►
From YouTube: Leeds City Council - City Plans Panel - 23 March 2023
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
all
and
welcome
to
the
planning
meeting
we
did
have
a
bit
of
a
glitch
with
papers.
I
didn't
actually
get
mine
until
Tuesday,
and
maybe
some
people
around
the
table
were
the
same.
So
I
hope
it
hasn't
been
too
much
of
an
inconvenience
for
you,
but
we
just
had
to
find
time
and
we
always
have
to
find
time
to
do
it
so
good
afternoon.
Everyone
and
welcome
to
the
meeting
of
the
city
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councilor.
A
A
Will
it's
in
the
Uber
I
will
invite
members
of
the
panel
to
ask
questions
of
speakers
to
clarify
matters
of
that,
and
these
questions
should
be
limited
to
relevant
planning
issues
we
have
straight
for
that
and
from
in
the
past,
I
will
then
invite
officers
to
clarify
any
matters
raised
and
to
point
out
any
considerations
raised
in
the
discussion
but
which
are
not
material
to
determine
in
the
application.
Could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
mute
your
microphone
once
you
have
done
so
I'll,
just
I'll
start
with
you.
C
Good
afternoon,
everyone
Andrew
Perkins
City
Center
planning
officer.
J
M
Good
afternoon
councilor
David
Blackburn
representing
family
in
Worley
world.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
before
I
invite
Andy
to
come
in
which
I
will
do
in
a
minute.
Can
I
tell
you
that
I've
got
to
leave
the
chair
at
four
o'clock
I'm
flying
to
my
home,
City
Dublin
for
a
family
occasion
and
I
have
invited
councilor
groom
to
step
in
at
the
appropriate
time.
Are
you
all
all?
Okay
with
that?
There's?
No,
no
objection!
No
Object!
So
if
you
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
say
that
Colin,
but
you
know
as
well
as
I,
do
these
take
these
things.
A
P
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
moving
on
to
the
agenda
under
item
number
one.
We
have
no
repairs
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
item
number
two.
We
have
no
exempt
information
on
the
agenda
today.
Item
three:
there
are
no
late
items.
Moving
on
to
item
number
four:
do
any
members
have
any
interest
to
declare
nope?
Moving
on
to
gender
item
number
five:
we've
got
apologies
from
councilor
Finnegan.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
Is
there
any
matters
arising
or
can
we
move
on
move
on
I
might
get
out
before.
After
all,
who
knows
optimistic
always
be
optimistic
moving
on
then
to
where
to
item
number
seven
and
can
I
invite
Andrew
to
come
in
and
introduce
this
to
us
Andrew,
please.
C
So
the
proposal
is
for
a
major
commercial
development
to
the
south
of
Whitehall
Road
and
relates
to
the
further
regeneration
of
a
key
Brownfield
site
within
the
city
center
boundary,
which
has
remained
undeveloped
for
a
number
of
years.
The
proposal
would
also
provide
the
opportunity
to
bring
further
investment
into
this
side
of
the
city.
C
C
So
out
of
the
far
buildings,
two
are
coming
forward
in
a
detailed
form,
and
these
are
buildings
two
and
five
which
where's
my
that
and
that
and
then
buildings
for
and
nine
are
coming
forward
in
outline
stage
only
with
the
scale
and
access
there's,
also
landscape
and
improvements
to
Whitehall,
Road
Riverside
way
and
along
the
Riverside.
C
So
the
site
is
located
to
the
south
of
Whitehall
Road,
and
these
slides
just
give
a
little
more
context
in
terms
of
the
evolving
area
of
Whitehall
Road
and
the
Regeneration,
which
has
already
taken
place
to
this
part
of
the
city.
Wellington
Place
is
located
to
the
north
with
the
river
air
to
the
South.
The
current
use
of
the
site
is
as
a
surface
car
park,
of
which
the
temporary
permission
is
now
expired.
C
S
S
C
And
the
other
two
buildings
are
in
outline
form
which
will
and
relating
to
the
scale
and
access.
Only
at
this
stage-
and
these
are
an
apart
hotel,
which.
N
C
All
right
here
next
to
Premier
Inn,
which
is
either
an
apart
hotel
or
office,
and
there's
plot
nine
here,
which
is
an
office
block,
go
to
the
next
slide.
So
this
slide
is
just
to
give
members
an
idea
of
the
mass
another
development
in
relation
to
neighboring
sites.
The
Proposal
would
range
from
8
to
14
stories
and,
as
can
be
seen,
the
development
also
follows
a
similar
pattern
to
Wellington
Place
in
that
the
building
type
increase
to
the
west
and
step
up
the
further
out
of
the
city
center.
You
go.
C
C
The
next
few
slides
have
provided
more
detailed
analysis
of
the
separation
distances
between
buildings
and
their
surroundings.
A
study
of
other
highs
rise
developments
in
the
city
center
and
has
been
carried
out,
and
these
are
the
images
which
show
there's
a
13
meter,
Gap
here
between
Brewery
Wharf
and
buildings,
one
and
two,
which
are
a
residential
block
and
an
office
development,
and
then
there's
an
18
meter
gap
between
Central
Square,
sorry,
which
is
an
office
block
to
residential.
