Every
other
plans
panel
seems
to
be
able
to
create
developments
that
don't
have
this
type
of
housing
unit
on
which
is,
as
we
know,
creates
a
streetscape
that
is
blank
and
lacks
security,
and
we
go
back
to
this
point
and
you
keep
laboring
it
and
I
keep
laboring.
The
other
point,
which
is
if
the
layout
of
this
site
was
different.
You
wouldn't
need
to
do
this
type
of
development.
On
that
side,
these
are
substandard
houses.
K
Council
have
agreed
that
and
Council
have
as
far
my
memory
is
correct
on
one
side
went
to
an
appeal
and
won
the
appeal
on
that
principle
and
I
haven't
changed
my
view
and
I
know.
K
Officers
have
a
different
view,
but
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
members
have
not
changed
their
view
because
we
haven't
had
a
meeting
where
we've
done
that
I
think
I'll
go
back
to
the
the
other
point,
which
relates
to
Green
Space
I
am
reluctant
for
developers
to
buy
out
green
space,
though
I
suppose
in
this
particular
case,
considering
the
buffer,
we
might
just
make
an
exception,
but
I
think
the
principle
of
developing
accessible,
Green
Space
to
meet
our
standard,
which
this
site
doesn't,
is
something
that
we
should
defend
and
I
know.
K
There's
a
significant
amount
of
off-site
Green
Space
associated
with
the
buffer
zones,
but
that's
not
publicly
accessible.
K
So
anybody
who
lives
in
a
development
needs
a
bit
of
Green
Space
to
relax
in,
for
one
of
the
better
word
and
I
I
hear
what
you
I
read
what
you
you
said
about
the
parking,
but
it
was
brought
home
to
me
yesterday,
as
I
walked
through
a
newish
estate
in
my
locality.
K
We
now
quite
reasonably
I
think
create
large
wide
footpaths
because
we
like
the
idea
of
the
public
walking
on
the
path.
Unfortunately,
a
lot
of
the
homeowners
with
cars
also
like
nice,
wide
footpaths
because
it
allowables
enables
them
to
park
their
car
on
the
pass.
So
it's
not
on
the
road
and
I
we
do
have
an
in
the
street
design
guide
some
elements
that
would
allow
us
to
create
a
situation
where
you
couldn't.
K
It
would
be
physically
impossible
for
you
to
drive
your
car
up
onto
the
pavement
and
park
blocking
the
pavement
and
those
of
you
when
you've
been
on
the
panel
for
a
while
you'll
know
that
there
are
certain
themes
that
I
always
come
back
to,
and
this
is
one
of
them,
because
I
think
we
physically
have
to
protect
pedestrians
from
motor
cars,
and
this
this
development
doesn't
do
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
H
Thank
you,
chair.
We've
had
a
lot
of
debate
around
the
ecology
buffer,
well
I'm
surprised
to
see
on
page
24,
para
33.
It's
saying
that
there'll
be
a
single
access
gate
for
maintenance
and
monitoring.
H
H
It
says
that
they're
being
appropriately
worthy
condition
requiring
implementation
of
the
fence
prior
to
First
occupation.
H
Now
that
leaves
the
chance
for
your
lazy,
inconsiderate,
big
Earth,
moving
machine
driver
to
reversing
to
a
tree
that
isn't
required
anymore
or
the
developer
wants
to
shift
that
I
think
the
fence
should
probably
be
going
up
before
any
Earthworks
start
before
any
machineries
moved
on
to
sites.
One
of
the
first
things
should
be
that
fence
going
up
to
protect
that
buffer.
H
So
I'd
want
to
see
some
wording
on
that
and
on
the
rainwater
surface
water
drain
from
the
site
into
the
river
that
I
think
Steve
said
was,
or
somebody
said,
was
still
a
to
be
decided.
H
I
Thanks
chair
at
the
risk
of
being
shouted
down
here
and
I'm,
quite
sure,
I
will
be
at
some
point.
I
am
not
a
fan
of
this
development
purely
based
on
the
access.
I
I
would
not
be
happy
to
think
of
Circa
200
of
our
residents,
marooned
on
an
island
potentially
for
days
on
end
I,
just
see
it
as
a
very,
very
unsafe
set
of
circumstances,
it's
a
fantastic
place
to
live,
who
wouldn't
want
to
live
there?
Let's
be
honest,
it's
absolutely
lovely
I
think
you
know
we
can
talk
about
the
layout
and
and
the
style
and
the
bricks
and
all
of
those
things
and
yes
on
paper.
I
It's
a
really
nice
development,
but
I
just
think
that
there
are
still
an
awful
lot
of
unanswered
questions
and
I
think
that
we
as
elected
members,
are
negligent
derelict
in
our
duty,
whatever
we
want
to
call
it.
If
we
don't
address
the
elephant
in
the
room
which
has
been
very
narrowly
touched
on
by
my
colleague
over,
and
that
is
the
bridge,
there
is
a
paragraph
that
says
that
the
condition
will
be
discharged
before
first
occupancy.
