►
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
A
So
I'd
like
to
start
the
meeting
today
by
confirming
that
this
is
a
meeting
of
the
development
plan
panel
and
it
meets
the
requirements
of
the
council's
constitution.
Even
though
members
of
the
panel
are
in
ruins
attendance,
while
items
will
be
fully
discussed
as
usual,
remote
attendance
requires
a
few
changes
as
to
how
I
manage
the
debate
so
as
usual
folks
you're
comfortable
with
all
this.
Now,
if
you
just
move
your
microphones
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
that
avoids
any
disrupting
noises,
any
feedback
could
all
participants
keep.
A
Please
keep
their
cameras
on
during
the
meeting.
Apart
from
we've
already
agreed
to
dispensation,
which
applies
to
council
cars
today,
all
participants
will
be
able
to
introduce
themselves
at
the
start
of
the
public
session
I'll
go
through
everyone.
Members
and
officers
so
be
clear
to
public
observers.
Who'll
be
involved
in
proceedings
and
members
wishing
to
ask
questions
and
make
comments
should
do
so
by
using
the
raised
hand
facility
we're
not
using
the
chat.
As
you
know,
I
will
try
to
be
as
super
observant
as
possible.
A
You
know,
but
the
actual
physical
handwork
might
might
be
useful
at
some
point.
In
case
I
haven't
seen
you
I
will
endeavor
to
do
so,
though.
No
so
we
are
on
the
internet.
If
there's
any
disruption
in
connectivity,
we
always
appoint
a
deputy
chair
and
I
move
that
councillor
richie,
be
that
deputy
chair
can
anyone.
Second,
the
motion:
yep,
excellent.
Okay,
thank
you
right.
So
now
I'm
gonna
do
our
round
of
invitations,
so
you
can
write
from
once.
You've
introduced
yourself
again
so
council
anderson.
F
G
A
A
H
A
A
E
Thanks
jess,
so
there
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
number:
two:
there
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
and
public
under
agenda
item
number
three:
there
are
no
formal
alert
items
of
business
today
under
gender
item
number.
Four,
please
could
I
ask
that
members
disclose
any
declare
any
disclosable
pecuniary
interests?
E
A
A
In
a
moment
on
the
item,
so
this
is
effectively
the
third
meeting
we've
had
on
the
planning
white
paper
and
it
was
a
load
of
discussion
at
the
previous
development
plan
panel
and
since
then,
obviously,
we
had
a
very
useful
working
group.
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone
that
participated
in
that
was
extremely
useful.
A
We
got
a
lot
of
work
done,
obviously
matt's
going
to
come
in
a
sec,
but
the
planning
white
papers
caused
quite
a
lot
of
comment
across
the
country,
including
quite
an
interesting
parliamentary
debate
on
last
thursday,
so
for
planning,
geeks
and
completists.
It
was
under
the
backbench
business
committee
and
it
was
brought
by
conservative
mp,
I
think
mp5
of
white
and
it's
it's
interesting
to
to
to
watch
and
observe
and
see
how
that
was
thought
of
and
a
lot.
A
I
thought
was
a
good
quote
and
in
fact
I
think
one
of
the
conservative
mps
suggested
that
between
brexit
lorry
car
parks
and
this
planning
white
paper,
the
whole
of
kent
could
soon
be
tarmac
which
clearly
exaggerated
we,
but
we
can
see
where
he's
coming
from
and
then
theresa
may's
comments
were
around.
The
federation
would
concentrate
development
in
the
south
and
the
south
of
the
country.
So
we
can
see
it's
not
too
dissimilar
from
some
of
the
comments
we
had
to
colleagues
so
just
to
start
offers,
and
I
bring
obviously
martin
in
a
set.
A
But
just
start
from
from
my
chair
perspective.
I
mean
it.
You
know
the
key
there's
some
key
fundamentals
missing
from
the
housing
white
paper,
which
I
think
I
think
we'll
see.
We've
really
picked
out
this
afternoon
during
the
course
of
this
meeting,
and
it's
you
know
it's
a
centrally
dictated
numbers
into
a
policy
and
legal
environment
where
developers
have
what
looks
to
me
like
large,
largely
free
reign
and
allows
them
to
get
away
with
the
absolute
minimums.
A
That
would
be
my
my
concerns
and
to
give
you
some
idea
of
a
key
question
that
we
need
we're
putting
to
government
is
that,
as
I
said,
there
are
key
fundamentals.
This
white
paper
just
doesn't
tackle
our
skirts
around
can
come
to
your
own
conclusions
as
to
why
that
is.
But,
to
give
you
an
example,
we
talk
about
land,
banking
and
permission
hoarding
right
now.
Leeds
is
a
really
good
good
case
study
of
this.
A
Now
I
put
it
to
colleagues
that,
if
that's
the
ratio,
the
problem
is
not
the
fundamentals
of
the
planning
system.
The
problems
are
the
fundamentals
that
everything
that
follows
the
planning
system
and
that's
what
the
government
needs
to
address
and
that's
the
point
we
need
to
put
across.
So
given
that
chairs
preamble
martin,
do
you
want
to
lead
off
on
this
item?
Please.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
so
this
is
the
report's
been
pulled
together
by
robin
coughlin,
but
in
his
absence
I'm
gonna
just
walk
you
through
it,
and
we've
got
nazarene
eunice
and
sarah
helliwell,
who
have
also
been
officers
who
have
prepared
this
as
well.
So
this
item
then
relates,
as
the
chair
said,
to
the
government,
the
council's
consultation
response
to
the
government's
planning
white
paper,
which
the
government
has
described
as
a
complete
overhaul
of
the
planning
system.
J
And
specifically,
the
comments
have
been
sought
from
the
council's
climate
emergency
advisory
committee
siac
and
just
for
members
to
know
that
councillor
david
blackburn
has
come
back
to
me
with
a
comment
and
asks
that
the
response
be
fleshed
out
to
detail
the
numbers
of
permissions
granted
against
actual
build-out
rates
by
the
volume
house.