C
C
So
this
slide
just
shows
the
relationship
of
the
development
to
another
examples
within
the
city
center,
and
these
are
residential.
This
is
a
residential
apartment
block
and
there's
an
18
meter
Gap
here
on
Bowman
Lane
and
then
it
Leeds
dock
there's
a
15
meter
gap
between
residential
Flats.
So
in
terms
of
the
proposal
and
the
gaps
that
are
proposed-
and
we
consider
consider
this
to
be
contextual
and
appropriate
within
the
city
center.
C
So
this
slide
sorry
I
just
skipped
so
part
of
The
Proposal
also
involves
improvements
to
the
landscaping,
and
these
will
be
in
the
form
of
a
long
Whitehall
Road
there'll
be
a
widened,
footway
and
Cycle
Way
along
the
entire
Frontage
planting
beds,
with
the
inclusion
of
Street
trees.
C
There's
also
improved
connections
East-West
linking
the
river
side
to
Whitehall
Road,
and
this
would
consist
of
new
Landscaping
tree
planting
cycle
routes
and
a
minimum
of
three
meter
wide
footpaths.
Rain,
Gardens
and
seating
will
also
be
incorporated
into
the
planting
beds.
C
Improvements
to
the
existing
semicircle
area
to
the
front
of
Whitehall
Waterfront
would
also
be
proposed
as
part
of
this
proposed
this
development,
which
consists
of
a
Riverside
Park,
including
tree
planting
land
areas
and
opportunities
for
play.
C
It's
noted
that
this
area
was
also
covered
in
the
previous
consent
of
the
residential
development,
but
this
has
been
included
to
ensure
that
whichever
application
comes
forward
with
this
space
is
delivered,
a
mechanism
will
be
put
into
the
section
106
to
ensure
that
if
the
residential
element
delivers
this
space,
then
it
revised
Green
Space
contribution
will
be
secured
as
part
of
the
legal
agreement.
C
The
Reverend
Riverside
improvements
consist
of
a
five
meter
shared
route
for
cyclists
and
pedestrians,
along
with
planting
areas
and
a
raised
Terrace
to
build
into
which
will
offer
natural
surveillance
over
this
area.
A
question
on
the
site
today
was
regarding
the
distances.
C
Just
skipped
ahead
regarding
the
distances
of
block
two
to
the
Riverside
and
a
distance
of
10
meters
is
retained
to
the
ground
floor
from
the
Riverside
and
an
eight
meter
distance
to
the
first
floor
on
the
Riverside
Edge.
So
that's
in
this
lasers.
So
there's
a
10
meter
Gap
here
to
the
ground
floor
and
then
eight
meters
to
where
the
Colonnades
are.
If
you
can
just
see.
C
C
This
just
shows
the
typical
floor
plans
of
building
2,
which
will
be
an
office
block,
and
it
will
feature
a
ground
floor,
commercial
unit
which
is
here
facing
over
to
the
Riverside
and
there's
the
access
into
the
office
to
this
side,
and
there
will
also
be
96
cycling
spaces
provided
on
the
ground
floor
to
serve
employees
with
short
stay
and
cycle
spaces
located
within
the
landscape.
Areas,
servicing
and
plant
will
be
located
to
the
northeast
corner
of
the
building,
and
there
will
also
be
a
Terrace
on
the
roof
which
will
serve
the
employees.
C
C
So
the
elevational
arrangement
of
the
multi-story
car
park
would
feature
visual
interest
with
the
articulation
through
the
patterning
of
aluminum
vertical
fins,
brick
plain
foot,
ground
floor
and
curtain
Walling
with
exposed
slab
level
and
ground
floor
glazing.
The
building
would
consist
of
different
Shades
of
Gray
whites
similar
to
those
on
building
two
and
the
applicants
also
brought
samples
of
the
materials.
If
members
wanted
to
view
those
now
or
if
they
wanted
to
wait
till
the
end,
do
you
want
to
do
it
now?
Yeah.
A
Can
I
can
I
color,
please,
and
and
can
you
resume
your
seats.
A
I'm
just
anxious
that
the
objectives
hear
the
same
conversation
that
you're
hearing
you
know
so
and
they're
not
they're,
not
at
the
table.
They
could
acquired
easily
have
gone
to
the
table,
but
they
did.
They
haven't.
C
So
this
slide
just
demonstrates
the
typical
floor
plans
of
the
car
park,
which
will
feature
a
ground
floor,
commercial
unit
which
is
here
facing
towards
Whitehall
Road.
To
add
some
natural
surveillance
towards
Whitehall,
Road
they'll
also
be
the
access
would
be
to
the
South,
and
there
would
also
be
a
cycle
repair
Hub
to
the
ground
floor
in
total,
478
spaces
are
proposed
and
these
would
be
used
for
employees
of
the
development
and
also
members
of
the
public
on
a
short-term
basis.
C
This
is
a
street
view
level
from
Whitehall
Road,
showing
the
ground
floor
commercial
unit,
which
will
enhance
natural
surveillance
towards
Whitehall
Road.