I
However,
the
I
I
just
I
mean
if,
if
there's
a,
if
there's
an
instant
on
site
during
the
development
of
the
site
and
the
bridge,
isn't
working,
then
how
do
we
safely
get
the
Builder
or
builders
off
of
that
site
and
to
a
hospital
God
forbid,
the
site
isn't
as
secure
as
we
would
like
it
to
be
and
expect
it
to
be
during
the
development
and
the
the
local
youngsters
come
and
play
and
there's
an
accident
and
that
bridge
isn't
working.
I
How
do
we
get
those
youngsters
safely
off
and
to
hospital
when
we
do
get
the
site
developed?
How
do
we
make
sure
that
those
residents
are
safe?
A
hundred
percent
of
the
time
there's
one
way
on
and
there's
one
way
off
and
in
in,
in
my
opinion,
the
site
and
isn't
secure
due
to
this
bridge,
the
bridge
isn't
fit
for
purpose
and
I.
Just
think
that
we
really
seriously
need
to
be
looking
at
this
and
I
understand
we're
not
supposed
to
be
talking
about
that.
We're
supposed
to
be
talking
about
the
reserved
matters.
A
B
I'll
just
pick
up
the
comments
counselor,
because
I
made
in
terms
of
the
access
gear.
We
did
know
that
concern,
and
previously
there
were
a
number
more
of
further
access
gears
through
consultation
with
the
nature
reserve
and
our
own
Niche
officer.
It's
agreed
that
there
was
needed
provision
for
one
gate
which
will
be
permanently
locked
and
that's
just
for
safety
measures,
basically
for
the
riverbank.
B
B
That
was
a
concern
again
raised
by
members
previously,
and
the
applicants
have
agreed
to
a
specific
condition
which
creates
exclusion
zones
within
the
ecology
buffers.
So
it
would
require
a
plan
which
shows
those
areas
that
fenced
off
as
exclusion
zones
prior
to
the
development
commencing
to
prevent
that
particular
situation
and
finally,
just
on
the
outlet
I
do
take
the
point
that
ruddling
it
is
of
need
to
be
involved.
O
Actually,
I
just
need
to
add
to
that,
because
there's
a
reference
to
them
having
to
sign
off
only
Lee
city
council
can
actually
sign
off
that
condition.
I
just
need
to
make
that
clear,
so
they
can
be
consulted
with,
but
ultimately
rest
with
the
council,
which
will
be
the
offices
ultimately
to
make
sure
that
it's
in
the
right
place
and
we
understand
completely
the
point
that's
been
made
by
Jerry,
Knapp
and
I
did.
O
Me
and
I
did
mention
on
site
today
that
we,
you
know,
although
we've
yet
to
get
the
full
detail
of
exactly
where
it
is.
It
will
be
Downstream
to
avoid
any
issues
of
contamination
to
the
land,
but
it
does
feed
into
the
ponds
and,
just
briefly
on
the
bridge,
because
I've
said
this
so
many
times
now
the
conditions
that
are
getting
confused
again.
O
There
were
two
conditions,
one
on
the
outline
which
actually
specifies
the
specifications
of
the
bridge
to
be
to
to
be
provided,
which
has
been
provided
and
the
conditions
affected
discharge
and
the
canals
and
River
trust
have
now
signed
it
off,
including
their
own
Regional
operation
manager,
who's
been
out
and
operated
the
bridge
himself,
and
so
therefore,
the
bridge
in
terms
of
its
operational
has
been
signed
off.
O
What
we
cannot
legislate
for,
of
course,
is
malicious,
potentially
malicious
damage,
which
may
have
been
taking
place
two
nights
ago,
where
the
gearing
system
on
one
of
the
winders
was.
According
to
the
engineer
that's
been
out
to
assess
it
can
only
assume
the
the
amount
of
weight
that
was
required.
Of
course
was
damaged
was
was
beyond
sort
of
human
strength.
To
be
honest,
so
who
knows
what
happened
with
that?
But
the
the
bridge,
the
default
position,
I
suppose,
is
through
to
close.
O
It
has
been
as
it
was
today
and
at
the
point
we
were
on
site
I
thought
it
had
been
shut
down
by
the
CRT,
although
of
course
they
had
managed
to
gain
very
quickly
and
create
some
sort
of
Heath
Robinson
attempt
to
reopen
it,
which
includes
using
a
very
large
Kango
electric
drill
to
to
drive
the
shaft
to
turn
it.
So
they
had
responded
to
that
as
quickly
as
they
possibly
could.
But
again
we
we
don't
have
any
further
conditions
that
are
relevant.
O
The
latter
condition
the
council
Smith
refers
to
is
a
condition
that
may
not
be
active
for
over
a
year,
because
simply
because
you
have
to
have
the
ability,
buildings
built
and
developed,
everybody
I
think
around
the
table
and
outside
and
the
applicant
themselves
and
and
the
landowner
are
fully
fully
aware
that
it's
everything
that
is
this
best
interest
to
make
sure
that
bridge
operates
correctly,
which
it
was
doing
again
and
say
until
what
appears
to
have
been
some
malicious
damage
two
nights
ago,
but
we've
been
told
by
the
applicants
previously
that
they
do
have
replacement
parts
for
every
part
of
the
bridge,
I
mean
obviously
I.