Builders
in
support
of
comments
at
question.
14
on
delivery.
J
There
are
three
main
areas
of
the
planning
white
paper
which
are
called
pillars:
the
first
pillars
around
planning
for
development.
The
second
is
around
beautiful
and
sustainable
places,
and
the
third
is
around
infrastructure
and
connected
places
and,
as
you
will
already
have
noted,
the
appendix
one
is
quite
lengthy.
J
Whereas
the
council
are
stressing
that
there
needs
to
be
flexibility
for
local
authorities
to
set
their
own
standards
on
these
issues,
and
others
there's
also
concern
that
a
more
positive
approach
to
cross-boundary
strategic
planning
isn't
put
forward
and
simply
the
duty
to
cooperate
has
been
deleted
without
any
understanding
of.
What's
going
to
replace
it.
J
A
F
A
F
F
However,
development,
since
that
time
I
have
brought
us
to
regrettably
to
a
conclusion
that
we
cannot
sign
your
response,
but
we'll
do
what
we
intended
to
do
initially
and
submit
our
own,
which
is
at
the
final
draft
stage.
A
lot
of
what
we
will
be
saying
to
the
government
does
in
fact
reflect
what
you
have
said.
F
F
If
not
more
critical,
it
will
also
be
more
constructive
than
yours,
but
to
pull
stunts
like
this.
When
I
have
my
members
coming
to
me
and
saying
they
fear
pre-determination
of
planning
applications
and
then
to
sign
a
letter
to
the
government
with
your
names
and
our
names,
I'm
afraid
is
not
acceptable.
F
But
you
do
nothing
at
all
to
encourage
opposition
parties
to
believe
there
is
any
possible
basis
for
cross-party
working
when
you
use
a
loophole
to
release
green
belt.
That
has
been
put
back
in
the
green
belt
by
a
high
court.
Judge
simply
is
not
acceptable
and
barry
will
go
on
for
some
more
detailed
questions.
A
A
F
F
A
D
D
Response
that
we're
looking
at
today
that
we're
considering,
I
consider
it
to
be
very
well
written
to
be
constructive.
As
you
said,
I
think
in
your
instruction,
it's
measured
as
well.
I
think
they've
done
a
very
good
job
of
trying
to
get
a
compromise
in
terms
of
the
responses
that
they've
received
from
elected
members.
Cross
party
I'd
like
to
just
reiterate
your
comments
in
terms
of
the
cross-party
approach
that
we've
tried
to
take
in
drawing
up
a
response
to
the
government's
consultation
and
also
I'd.
D
You
know
I'd
kind
of
just
really
support
the
points
that
have
been
drawn
out
in
terms
of
the
response
in
the
section
that
we're
considering
at
this
point
time
around
ensuring
people
that
they're
not
going
to
lose
the
opportunity
to
contribute
and
influence
by
removing
the
kind
of
later
stages
of
consultation.
If
we
go
through
that
zonal
approach,
the
the
fact
that
one
size
does
not
fit
all
clearly
different
parts
of
the
country,
even
different
parts
of
the
city
have
different
needs.
D
Despite
what
has
just
been
said,
when
we
had
the
cross
party
working
group
meeting,
we
actually
had
a
very
constructive
discussion
with
everybody
contributing
you
know
in
what
seemed
to
me
to
be
a
very
consensual
way
and
then
right.
At
the
end
of
the
meeting,
councilor
carter
made
it
very
clear
his
intention
to
submit
a
separate
response
from
his
group,
so
this
has
not
suddenly
come
about
by
any
discussions
or
debates
that
have
taken
place
at
subsequent
plans.
C
Thank
you,
chair
I'll,
summarize
the
points
because
I
will
be
submitting
them
in
probably
greater
detail
through
tomorrow,
as
he
requested.
But
if
we
look
at
paragraph
three,
why
are
we,
including
that?
Why
are
we
including
paragraph
three,
because
that's
what
we
should
be
doing
as
accounts
just
now,
nothing's
changing
the
plan?
The
planning
paper
makes
no
attempt
to
change
that
whatsoever.
C
That
should
be
your
bible
already.
That
should
be
the
first
thing
that
you
think
about
when
you're
applying
planning
applications.
So
why
are
we
making
that
comment?
Then
you
come
to
paragraph
four.
What
value
is
paragraph
or
it's
just
padding
it
out?
You're,
not
actually
making
anything
constructive.
C
C
Well,
that's
the
reason
why
a
lot
of
the
people
in
leeds
are
disillusioned
with
the
planning
system.
That's
why
a
lot
of
counselors
are
disillusioned
with
the
planning
system.
You
should
be
reflecting
back
what
you
can
do
to
help
improve
things,
not
just
point
the
fingers
away
at
people
all
the
time
in
question:
five
paragraph,
thirteen
there's
no
mention
of
the
impact
or
the
effect
of
the
new
morality.
C
C
If
people
are
listened
to
they're
more
likely
to
agree,
albeit
reluctantly,
but
if
they've
been
part
of
the
decision
making
process,
they
are
more
likely
to
accept
what's
happening.
So
if
we
listen
and
build
it
from
the
bottom
up
instead
of
a
top-down
approach.
I
think
this
can
be
very
successful
and
I
would
like
to
have
seen
this
between
arguments
than
like
that
I'll
stop
there,
because
if,
if
I
understand
martin
correctly,
it
was
question,
14
was
the
last
one
in
this
particular
section,
so
I've
got
no
more.
C
C
Yes,
the
government
need
to
change,
but
you
need
to
expect
set
in
your
arguments
that
we,
the
council,
need
to
look
at
our
processes
and
procedures
and
point
out
that
we
will
need
to
change,
and
this
is
our
way
we
are
going
to
deliver
on
the
things
that
we,
the
council,
have
responsibility
for,
instead
of
just
pointing
fingers
at
the
government
all
the
time.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
cancer
anderson.