C
So,
as
noted,
building
four
is
coming
forward,
outline
stage
only
which
seeks
access
and
scale-
and
this
slide
just
provides
an
idea
of
the
massing
of
the
building
and
separation
proposed,
which
follows
a
similar
scale
to
the
existing
Premier
Inn,
which
is
here
to
the
side
and
then
building
nine,
which
is
office,
is
again
only
outline
stage
and
seeks
confirmation
of
scale
and
access,
and
this
slide
just
provides
an
idea
of
the
mass
into
the
building
and
separation
proposed,
and
the
height
of
this
building
has
also
been
reduced
during
the
determination
process
from
13
stories
to
11,
and
so
it
matches
with
a
similar
scale
to
white
or
Waterfront.
C
C
The
multi-story
cap
hat
would
feature
a
full
roof
of
solar
panels
and
12
EV
charging
points.
The
sustainability
measures
of
buildings
far
and
nine
will
be
secured
via
conditions,
and
so
in
summary,
officers.
Consider
that
this
development
is
a
positive
addition
which
would
continue
to
Aid
in
the
added
regeneration
of
this
key
Brownfield
site
within
the
city
center,
which
has
remained
undeveloped
for
many
years
and
is
one
of
the
last
in
the
city
center
boundary.
C
The
proposal
has
been
through
a
detailed
design
process
at
pre-application
stage
and
also
follows
similar
principles
to
those
established
as
part
of
the
previous
Master
plans
for
this
site,
which
were
approved
in
2000
and
2013..
The
proposal
would
also
provide
enhancements
along
key
routes
in
and
out
of
the
city
and
would
also
deliver
all
section
106
obligation
and,
as
such,
a
recommendation
of
approval
is
proposed.
Thank
you,
chair
thank.
A
You
Andrew,
we
do
have
an
objector
who
wishes
to
speak
Wendy
police
and
can
I
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
Wendy
and
our
neighbors
for
inviting
us
into
their
flat
today.
I
hope
we
didn't
muddy
up
the
carpets
too
much,
but
it
was
nice
to
meet
you.
It
was
nice
to
meet
all
your
cats.
A
Thank
you
Wendy
before
you
start
speaking,
could
you
introduce
to
people
certainly
near
you
and
then
commence
at
your
own
Leisure?
Please.
T
I
went
afraith
and
we're
all
residents
of
Whitehall
Waterfront.
This
is
Richard
Richard.
R
F
T
T
Any
misgivings
about
any
development,
but
particularly
one
of
this
size
and
impact
needs
to
be
addressed
and
acted
upon,
not
swept
aside
all
the
principles
of
good
planning
and
design,
which
would
enhance
the
city
and
the
lives
of
its
inhabitants
have
been
ignored
in
the
interest
of
maximizing
profit.
Well,
this
plan
panels.
Reports
May,
imply
that
our
objections
have
been
addressed.
They
have
not.
T
The
report
reads
like
a
series
of
jargonized
box
ticking
exercises
whereby
acceptability
is
premised
on
precedent,
context
and
Abstract
criteria,
which
are
flexible
when
required,
residents
lived
experience
and
quality
of
life
are
marginalized
and
dismissed
as
purely
private
interests.
This
lack
of
consideration
for
us
is
staggering.
T
The
massive
and
densely
packed
buildings
like
human
scale
and
perspective
they
would
Dominate
and
engulf
us
increase
problems
with
wind
seriously
infringe
our
privacy
and
radically
reduce
our
daylight
permeability.
Lines
of
sight
and
natural
surveillance
will
be
destroyed,
compromising
safety
and
accessibility.
T
There
will
be
an
increase
in
traffic
on
Whitehall
Road
already
up
by
39
due
to
the
city.
Square
development,
it's
at
least
City
Square-
may
have
a
positive
outcome.
The
stated
aims
are
putting
people
first,
reducing
traffic
and
creating
a
cleaner,
more
livable,
Pleasant
and
crucially
safe
area.
The
same
cannot
be
said
for
these
proposals.
T
Are
we
in
the
city
center
or
not?
Yes,
it
seems
when
it
comes
to
demands
that
we
allow
lower
our
expectations
in
relation
to
basic
needs
like
light
privity
space
and
safety.
No
in
terms
of
the
volunteer
benefits
of
the
world-class
gateway
to
Leeds
the
greatest
electorate
front
residence
is
building
nine.
Yet
another
office
block,
which
was
stung
between
the
front
of
our
building
on
Whitehall
Road,
obliterating
Safety
sight
lines.
Its
proposed
height
has
been
reduced
from
14
stories
to
11.,
supposedly
in
response
to
Residents
concerns
how
thoughtful.
T
T
The
report
claims
that
a
lighting
spot
impact
assessment
has
been
submitted.
We
found
no
evidence,
however.
The
report
argues
that,
although
the
scale
and
position
of
building
nine
would
unavoidably
reduce
residents,
light
and
Outlook,
these
effects
are
acceptable
in
this
instance
seriously,
to
whom
certainly
not
to
the
residents
even
more
tellingly,
the
invasion
of
residence
privacy
has
been
completely
ignored.
T
T
Although
the
proposal
for
site
six
and
seven
was
approved,
it
was
noted
that
there
were
lessons
to
be
learned
from
the
issues
raised.
Now
is
the
time
to
do
just
that,
to
stand
up
for
the
residents
and
reject
the
application
today
before
the
local
elections,
for
the
good
of
leads
and
its
people.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
Wendy.