O
Don't
think
even
they
were
expecting
that
the
gearbox
would
be
damaged
on
this
occasion,
but
again
the
shipping
stuff
like
that
in
from
Germany.
It
should
be
fully
operational
back
to
where
it
was
before
by
Wednesday.
O
At
the
moment,
I
say
they've
done
some
some
basic
repairs
and
they
have
to
admit
that
they
don't
know
how
long
that
would
Wednesday,
but
they've
done
everything
they
possibly
can
in
terms
of
discharge
of
the
conditions
and
covering
the
particular
points
that
are
raised
by
councilor,
Smith
and
I
must
stress
again
because
I've
said
this
so
many
times
that
ultimately,
the
the
bridge
operation
itself
is
not
Leeds
city
council,
ultimately
responsibility
because
it's
going
to
be
a
privately
owned.
Bridge
he's
not
going
to
be
adopted.
I
hope
that
makes
it
clear.
Thank
you.
F
I
Smith
I
accept
that
the
bridge
isn't
going
to
be
alluded
to
council
operated
bridge,
but
the
residents
living
on
that
island
are
lead
to
council
residents.
A
No,
in
which
case
is
there
anything
else
that
officers
wish
to
clarify
any
other
clarifications.
N
Just
to
give
a
different
voice
really
on
on
the
butter
of
the
bridge,
access
was
approved
at
the
time
of
the
outline
planning
permission.
Conditions
were
attached
to
that
outline
approval
related
to
the
access
I.E,
the
bridge
which
the
applicant
has
sought
to
con
discharge.
This
application
is
just
looking
at
the
details
of
the
housing
and
the
layout
on
the
actual
site,
not
to
the
means
of
access,
which
has
already
been
approved.
It's
just
again
to
clarify
for
members
that
we're
not
looking
at
the
details
of
the
access
today.
A
Thank
you,
in
which
case
I
will
just
check
in
that
there's.
No
other
comments.
Ask
Steve
please
to
sum
up
and
reflect
the
debate.
O
Yeah,
unless
I've
missed
something
obviously
you've
got
the
the
motion
in
front
of
you
on
the
front
page
of
the
report
and
the
recommendation
to
diver
and
Delhi
the
chief
planning
officer,
subject
to
the
106x
letter,
but
also
there's
an
initial
condition
reassign
each
the
green
space,
but
also
because
obviously,
I
captured
the
issue
about
the
slight
variation,
the
drawing
and
that
was
to
ensure
that
we
had
double-sided
disabled
parking
space
provided
to
The
Bungalow
in
the
top
corner.
O
So
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
the
the
recommendation
reflects
that
in
terms
of
the
deferring
delegation
to
officers
to
ensure
that
we
can
get
a
revised
plan
for
that
one
particular
plot
from
the
applicant
to
cover
that
particular
point.
That
was
the
only
two
points.
I
think
I
got
in
addition
and
character.
I
Apologies
We're
not
gonna,
have
another
look
at
the
off
street
parking:
the
residents
only
parking
on
the
streets
opposite
and
we're
not
going
to
put
anything
in
as
an
as
an
interim
or
anything
we
can
revisit
at
a
later
date.
Just
in
case
it
comes
to
pass
that
that
there
are
issues
as
a
result
of
the
development.
O
I
mean
John
can
jump
in
here,
but
at
this
particular
Point
there's
no
evidence
that
that
would
actually
occur.
We've
got
adequate
car
parking,
We
Believe
within
the
site
itself.
We've
not
seen
evidence
of
car
parking
being
displaced
from
the
Cricket
Club
or
the
Nature
Reserve.
That's
spreading
up
Moss
Bridge
Road.
If
that
should
become
a
problem
in
the
future,
whichever
way
it
works,
I'm
sure
highways
will
potentially
will
be
drawn
to,
and
they
would
have
a
look
at
it
at
that
point.
O
A
Thank
you
based
on
the
summary
provided.
Does
someone
want
to
move
the
motion
counselor
Ray,
thank
you
on
a
seconder
councilor
Taylor.
Thank
you.
Could
we
now.
A
Brilliant.
Thank
you.
Let's
now
take
the
vote,
then,
on
the
motion,
as
proposed
and
seconded
all
those
four.
A
O
Just
briefly,
the
application
is
taken
as
the
officer
recommendation,
including
the
two
amendments.
So
one
was
the
additional
conditionary
in
the
signage,
the
Green
Space,
to
make
that
clear
and
the
other
one
for
the
delegation
to
officers
to
take
further
discussions
with
the
applicant
for
their
orientation
of
the
plot,
with
the
Bungalow
to
ensure
side
by
side
parking
for
anybody
with
disabled
disabilities.