Although
we'll
point
out,
you
know
full
well,
that's
not
that's
not
what
the
purpose
of
this
report
is,
and
I
believe
councilor
anderson
that
you're
using
that
as
an
attempt
not
to
sign
up
to
things
that
you
all
agree
with.
Can
I
come
back
on
that
interesting?
No,
you
can't
so
why
not?
C
C
C
You
were,
for
example,
like
me,
were
in
a
conference
call
with
northern
power
about
a
week
ten
days
ago,
which
was
constructive
and
was
very
helpful.
Now,
if
you'd
reflected
back
the
outcomes
of
that
in
this
paper,
then
fine.
Yes,
that's
a
lot!
That's
a
sensible
and
logical
way
of
doing
it,
but
the
way
you've
chosen
to
do
it.
This
time,
you've
taken
the
political
angle
rather
than
the
constructive,
let's
work
through
it
together
cross-party
and
looking
at
how
the
different
parts
of
the
council
can
work
together.
C
That's
an
example:
it's
one
example
of
where
you've
used
the
politics,
rather
than
the
consensual
way
forward
of
doing
something
that
most
people
would
agree
with
that.
We
need
to
do
something
about
the
housing
that
we've
got
and
making
it
energy
efficient
and
when
developers
are
coming
forward,
not
taking
excuses
from
them
now,
counselor
finnegan
is
usually
the
expert
when
it
comes
to
plans
panel
always
asks
about
en1
and
en2,
and
we
get
absolutely
nowhere
because
the
developers
never
want
to
buy
in
and
discuss
it
at
all.
A
C
C
That
leads
has
a
contributing
factor
in
terms
of
what
you're
doing
you
make
comment
later
on,
for
example,
about
site
notices,
nobody's
saying
you
can't
have
site
notices,
nobody's
saying
that
you
can't
have
manual
systems
to
try
and
help
those
people
who
aren't
digitally
as
happy
as
other
people
are.
These
are
things
that
you
can
do
you
could
point
out
that
we
as
a
council
will
always
operate
a
flexible
approach,
but
all
you
want
to
do
is
turn
this
white
paper
into
a
government
fashion.
C
Organize
setup
and
all
you
want
to
do
is
argue
for
more
resources.
That's
it's
like
you're,
like
a
broken
record.
Every
time.
All
you
want
is
more
money,
no
matter
what
it
is,
it's
more
money
to
do
this,
instead
of
working,
smarter
and
working
better
and
getting
best
use
of
the
resources
that
you've
got.
That's
all
we're
saying
is:
if
you
reflect
and
say
for
once:
yes,
we
can
do
things
better
as
a
council
and
you
the
government,
can
help
us
by
facilitating
this.
This
would
be
a
good
way
forward.
C
It
might
be
contradicting
mind,
but
that's
why
that's
the
whole
part
of
democracy.
This
is
the
point
we're
trying
to
make.
We
want
to
have
a
debate
about
things
we
want
to
improve
the
city.
We
want
to
work
with
residents.
We
want
to
get
the
best
we
can
for
the
city.
All
you
want
to
do
is
finger
point
at
the
government
the
whole
time
and
any
anything
that
goes
wrong
is
the
government's
fault
and
anything
that
goes
right
can
only
be
because
we
are
such
a
brilliant
council.
It
doesn't
work
like
that.
C
A
Your
objection
seems
to
be
that
we
haven't
written
a
document
that
this
response
is
not
asked
for
that.
This
response
isn't
asking
for
so
that's
really
difficult
to
to
answer
in
any
sort
of
reason
terms.
It
would
be
difficult
by
any
objective
analysis,
and
I
look
forward
to
reading
your
your
detail
points
as
to
where
this
is
too
political.
A
I
look
forward
to
those
examples.
Council
anderson-
I
I
really
do
now
there's
a
substantive
point
of
that
mayoralty,
which
I'm
going
to
ask
officers
to
to
come
out
in
to
to
to
speak
to
in
a
moment,
but
council
rich
has
had
his
hands
up
for
an
awful
long
time,
so
I'd
like
to
bring
casa
richie
at
this
point.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah
thanks
for
that
chair,
I
lost
a
bit
of
counselor
anderson
seems
to
be
going
on
a
bit
of
a
rant
towards
the
end,
so
I
think
he
lost
a
bit
of
what
we're
trying
to
get
across
by
by
doing
that.
But,
as
I
understand
it,
it
was
a
consultation
on
the
government's
white
paper
and
that's
why
we've
responded-
and
I
think
it
has
been
said-
in
a
fair
and
balanced
way
and
to
take
the
point
on
site
notices,
because
I
remember
I
brought
that
up
my
concern
and
point
out
the
time.
B
It
may
seem
a
trivial
point,
but
there's
definitely
a
move
of
proposing
that
white
paper
to
move
away
from
site
notices
and
move
to
almost
full-on
digitalization,
and
I'm
glad
that
that's
been
taken
on
board
and
challenged.
Now.
I
also
I'm
glad
that
councilman
herron
pointed
out
the
the
comment
at
the
end
of
the
cross
party
working
group
that
councilor
carter
made
about
submitting
their
own,
because
I
had
made
a
note
of
that
myself
and
I
strongly
suspect
that
this
was
the
plan
all
along
and
actually
by
councillor,
walt
shaw.
B
Agreeing
to
that
cross-party
working
group
that
threw
a
curveball
into
the
conservative
party's
strategy
or
clearly
trying
to
politicize
this
totally
and
then
council
wall
shaw
went
even
further
actually
by
offering
you
any
red
lines.
So
you
had
the
opportunity
there
as
a
party
to
put
in
your
red
lines
and
I'm
not
sure
that
many
were
forthcoming.