Please,
don't
remember
where
you
are
I'm
sure
there'll
be
questions
from
members
of
the
panel
I'll
open
up
to
questions
now
to
Wendy
and
our
neighbors.
A
No
hands:
okay,
Wendy!
Thank
you
for
that.
Speech
I'm.
Sure
members
will
give
you
consideration
to
exactly
what
you
said,
but
thank
you
for
that
can
I
call
forward
the
developers
please
Richard
Irving
I
believe
is
here:
Wesley
Dodds,
Craig,
Burroughs
and
Andrew
price.
A
Good
afternoon
and
you
were
invited
to
respond
to
the
objections
again,
the
same
process,
please
Richard
Irving.
If
you
can
all
introduce
yourself
and
then
the
panel
will
know
who's
speaking.
J
Okay,
thanks
everybody
we've
done
introductions.
We
appreciate
a
very
short
amount
of
time
here,
so
we'll
happily
take
questions
from
everybody
afterwards,
but
we
just
like
a
moment
to
speak
and
support
the
application.
Really
we
we're
at
the
end
of
a
hopefully
at
the
end
of
a
two-year
process,
with
this
application
with
a
15
to
20
year
site
history.
So
it's
something
that's
been
given
a
a
great
deal
of
of
consideration
and
collaboration
with
officers
and
discussion
members
at
pre-app
and
the
like
we're
presenting
a
holistic
master
plan.
J
Today,
it's
it's
a
scheme
that
I
can
honestly
say
hand
on
heart
has
been
designed
from
the
ground
up
and
not
from
the
driver
of
the
development
requirements
of
the
plots
on
site.
In
fact,
it's
very
much
the
opposite:
we've
we've
we've
looked
to
provide
new
cycleways
across
the
length
of
Royal
Road,
a
a
very
decently
proportioned
landscape
strip,
with
Street
trees
in
that
then
separates
footways.
J
That
works
towards
giving
us
a
an
effective
Tree,
Line
Boulevard
downright
wild
road,
which
would
be
a
wonderful
place
to
be
we're
also
looking
to
enhance
the
Riverside
in
its
entirety.
J
And
that's
that's
been
a
long-held
desire,
really
is
to
connect
the
bridge
to
train
station
and
improve
that
environment,
and
we
genuinely
believe
that
will
only
be
done
when
buildings
are
built
there
when
there's
natural
surveillance
at
ground
level,
when
there's
activity
when
there's
a
daily
turnover
of
tenants
and
occupants
to
all
all
the
buildings,
and
that
contributes
to
the
residential
scheme
that
you
get
consent
to
last
year,
we've
been
very
keen
to
establish
north
south
links
as
well
and
connect
the
city
in
that
direction.
J
So
there's
there's
a
great
deal
of
thought,
be
given
to
the
connection
from
Whitehall,
Road
and
Beyond
down
to
the
Riverside
and
to
enable
these
these
sort
of
two
two
main
routes
to
connect,
and
then,
of
course,
is
the
park
which
you've
seen
a
little
bit
out
of
sync
in
just
by
nature
of
planning
and
that
we've
presented
it
with
the
glenber
residential
scheme.
But
it
it's
very
much
been
a
driving
from
day
one
for
us
to
to
give
something
back
to
that
area.
J
There's
an
area
there
at
the
foot
of
the
bridge,
which
has
been
quite
poorly
dealt
with
over
over
decades
really
and
that's
something
we
look
to
correct
and
you've
already
had
conversations
on
on
how
that
works
for
everybody,
most
notably
probably
the
attendance
survival
up
front
and
it
sits
outside
the
other
side
of
the
building.
J
I
think
Andrew's,
sort
of
capable
of
mentioned
comment
from
pre-op,
and
we
discussed
that
on
materials
plot
nine,
specifically,
we
we
did
propose
a
taller
building.
The
building
sits
within
the
draft
guidance
for
tall
buildings.
We,
through
collaboration
through
through
conversation,
did
decide
to
reduce
it
and
and
reduced
it
to
a
scale
and
height
of
of
Equitable
size
to
vital
Waterfront.
J
So
now
that
neither
one
dominates
the
other
but
I
think
it's
very
important
to
say:
there's
always
been
the
intention
for
an
office
building
to
be
built
there
and
when
white
or
Waterfront
was
built,
there
was
supposed
to
be
an
office
building
adjacent
to
it.
It's
just
not
being
brought
forward
over
the
years
that
that
separation,
distance
of
19.7
meters
is
is
generous.
J
When
we
take
into
consideration
all
the
developments
in
the
city
that
we're
very
happy
with
that
operate
successfully
and
and
where
people
in
both
residential
and
Office
Buildings
live,
live
happily
day
in
Day
Out
we're
bringing
forward
a
a
site
here
where
all
contributions
are
met
through
section
106
and
through
still
payments,
and
that
is
hugely
significant
and
that
offers
great
benefit
to
the
people
of
Leeds,
hopefully
directly
adjacent
the
site
and
improving
the
environment
around
it.
J
We've
got
the
opportunity
to
to
regenerate
a
Brownfield
site
here,
and
we've
got
very
much
a
front
door
to
Lead
City
Center
when
viewed
from
the
from
the
train
track,
and
that's
that
to
us
is
very
important.
Something
we've
worked
quite
hard
to
to
make
the
best
of
we'll
answer.