So
I
suspect,
as
I
said,
this
was
a
plan
all
along
and
you're.
Turning
this
into,
I
think
a
bit
of
a
mockery
really
because
I
think
there
is
consensus
that
meeting
was
constructive.
A
Thank
you,
council,
richie
yeah.
I
quite
agree.
It
is
the
case
that
I
did
offer
that
if
there
was
any
red
lines
that
that
should
be
brought
to
us
and
spoken
about,
but
clearly
that's
that
that
didn't
happen,
and
then
this
is
rather
happen
today,
which
is
unfortunate,
councillor,
campbell's
next
and
then
I'll
bring
in
officers
for
a
response
on
the
points
for.
E
E
I'm
impressed
with
andrew
actually
he's
managed
to
effectively
change
the
entire
basis
of
our
discussions.
This
this
afternoon,
I
thought
we
were
responding
to
a
set
of
government
proposals
and,
if
you're
responding
to
government
proposals,
I'm
I'm
slightly
surprised
when
you
get
upset
that
we
have
a
we,
we,
I
suppose,
criticize
the
government
for
making
those
proposals.
E
It
is
disappointing
that
we've
managed
to
that
they've
effectively
managed
to
shift
the
debate
away
from
what
might
happen
through
the
planning
process
to
a
spat
basically
about
how
supportive
of
the
government
they
are
now.
I
can't
understand
why
we've
suddenly
become
very
supportive
of
government
or
the
conservative
group
has,
but
it
may
be
something
to
do
with
the
proposed
office
development
which
may
take
place
in
leeds
in
the
not
too
distant
future.
E
I
do
hope
that
during
that
process
they
apply
for
planning
pollution
and
actually
develop
it
look
cher
yeah.
I
sat.
I
came
to
this
meeting
on
the
assumption
that
we
were
going
to
just
go
through
this.
This
document
that
they,
they,
the
all-party
working
group,
were
happy
to
support,
except
for
one
of
the
two
little
hiccups,
rather
than
getting
into
a
long
discussion
about
how
supportive
of
the
government
you
can
be
or
how
how
you
can
oppose
a
government.
Can
we
actually
move
on
in
our
discussion
about
what.
A
A
Oh
great
are
wonderful
see.
There
is
cross-party
consensus,
that's
really
good
to
see
so
after
that
shenanigans,
malarkey
and
tomfoolery
I'd
like
to
bring
in
mr
elliot
for
a
response
to
what's
been
said
so
far,
and
then
mr
feeny
yep,
oh
david,
do
you
want
to
come
in
first
and
pull
rank
on
mr
elliot
or
it's
up
to
you
guys.
K
K
I
think
the
concern
that
we've
expressed
in
the
response
from
a
from
a
technical
perspective
is
that
the
actual
proposals
as
they
currently
stand,
don't
go
far
enough
to
be
able
to
clarify
what
the
role
of
planning
is.
The
way
it's
presented
is
that
planning
is
the
sum
of
a
number
of
parts
rather
than
something
that's
more
cohesive
in
enabling
enabling
us
to
deliver
the
positive
change
which
talks
to
the
agenda
of
sustainability,
climate
emergency,
financial
inclusion
and
and
public
health
and
well-being.
K
K
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
we
have
a
very
positive
track
record
in
leeds
of
preparing
neighborhood
plans.
I
think,
following
on
from
the
the
localism
act
back
in
2011,
we
engage
very
positively
with
communities
both
within
inner
and
outer
areas
of
leeds,
and
we
have
a
very
positive
track
record
of
trying
to
engage
with
communities
at
that
bottom
up
level
and
we've
had
some
notable
successes
across
the
district
in
achieving
that.
K
K
I
think
in
terms
of
being
able
to
plan
at
that
bottom
up
level,
but
I
think
some
of
our
comments
that
we've
made
talk
to
the
importance
of
front
loading
through
the
planning
system
to
engage
all
the
communities
of
leads
in
the
planning
process
at
a
very,
very
early
stage.
So
I
think
that's
integral
needs
to
be
integral
to
the
process
chair.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
david,
it's
a
really
helpful
contribution.
Yeah.
I
think
we
are,
to
paraphrase
virtually
a
hotbed
of
neighborhood
planning
as
a
city
so
mark.
Can
I
bring
you
in
and
can
I
draw
colleagues
attentions
to
question
15
onwards,
and
I
want
martin
to
take
us
through
that
pillar,
so
we
can
make
some
progress.
That'd
be
really
helpful.
Mine.
J
J
So,
as
part
of
that
really,
this
response
is
about,
what's
not
said
in
the
planning
white
paper
and
what
isn't,
as
stressed
as
as
the
need
to
deliver
more
housing,
there's
an
awful
lot
of
emphasis
on
delivering
housing,
but
the
the
response
does
seek
to
sort
of
temper
that
with
clarity
of
purpose
on
sustainable
development,
climate
emergency
and
actually
what
design
actually
means
so
happy
to
take
comments
and
questions
on
on
that.
So
that's
questions
15
to
20.
A
A
So
I
think
that's
one
of
the
drivers
of
this.
It
is
very,
very
difficult
to
answer
planning
questions
in
in
simple
narrow
terms,
because
the
questions
you're
trying
to
answer
are
often
societal
and
civilizational,
which
I
draw
colleagues
attention
to
say.
For
example,
paragraph
90
regarding
sustainable
development
and
climate
emergency,
as
you
as
you
know,
is
a
key
concern
of
mine
so
and
it
by
fate's
happy
fortune.
Caster
anderson
had
his
had
his
hand
up
next
so
over
to
you,
anderson,.
C
Just
very
quick
comments
on
there
in
question:
16
paragraphs,
86,
87
and
the
first
bullet
point
in
para:
90
yeah,
I
don't
think
you'd
be
there,
because
if
you
take
those
out,
I
think
the
rest
of
the
argument
that
you're
making
is
very
strong.
I
just
feel
that
those
those
particular
ones
they're,
actually
just
padding
it
out
the
rest
of
what
you're
saying
really
makes
the
point,
and
it's
something
that
we
agree
with.
We.
Actually
we
actually
agree
with
that.
C
A
Okay,
I
mean
I
disagree,
I
think
often
with
really
substantive
large
issues.
One
has
to
lay
out
the
the
fundamentals
to
make
them
clear
and
to
make
them
explicit
and
to
put
them
at
the
forefront
of
people's
thinking
when
they
move
on
to
the
the
more
focus
points.
So
I
I
must
confess,
quite
I
don't
know
what
you
think,
but
I
I
really
like
the
quote:
the
response
to
question
16..
C
Must
be
an
old
one,
must
be
an
old
one,
but
I
mean
all
I
was
going
to
say:
is
we
actually
support?
What
you're
planning
to
do
here?
All
we're
trying
to
do
is
just
refine
it
so
that
when
the
government
are
looking
at
it,
they
can
see
a
coherent
argument
that
what
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
sustainability
is
whatever
what
is
the
definition?
You've
come
up
with
sustainable
sustainability.
Here,
it's
not
getting
sidetracked.
C
As
someone
who
has
attended
a
lot
of
webinars
at
the
lga,
there
is
a
vast
views
as
to
whether
or
not
30,
35,
40
or
50
are
going
to
be
the
correct
dates,
because
it
all
depends
on
technology
and
winning
the
arguments
with
one
or
two
other
areas.
So,
but
the
other
points
you
make
about
sustainability,
I
think,
are
excellent.
It's
just
this
getting
into
an
argument
with
the
government
over
whether
or
not
they're
being
you
know,
2050
is
or
is
not
the
correct
time.
C
It's
just
is
sidetracking.
The
important
thing
is
to
deliver
sustainable
development
and
we
can,
if
we
choose
to
do
something
before
2050,
we
can
do
so.
We
can
come
forward
with
policies
in
our
design
codes
that
say
we're
going
to
go
for
20
30..
We
don't
have
to
keep
repeating
the
exercise.
We
should
be
arguing
from
the
sustainability
argument.
All
the
time.
A
Right,
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
in
all
candor
I
tell
you
that
you're
wrong
2050.
As
I
said,
a
multiple
public
environment
2050
is
a
meaningless
date
with
respect
to
climate
emergency.
It's
a
day
pulled
to
the
fore
because
it's
mid-century
it's
30
years
away.
It's
far
enough
away
that
a
current
crop
of
politicians
in
the
autumn
and
winters
of
the
years
don't
have
to
think
about
the
fundamentals
they
need
to
be
thinking
about,
and
none
of
the
science
barry.
A
C
A
C
This
you've
misinterpreted
what
I
said.
I
said
I've
attended
seminars
where
there's
been
a
lot
of
dates
mentioned,
and
I'm
one
of
these
people
who
do
believe
that
2050
is
probably
too
far
into
the
future.
But
what
I'm
saying
is
there
are
there
are
other
experts
who
would
argue
that
it
was
more
realistic
to
go
for,
say,
2040
but
ignoring
2050.
So
that's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make.
Let's
not
say
that
we're
right.
C
Everybody
else
is
wrong
because
there
are
some
specialists
out
there
who
feel
that
as
a
country,
we
can
deliver
a
lot,
particularly
the
energy
market,
by
probably
2040
and
also
in
the
transport
sector
by
the
same
date
as
well,
because
of
the
long
time
it
takes
leading
time
it
takes
that's
where
these.
If
you
listen
to
the
lj
seminars,
you
have
to
listen
to
me.
A
A
D
G
D
I
was
going
to
say
so
sorry.
Thank
you.
Thank
me
for
doing
that.
We
have
got
ambitious
targets,
but
we've
got
ambitious
targets
for
a
reason.
That's
because
we
have
to
act
now
we
can't
delay
acting
on
the
climate
emergency
and
leaving
it
for
somebody
else
to
do
in
10,
15
years
time.
The
paragraph
86
I'd
just
maybe
just
suggest
that
we
might
want
to
add
in
there,
as
we
have
at
paris
sciencey
that
the
council
has
signed
up
to
helping
to
deliver
locally
the
un's
sustainable
development
goals.
D
D
A
E
E
E
I
thought
we
were
making
progress.
I
thought
people
had
got
the
idea
that
we
really
need
to
do
something,
but
sadly,
if
we're
having
this
discussion
yet
again
about
putting
back
the
date
when
we
really
need
to
do
this
work,
then,
once
again
we're
selling
people
short
and
we're
jeopardizing
our
future
2030
he's
fine
with
me
chair.
It's
something
that
the
whole
of
the
country
should
accept.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
very
much
agree
council,
finnegan
officer
council.
You
know
in
the
on
your
screen.
If
you
click
on
participants
and
it
brings
up
the
list
down
the
right
hand
side,
then
you
can
put
the
hands
up
thanks.
I
didn't
see
you
put
anything
in
the
chat
for
ages.
Apologize
for
that
robert
over
to
you.
H
H
What
I
would
say
is
that
we
need
a
more
robust
approach
to
en1
and
en2,
which
people
will
know
if
they're
sat
on
a
plants
panel,
I'm
obsessed
with
because
officers
can
never
give
any
facts,
can
never
give
any
details
can
never
give
any
confirmations
and
palm
it
off
in
terms
of
some
condition
and
we'll
have
a
look
at
it.
Perhaps
when
these
properties
are
actually
built
en1
and
the
n2
modest,
in
what
they
try
and
achieve.
H
If
we
are
going
to
achieve
a
significant
change
by
2030,
then
en1
and
en2
need
to
be
taken
more
seriously.