J
Some
questions
I
think
when
we've
got
a
bit
more
time
on
on
how
we
detail
and
design
the
buildings
but
safe
to
say
we're
we're
targeting
the
highest
possible
standards
for
these
buildings,
where
we're
in
the
process
of
of
looking
at
Net
Zero
carbon,
we're
looking
to
achieve
very,
very
high
energy
assessment
measures
and
validation-
and
this
is
this-
is
not
only
in
the
design
of
the
buildings
but
the
buildings
in
operation
as
well.
J
So
we're
looking
at
something
with
longevity
in
terms
of
The
Proposal
and
that's
where
we
see
that
we'll
truly
generate
a
successful
side.
A
N
Yeah
can
I
just
ask
a
quick
question:
can
we
get
the
the
ground
plan
up.
N
V
N
N
Can
you
just
give
us
a
clue
about
the
treatment
of
the
the
the
faces
between
unit
5
and
unit
two
where
the
plant
will
be
because
these
tend
to
be
the
bits
that
get
forgotten
about
and
the
bits
that
create
a
tunnel
that
isn't
really
a
pleasant
walking
area
now
you've
got
three
trees
on
there,
but
I.
Don't
think
that's
gonna.
J
Yeah,
of
course
it
might,
it
might
be
best
places
to
flick
between
a
few
images.
Can
we
can
we
go
to
the
ground
floor
plan
of
the
office
Andrew?
Please,
that's!
Okay,
I'll
grab
his
control.
J
J
That
would
be
your
slicing
start
sat
there
and
come
back
what
what
we've
managed
we'll
move
some
plans
in
a
second,
but
what
we've
managed
to
do
with
the
design
of
the
office
is
is
keep
the
core
Central.
We
can
see
this
on
the
plan
and
that
allows
us
to
wrap
accommodation
around
three
sides
all
the
way,
so
so
for
the
two
for
the
two
North
to
South,
Streets
I
think
you
can
see
on
the
image
here.
This
is
the
the
Western
elevation.
J
J
We
need
to
fit
substations
in.
We
need
to
fit
bin
stores
in
we've
done
as
much
as
we
can
to
locate
that
centrally
within
the
plan.
J
J
There
is
a
function
to
that
street
in
that
it
has
to
provide
fire
tender
access
to
the
Residential
Building,
as
well
as
the
two
sides
of
these
buildings
and
in
terms
of
Frontage
of
natural
surveillance.
It's
undoubtedly
the
the
lesser
of
the
the
four
elevations
there's
no
two
ways
about
it.
If
we
go
to
the
ground
floor
plan,
what
we
were
Keen
to
do
to
try
and
combat
that
'll
do.
Thank
you
so
the
plan
on
the
left-hand
side.
J
You
can
see
the
light
blue
area
on
the
right,
that's
the
entrance
to
the
office
building.
So
we
look
to
try
and
activate
that
as
much
as
possible,
so
everybody
entering
and
exit
in
the
office
building
will
come
through
that
North
East
End
and
that
that
picks
up
the
end
of
that
street
relatively
well
on.
On
the
left
hand,
side
we
need
to
have
the
service
spaces,
but
the
the
slightly
darker
blue
area
that
you
can
see
in
the
core
the
cross
shape.
That's
all
glazed
at
ground,
floor
level
as
well,
so
that's
active.
J
So
as
people
move
through
the
building,
there's
some
engagement
there
from
there
on
in
yes,
there's
an
area
facade
where
there's
a
bin
store
and
there's
there's
there
are
substation
requirements.
They
have
to
be
at
ground
level.
They
can't
be
accessed
any
other
way.
So
there's
a
small
percentage
of
facade.
That's
that's
not
activated,
but
if
you
look
at
that
I
don't
know
what
can
we
comfortably
say?
65
70
is,
we
could
probably
work
out
a
bit
more.
The
cycle
stores
are
located
on
the
left-hand
side.
J
So
again,
what
we're
looking
to
try
and
do
is
encourage
movement
through
that
point.
So
as
people
come
and
leave
the
building
at
whatever
time
they
do
so,
then
then
we're
trying
to
draw
people
through
as
well.
So
as
much
as
we
can
do,
we
think
we
have
done,
but
it's
it's
a
very
it's
a
relatively
small
footprint
for
an
office
given
how
much
we've
tried
to
give
to
the
public
domain
outside
of
it.
So
it's
very
much
sits
in
the
balance.
G
I
can
see
the
efforts
you've
made
towards
Landscaping
among
some
of
the
buildings,
but
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
that
looking
at
building
nine
building
nine,
there
would
be
any
space
for
this
around
the
base.
Did
you
tell
me
what
your
plans
might
be
for
Building
nine
I
know
it's
not
this
developed
as
the
others.
V
Yeah
I
think
because
of
the
constraints
around
that
particular
plot,
obviously
is
accessing
into
what's
a
waterfront
behind
and
got
white
or
Road
and
the
access
to
the
main
route
down
to
the
Riverside
as
well.
But
we
consider
it
as
an
overall
master
plan
and
I
think
it's
not
it's
not
necessarily
that
one
building
uses
one
particular
open
space
and
another
uses
another.
Actually.