We
need
to
have
the
evidence
when
we
are
looking
at
it
via
plans
panel
that
they're
going
to
achieve
these
particular
targets
set,
and
we
perhaps
need
to
revisit
en1
and
en2
as
well
to
set
even
higher
targets
to
achieve
what
we
want
to
achieve
by
2030..
A
No
thank
you
and
rest
assured.
The
local
plan
review
that's
underway.
Separate
to
this
to
this
process
is
looking
extremely
hard
about
how
we
come
up
with
evolutions
of
vm1
and
ent2
that
are
the
best
in
the
country,
the
leading
edge
and
that's
a
genuine
leading
edge,
not
a
boris
johnson,
world-beating
category.
J
Thanks
chair,
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
the
point
that
what
what
the
answer
to
question
16
also
tries
to
do,
and
and
and
it
fits
but
doesn't
repeat
the
answer
that
had
previously
been
given
to
question.
Seven-
a
is
really
ask
government
to
be
clearer
about
what
they
mean
by
sustainable
development,
because
there
is
a
concern
that
that
phrase
is
used
in
a
different
way
by
those
that
are
seeking
speculative
development
to
that
which
the
council
use
and
the
expectations
from
sustainable
development
are
different.
But
they
shouldn't
be.
J
I
I
I
I
The
the
government
set
out
that
they
want
to
remove,
delay
and
support
competition
in
the
house
building
industry,
the
new
levy
it
is
also
suggested.
There
are
a
number
of
options
it
could
be
set
at
a
national
level
or
it
could
be
set
at
a
local
level,
or
it
may
be
a
combination
of
the
two
where
the
formula
is
set
at
a
national
level
and
then
local
values
could
then
be
added
to
reflect
local
circumstances
for
different
local
authorities.
I
It's
also
suggested
that
the
new
levy
could
be
set
up
final
sales
value
and
to
allow
it
to
be
more
responsive
to
local
markets
and
also
the
land
value
capture
is
also
for
the
first
time
introduced
to
developer
contributions.
I'm
not
sure
exactly.
They
don't
set
out
how
that
would
be
achieved,
but
you
know
that
that
that
is
a
positive
thing.
I
So
there's
also
in
terms
of
permitted
development
for
the
first
time,
still
in
section
106
would
no
longer
be
exempt
and
the
proposals
there
is
also
a
proposal
to
widen
the
definition
of
infrastructure.
Currently
that
relates
specifically
to
the
connect
between
development,
but
it
is
suggested
that
why
the
use
of
infrastructure
to,
for
example,
the
user's
council
tax
and
other
council
duties
could
be
sought.
I
Also,
more
flexibility
has
been
introduced
for
local
authorities.
To
borrow
against
the
new
levy
for
future
levy,
future
revenue
collection,
the
neighborhood
neighborhood
fund-
would
be
retained.
There
isn't
a
lot
more
detail
on
the
strategic
fund
and
so
jen
I
mean
in
in
summary,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
strategic
principles
that
set
out
what
we
don't
have
is
a
lot
of
detail
as
to
how
these
would
work.
I
mean.
Clearly,
we
have
a
lot
of
complex
sites
here.
How
the
system
would
accommodate.
I
You
know
section
106
requirements
on
brownfield
sites
and
how
that
would
work
in
terms
of
individual
legal
legal
agreements
remains
to
be
seen.
So
in
terms
of
response,
I
think
anything
you
know
you
know
to
simplify
the
system
is
generally
welcome.
However,
the
detail
needs
to
be
seen.
Land
value
capture
is
obviously
welcomed
as
well.
There's
a
concern
that
there
may
be
a
loss
of
flexibility
in
responding
to
marginal
sites,
and
they
may
also
be
a
lack
of
the
removal
of
the
link
between
infrastructure
and
the
individual
site.
I
In
terms
of
whether
the
levy
should
be
set
at
a
national
level
or
a
local
level,
clearly,
you
know,
I
think,
the
the
response
there
is
collectively.
Yes,
it
should
be
set
at
a
local
level,
because
that
allows
us
to
be
able
to
respond
to
our
different,
affordable
housing
targets
and
needs
one
size
doesn't
fit.
All,
I
think,
is
the
general
overall
response
should
the
the
the
should
should
the
system
be
allowed
to
collect
more
value
or
less
value
or
the
same
value
from
developer
contributions.
I
think
you
know
again.
I
The
response
is
yes,
you
know
we
would
like
more
value
to
be
taken,
but
obviously
that
needs
to
be
in
the
context
of
strategic
viability
and
our
growth
plans
in
terms
of
borrowing
against
the
levy.
We
had
a
bit
of
a
mixed
response
on
that
local
authorities
already
have
powers
to
do
that.
Our
finance
colleagues
are
a
little
bit
more
risk-averse
about
that
any
any.
Any
borrowing
needs
to
be
managed
with
the
risk
that
that
poses
to
the
local
authority
so
yeah,
that's.
That
is
a
quick
summary.
H
Very,
very
briefly,
in
terms
of
at
this
particular
point,
paddy's
councils
town
councils
get
15
of
the
community
infrastructure
levy.
I
I've
read
the
white
boat.
I
can't
see
any
proposals
in
there
about
what
happens
there.
So
is
there
a
safe
assumption?
This
is
to
officers
really
that
it
will
remain
the
same
folks.
I
Yeah
yeah
there's
I
mean
there
is
no
detail,
I
mean
in
terms
of
neighborhood
fund.
That's
the
only
detail
that
we
have,
that
that
would
remain
the
same
anything
else.
It's
not
set
out
yet,
and
we
would
expect
that
to
be
a
technical
consultation
as
part
of
this
paper
in
particular,
because
there's
a
lot
of
nitty
gritty
logistical
issues
that
need
to
be
ironed
know
so,
yeah.