What
we're
providing
is
an
overall
provision
for
the
development
and
actually
The
Wider
area.
V
So
while
there
is
a
sort
of
the
the
building
does
taper
back
to
open
up
at
that
corner
to
create
more
space
on
that
corner
and
while
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
somewhere,
you
go
and
sit
and
have
a
picnic
or
or
even
stop
for
a
while.
Actually,
the
Riverside
Park
will
provide
a
much
better
space
for
all
the
residents
who
are
living
here.
Existing
and
and
new.
G
Right,
I'm
not
sure
how
much
this
this
Accords
to
the
guidelines,
but
that's
perhaps
the
question
for
officers
rather
than
yourselves.
S
J
The
the
rear
of
plot
nine
sits
within
the
outline
section
of
the
master
plan,
so
there's
more
detail
to
come
on
how
we
treat
that
that
strip
between
the
app
the
entrance
ramp
down
to
the
basement
right,
a
waterfront
and
the
back
of
the
building
itself.
So
at
the
moment
that's
an
outline
design
and
not
a
fully
detailed
landscape
design.
J
Well,
what
differs
at
the
front
is:
there's
an
overlap
with
the
Glenbrook
application
for
the
site
entrance,
because
we
were
quite
Keen
to
make
sure
that
that
site
entrance
was
functional
for
the
first
lot
to
come
forward
and
you'll
see
a
chamfer
on
plot
nine.
That's
because
there's
a
large
drainage
easement
under
the
ground,
there's
a
there's,
an
exceptionally
Big
Sewer
that
runs
across
the
corner
of
that
building
and
that's
very
difficult
to
put
any
tree
plant
in
him.
It's
it's!
Well,
it's
not
it's
not
possible!
J
J
At
the
front
of
the
plot
line,
which
we've
offered
as
part
of
the
highways
Improvement,
and
that
again
puts
put
some
pressure
on
the
ability
to
put
landscape
on
so
that
the
intention
of
day
one
was
to
Tree
Line
the
entirety
of
Whitehall
Road,
where
We've
Ended
up
is
the
Compromise
of
being
able
to
tree
line
as
much
as
we
possibly
can
and
then
areas
where
we
can't
we're
looking
to
make
that
work
as
hard
as
it
can.
So,
that's
where
the
bus
stop
goes
because
we
camped
with
those
overseer.
W
Yes,
yes,
well,
I
still.
G
Thinks
it
maybe
they
couldn't
get
trees
there,
but
how
about
other
sorts
of
landscaping.
J
Yeah
I
think
I
think
that's
something
we'd
be
more
than
happy
to
look
at
with
Matthew
says
well,
because
plotline's
outline
we
need
to
design
the
building.
We
need
to
understand
how
that
connects
at
ground
floor
and
how
that
works,
and
then
the
landscape
can
very
much
be
part
of
that.
So
that's
something!
We've
been
more
than.
W
Happy
today,
it
is
hard
to
see
how
there'd
be
enough
space.
I
must
say
same
with
number
five.
G
As
well
looking
at
the
widths
of
the
road,
do
you
think
that
this
is
going
to
be
adequate?
The
access
road
will
be
reduced
to
the
existing
Bloods.
The
existing
Apartments
absolutely.
J
And
this
this
is
the
this
is
the
balance
of
of
the
public
domain
again
in
question,
so
the
road's
wider.
At
the
moment.
It's
three
lanes
wide.
There's
the
one
in
two
out
for
memory
correctly,
we're
very
keen
that
this
is
traffickable
on
foot,
that
it's
a
it's
a
warm
welcoming
environment,
that
people
use
it
on
the
cycle,
so
access
to
site
and
it
forms
part
of
that
north-south
connection
down
to
the
bridge
and
into
the
wide
Department
City.
J
That's
the
intention
in
widening
the
payments
and
increase
in
the
Landscaping
is
that
those
users
get
the
benefit
of
as
much
landscape
as
possible,
but
we
don't
undermine
the
function.
We
everybody
needs
deliveries
to
yeah
to
come.
We
need,
we
need
the
bin
wagons
to
work,
but
we
need
the
Tesco
truck
to
turn
up
and
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
it's
it's
a
balance
of
both
of
those
functions.
G
Is
it
just
to
check?
Is
it
your
intention
that
building
six
and
seven
would
be
built
before
building
nine
I?
Imagine
it
was
given
the
stage
of
your
plans,
I'm
thinking,
particularly
if
the
wind
issue.
J
It's
a
very
fair
question:
it's
something
we
were
discussing
yesterday,
actually
because
there
is
a
condition
set
within
the
the
conditions
for
us
to
respond
to
in
that
regard.
So
we,
when
we
tested
the
site
for
winds
and
it's
been
tested
extensively,
the
the
summary
was
with
every
building
you
add
the
wind
conditions
improve,
so
every
new
building
offers
some
protection
on
the
ground
level
environment.
J
What
we
committed
to
do
was
try
and
predict
which
buildings
would
come
first
and
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
As
we
sit
now
plot
six
and
seven
will
be
the
first
to
site
or
as
close
to
the
first
design
as
possible.
We
know
no
difference
to
that
and
that's
the
intention.