A
J
Just
just
just
chair
just
to
say
that,
subsequent
to
the
the
paper
being
prepared
and
released,
we
had
responses
from
our
minerals
team
who
really
just
wanted
to
to
flag
the
point
that
given
there's
there's
a
lot
of
promotion
of
house
building
within
this
white
paper.
There's
a
need,
then,
for
a
national
statement
on
minerals
and
mineral
products
to
accompany
this
and
a
sustainable
means
of
quarrying
and
moving
those
minerals
around
the
country.
J
So
so
so
sorry,
council,
so
there'll
be
a
need,
then,
to
reflect
that
point
about
minerals
and
the
other
matters
section,
which
is
so
it
will
continue
from
para
one.
Six,
six
so
there'll
be
a
proposal
to
add
a
short
section,
other
metals,
minerals,
to
note
the
need
for
and
request
for
consideration
of
a
national
approach
to
to
mineral
extraction.
K
K
At
the
same
time,
it
isn't
just
approximating
those
principles,
it's
about
actually
making
genuine
progress
against
those
issues.
At
the
same
time
and
the
question
of
climate
change
in
the
climate
change
emergency
is
driving
an
imperative
to
do
things
more
quickly
in
a
more
step
change
way,
so
those
issues
have
to
work
together
in
a
positive
sense
as
part
of
the
planning
process,
as
well
as
related
legislation
as
well.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
No
thank
you
david.
I
completely
agree.
So
there
are
a
couple
more
paragraphs
as,
as
david
said,
sweeps
up
the
the
the
last
few
issues:
delivery,
change,
climate
change,
environmental
benefits,
historic
environment,
don't
see
any
members
wanting
to
comment
on
those
any
further.
We
have
covered
those
in
some
detail.
Martin,
could
you
remind
me
what
our
sort
of
constitutional
responsibilities
are
with
respect
to
this
response
to
government.
J
J
Alongside
those
points
about
minerals
that
have
just
been
made
and
the
points
that
david's
just
made
as
well
and
as
you'll
recall
from
my
introduction,
just
a
point
as
well
about
the
the
the
the
hopes
that
this
will
also
be
accompanied
by
further
detail
on
planning
for
gypsies
and
travelers,
which
the
council's
done
quite
positively
in
in
recent
years.
The
white
paper
is
currently
silent
on
that
aspect
and
and
for
that
part
of
the
community.
So
those
are
the
parts
points
I've
got
and
subject
to
those.
G
D
D
This
afternoon
and
in
the
interest
of
making
constructive
additions
to
the
response
under
question,
16,
which
asks
about
priorities
for
sustainability,
talks
about
more
trees,
energy
efficiency,
less
reliance
on
cars,
etc.
I
was
just
wondering
whether
we
might
want
to
give
some
consideration
to
adding
in
a
comment
about
the
desirability
of
20-minute
neighbourhoods.
D
It's
been
a
concept.
That's
been
embraced
in
maine
around
the
world.
Melbourne
paris
cities
as
well,
which
basically
is
a
concept
of
all
of
your
kind
of
daily
needs
being
able
to
be
met
within
20
minutes
of
your
home,
and
that
includes
by
public
transport,
so
king
cycling,
public
transport
and
having
access
basically
to
you,
know,
education,
health
and
every
day
kind
of
food
shopping
kind
of
needs
within
20
minutes
of
your
home.
D
A
A
A
Yeah
totally
agree,
let's
put
it
in
there
mine.
Can
you
come
up
with
a
suitable
comment
on
that
on
that?
I'm
mindful
we
have
another
another
item
to
do
so.
We
have
to
sort
of
approve
this
and
it
will
be
amended
as
martin
as
indicated
are
we
are
we
content
to
do
this
elected
members
seem
to
be
supportive
of
the
the
document.
I
know
one
or
two
members
are
not.
A
However,
broadly
speaking,
everyone
else,
perhaps
the
conservative
members
are
happy
with
the
document.
I
want
to
go
forward
good
on
that
case.
Let's
do
that,
I'm
not
seeing
any
indications
of
descent
from
that
point,
so
excellent.
Okay,
so
thank
you
for
that.
That
was
very
detailed
right.
So
let
me
whiz
on
with
my
wii
script
and
item
seven.
So
this
is
the
government
consultation
on
changes
to
the
planning
system.
Now
this
has
come
out.
A
J
J
The
second
within
para,
3.3
of
the
report
is
around
affordable
homes
and
the
government's
intention
to
standardize
what
it
calls
first
homes
as
a
means
for
affordable
housing
delivery
and
the
council
they're
really
making
the
point
that
within
leeds
there
are
key
affordability
issues
which
the
the
government's
proposal
for
first
homes
won't
really
address.
They
simply
aren't
affordable
enough,
and
the
government's
locally
evidenced,
locally
driven
approach
to
affordable
housing
has
resulted
in
a
need
for
sixty
percent
of
all
affordable
houses.
J
But
the
government
have
suggested
that
there
is
more
detail
to
be
to
be
to
be
provided
on.
The
the
first
homes
second
and
relating
to
that
is,
is
a
proposal
from
the
government
to
help
small
and
medium
enterprise
house
builders,
as
they
deal
with
sort
of
post,
covid
and
the
recession,
and
their
approach
is
to
support
raising
the
site
size
threshold
at
which
affordable
housing
will
be
sought
from
10
to
40
or
50
units.
J
It
is
worth
noting
that
there
is
good
news
within
that,
though,
and
para
3.5.2
does
note
that,
following
the
the
submission
of
of
the
response,
a
the
housing
secretary,
robert
genwick,
confirmed
that
new
houses
delivered
through
permitted
development
rights
will
now
have
to
meet
space
standards,
and
members
will
remember
that
space
standards
formed
part
of
the
core
strategy.
Selective
review
they're
set
nationally
by
government
and
local
authorities
can
adopt
them
locally.
J
Previously
they
weren't
applied
to
and
permitted
development,
but
with
this
being
a
an
intended
sort
of
increasing
source
of
housing
supply
within
local
authorities,
it
is
good
that
government
is
recognizing
that
there's
a
need
for
them
to
deliver
the
same
space
standards
as
other
homes.
So
the
consultation
response
is
set
out
there
for
information
for
members
in
the
appendix
great.
F
J
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
councillor
carter,
the
the
reason
this
paper
is
being
brought
today
is
is
for
clarity
to
distinguish
between
two
different
consultations
that
that
were
going
on.
It
was
considered
that
a
lot
of
what
is
in
this
technical
consultation
was
already
fronted
up
within
the
planning
white
paper
and
that
this,
as
a
more
detailed
technical
consultation,
shouldn't
necessarily
form
part
of
the
members
working
group
where
there
were
quite
considerable
range
of
strategic
matters
for
that
group
to
focus
on
in
terms
of
the
the
planning
white
paper.
A
F
F
F
J
But
certainly
given
that
the
attention
was
focused
on
the
planning
white
paper
and
the
range
of
issues
within
that
white
paper,
it
was
considered
in
consultation
with
the
the
chief
planning
officer
that
that
this
wouldn't
normally
be
a
consultation
that
would
necessarily
warrant
a
discussion
at
a
cross-member
working
group,
but
because
of
the
conflation
potential
for
conflation
between
the
two
consultation
responses.
It's
brought
for
information
and
clarity
at
this
stage.
K
Just
to
help
clarify
I
mean
in
terms
of
responding
to
councillor
carter's
concern,
I
don't
think,
as
a
council
we're
being
compromised
by
this
response
going
back
in
advance
of
the
comments
on
the
planning
white
paper.
The
planning
white
paper,
as
members
will
be
aware,
is
a
substantive
piece
of
work
here
in
terms
of
setting
a
new
planning
framework
for
the
country
as
a
whole.
These
related
consultation
documents
are
following
on
from
a
stream
of
material
coming
out
of
clg.
At
present,
we've
had
a
flurry
of
activity
from
clg.
K
K
In
addition,
in
terms
of
supplementing
the
points
already
made
chair
in
the
item
on
the
planning
white
paper
or
or
at
the
end
of
that
document,
in
relation
to
two
other
matters
and
to
some
extent
it's
it's
in
terms
of
the
flow
of
consultation,
it's
a
bit
preemptive,
I
have
to
say
from
a
technical
perspective,
having
consultation
on
points
of
detail
before
the
principle
of
what
planning
is
about
has
been
settled
in
the
planning
white
paper.
So
to
some
extent
it's
a
bit
sort
of
cut
before
the
horse
in
terms
of
planning,
legislation
and
change.
K
A
Is
it
is
and
it
it
it
speaks
somewhat
to
the
dysfunction
we
see
in
in
number
10
and
across
across
whitehall
at
the
moment,
with
regarding
to
proper
planning
and
good
get
my
teeth
in
here
public
policy
in
general.
Okay,
I
mean
there
is
a
flood
of
these
consultations
coming
out.
I
would
really
want
to
draw
a
colleague's
attention
to
the
the
actual
points
that
we've
raised.
A
Officers
have
raised
in
in
three
point:
two,
four,
three,
four
and
three
five
nice
is
there
anything
members
want
to
wish
to
add.
I
mean
the
government
proposals,
with
the
exception
of
the
space
standards
for
developments
under
permit
development
are
wholly
unacceptable
to
one
would
hope.
The
vast
majority
of
to
councils
that
to
council
is
in
lead.
I
mean
it's
the
definition
of
affordable,
it's
just
not
affordable,
and
I
think
that
comment.
A
So
that's
a
concern
and
again
members
will
be
really
aware
of
the
housing
who
had
the
housing
shortage,
affordable,
housing
shortage
in
the
city
and
we're
confronted
with
proposals
here
where
definitive
efficient
of
affordable
is
not
affordable
for
people
who
need
affordable
housing
in
leeds,
and
it
looks
like
we
could
lose
an
estimated
a
further
600
units
by
these
changes.
That's
absolutely
hugely.
Concerning
for
a
city
with
such
a
housing
crisis,
we
need
to
be
gaining
a
further
600
units
a
year
been
not
losing
600
units,
so
I
think
it's
important.
A
We
capture
all
those
those
points
and
under
3.4
I've
just
got
scribbled
on
my
notes,
unacceptable,
exclamation
mark.
Let
me
tell
what
that
was
yeah
yeah,
I'm
sorry!
I
just
liked
that
yesterday
the
size
threshold,
so
I
think
that
is
it
is
unfortunate
and
it's
a
shame
because
it's
coupled
with
a
boost,
a
desire
to
boost
smaller
medium
builders,
which
I
think
is,
is
a
very
good
thing,
particularly
as
those
builders
tend
to
be
more
focused
on
some
of
the
issues
I'm
interested
in
terms
of
low
carbon
and
sustainable
housing.
A
G
G
G
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
it's
the
second
line
on
the
report.
Yeah,
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
what
what
we're
adding
when
we
sent
it.
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
note
it
which,
which
is
what
we're
asked
to
do,
but
when
something's
been
sent,
you
know,
aside
from
the
fact,
it's
always
lovely
to
talk
for
the
sake
of
it,
but
it's
been
sent.
A
A
Nope
excellent.
Well,
I
don't
really
think
this
has
been
the
council
of
wall
street
show,
but
there
you
go.
I
think
we're
done.
Aren't
we
martin
mr
feeney,
looking
at
officers,
we
are
brilliant.
Okay,
in
that
case,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
your
contributions
and
thanks
to
officers
for
their
contributions
and
thank
to
7.2
billion
potential
viewers
on
the
world
wide
web.
So
thanks
to
that
folks,
I
see
you
at
the
next
development
plan
meeting
have
a
safe
journey
home
three
feet
to
your
kitchens,
see
you
laters!