J
We
modeled
that,
in
the
context
of
plots
two
and
five,
which
is
the
plots
that
we're
bringing
forward
in
detail
today-
and
there
is
also
a
condition
that,
if
there's
any
sequence
or
eventuality
that
we
haven't
predicted
in
the
five
scenarios
that
we
tested,
we
test
that
again
and
prove
that
it's
suitable.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Garth
white
Peter,
please
Council
Carlo,.
F
Thanks
chair
a
few
questions,
if
that's
all
right,
just
to
clarify
my
understanding,
some
of
the
bits
around
the
parking
and
then
I
may
have
one
that
comes
off
it
and
I'll
come
back
to
offices
and
on
the
policy
side
in
a
moment,
because
some
of
it
may
have
been
obviously
led
by
that.
So
as
far
as
I
get
from
a
multi-story
car
park,
there's
199
long
stage
spaces.
It
would
you
mind
clarifying
what
constitutes
a
long
stay
in
that
and
and
who
you
consider.
F
Therefore,
then
the
279
shorts
day
what's
short
stay
and
and
who
would
you
say
they
were
most
for
and
then
you've
got
96
long
stay
cycle
parking
places?
Could
you
just
clarify
what
long
stay
is
in
that
context
and
and
who
therefore,
as
well?
If
that's
okay,.
J
Absolutely
yeah
so
long
stay
provision
is
the
provision
that's
allocated
within
Leed
City,
Council
policy
for
occupants
of
the
site,
so
parking
spaces
for
the
office,
building
parking
spaces
for
the
power
Hotel
and
that
generates
a
number
of
199
long
stay
spaces.
So
if
you,
if
you're
an
occupant
of
one
of
those
buildings,
that's
the
one
to
175
ratio
that
allows
you
to
to
drive
your
car
to
the
site
and
park
there.
So
in
other
schemes
you
may
see
those
in
basements
underneath
the
building
or
in
other
areas.
J
The
short
stay
parking
is
very
much
Guided
by
policy
and
that's
restricted
to
a
maximum
of
five
hours,
with
nobody
entering
until
9
30.
So
the
policy
sits
to
discredit
Long,
stay
commuter
parking
but
allows
people
to
access
the
site,
and
some
of
some
of
the
comments
that
we
saw
when
the
application
would
was
first
sent
out
for
consultation
was
that
people
would
like
to
see
more
parking
on
the
site.
J
So,
whilst
it's
a
Brownfield
car
park
at
the
moment
and
and
the
temperate
consents
run
out,
there
is
very
much
still
a
demand
for
short
stay
parking
and
the
other
opportunities
that
we
see
really
is
with
with
people's
changing
working
hours
and
the
ability
to
to
sort
of
work
from
home.
More
people
spend
less
time
in
the
office.
So
short
stay
parking
has
a
little
more
validity
than
it
may
have
done
so
far.
10
years
ago,
when
we
looked
at
the
last
one
last
time,
long
stay
cycle
parking
fits
the
same
thing.
J
So
in
line
the
transport
SPD,
there's
a
there's
a
set
number
which
we're
bound
to
meet,
which
we've
offered
the
majority
of
that
sits
within
the
office.
So
attendance
of
the
office
can
can
ride
in
and
plant
the
bikes,
but
there
is
then
also
long
and
short
state
parking
allocated
throughout
the
external
areas
of
the
short
stay
in
the
external
areas
for
the
mscp
in
the
car
park
and
the
office
building
Surrey,
and
then
long
stay
for
the
tenants
of
those
buildings
inside
insecure
lockable
areas
as
well.
F
Thanks,
that's
useful,
so
the
parking
makes
sense
and
I
think
that
short
stay
parking
is
an
interesting
one.
Now
I
appreciate
in
terms
of
where
we
are
in
policy,
but
I've
got
a
bit
of
a
concern.
We've
moved
some
way
that
people
may
be
going
into
the
office
for
just
a
couple
of
hours
for
a
meeting
and
so
where
we
were
trying
to
deter
commuter
parking
by
deterring
all-day
parking.
Obviously,
some
commute
to
parking,
maybe
10
till
two.
F
We
would
still,
preferably
if
there
were
commuters
coming
into
the
city
and
prefer
they
do
that
by
sustainable
modes.
So
some
of
that
obviously
then
the
short
stay
parking
will
be
will
be
fully
public
as
far
as
I
understand.
So,
if
you're
nipping
in
to
to
go
to
the
theater
three
hours,
you
could
have
there
and
that'll
be
absolutely
fine
if
that
fits
in
with
the
hours
in
terms
of
the
cycle,
parking
I'm,
just
wondering
why
there's
not
expressly
that
that
public
element
of
that?
F
F
So
somebody
who
is
coming
in
for
a
meeting
and
is
using
their
bike
could
use
it
because
that's
one
of
the
barriers
I
think
we
have
in
the
city
for
people
traveling
in
on
a
bike
and
then
having
somewhere
suitable
within
the
city
to
park
it
up
for
a
number
of
hours,
especially
if
it's
a
more
expensive
bike
and
I
wonder
if
that's
something
you've
considered
and
whether
that's
something
we
could
see.
It
seems
to
me
a
bit
bit
against
what
we're
trying
to
look
for
that.
F
J
J
If
I'm
brutally
honest,
we
did
have
commuter
cycle
parking
facilities
at
the
train
station
I,
don't
know
where
they
are
now,
whether
they
worked
well
or
not,
and
I
know
there
are
schemes
elsewhere
in
the
city,
the
the
basic
policy
requirements
just
dealing
with
the
functions
of
the
application
are
met
in
terms
of
short
stay
short
stay
parking,
so
there
are
publicly
accessible
short
stay.
Sheffield
stands
adjacent
the
entrances
of
both
the
buildings,
so
in
terms
of
meeting
policy,
yes,
but
I
understand
your
point,
I
think
it's
very
valid.
A
Council
Khan,
please
thank.
B
You
chair:
can
we
go
to
slider
where
calling
us
the
question
between
building
two
and
five?
Please.
B
You
showed
the
Landscaping
I'm
gonna,
just
ask
a
briefly
question:
I
mean
I.
Just
saw
all
these
steps
back
all
that
Landscaping,
where
we
show
the
landscape
and
that
slide.
Can
you
bring
that
slide
up?
Please.
B
Yeah
there
I
can
only
see
steps
coming
down
from
I.
Think
it's
back
of
your
office
going
towards
five
as
well.
Is
there
going
to
be
a
ramp
for
I
mean
because
I've
read
the
report?
There's
nothing.
You
know
there
will
be
some
push
chairs,
wheelchairs,
accessibility,
people
have
a
difficulty
getting
up
and
down
the
steps.
V
So
so
it's
looking
it's
looking
North
North
East
down
that
route.
Then
what
you
can
see
the
steps
on
the
right
hand,
side
is
going
up
to
The
Terrace
at
the
front
of
building
two.
Now
the
way
levels
work
is
that
the
site
levels
fall
down
towards
the
Riverside.
So
actually
it's
level
access
around
the
other
half
of
the
building,
so
level
axis
is
met
by
coming
up
to
the
Upper
Terrace
from
the
northern
side
of
the
bit.
B
If
you
want
to
go
back
up,
is
there
anywhere
people
can
access
that
you
go.
B
Yeah
chair
come
back
here.
The
other
is,
if
you
go
back
to
the
slide,
where
it
says
the
landscape,
you
know
not
Landscaping
the
master
plan
for
site
two
and
five.
Please.
B
J
All
right,
so
that
view
might
do
actually
yeah
I
feel
that's
up
to
you.
That
will
help.
So
there's
there's
a
couple
of
things
here.
So
there's
there
there's
the
Riverside
footpath,
which
is
shared
pedestrian
cycle,
where
that's
that's
five
meters
wide
is
then
a
two
three
meter
width
of
steps
and
Landscaping
up
to
that
Upper
Terrace
and
that
that
Terrace
level
is
set
as
a
function
of
meeting
flood
risk
levels.
J
So
it's
the
it's
the
the
most
sensible
level
in
connection
to
the
Riverside
that
we
can
achieve,
but
still
keep
it
safe
in
the
in
the
unlikely
event
of
a
of
a
flood
to
that
to
that
level.
But
actually
offices
is
quite
a
nice
benefit.
In
that
we've
got.
We've
got
an
element
of
public
to
private
separation
between
the
two
levels,
but
not
one,
that's
mutually
exclusive.
So
it's
not
it's
not
something
whereby
people
wouldn't
be
invited
up
the
steps
and
engage
at
the
edge
of
the
building.
J
But
there
is
you
know
an
element
of
privacy.
Should
somebody
go
sit
outside
and
have
a
coffee,
for
example,
and
people
are
riding
past
on
on
the
bikes
within
that,
then
there's
a
space
for
tree
planters
and
we've
coincided
those
to
sit
in
line
with
columns
and
The
Colonnade.
So
it
adds
that
extra
depth
to
that
vial
between
the
building.
So
I
keep
saying
the
word
balance
a
lot
today,
don't
know,
but
it's
very
much
about
that
balance
between
public
private
and
the
hard
edge
of
the
building
The
Colonnade.
J
V
Just
to
say
on
the
tree,
planting
I
think
the
strategy
that
we've
developed
is
those
those
trees
along.
The
building
facade
are
actually
more
of
a
smaller
multi-stem
variety,
which
gives
you
a
sort
of
lower
level
protection.
So
when
you
sat
on
the
Terrace,
you've
got
protection
from
the
Sun
from
the
wind
and
it's
a
lot
more
comfortable
and
then
the
bigger
tree
specimens
are
where
in
in
those
gaps
between
the
buildings,
so
they
become
these
sort
of
markers.
V
B
Finally,
chair
the
electing
members
for
the
award
have
raised
some
issues.
Have
those
issues
been
addressed.
R
E
E
It
doesn't
meet
with
policy
G5
entirely,
though
the
officer
judgment
is
that
the
quality
and
enhanced
connectivity
on
the
green
set
on
the
Green
Space
compensates
for
that
I'm
I'm,
not
sure
I
would
agree,
and
it
stated
that
it's
going
to
be
delivered
in
terms
of
what
you've
described
as
Riverside
improvements.
Can
you
just
take
us
through
what
those
Riverside
improvements
are
and
will
there
be
any
benefits
in
those
Riverside
improvements
for
the
existing
residents
of
Whitehall
Waterfront.
J
Yeah,
happily,
can
we
can?
We
have
a
look
at
and
the
master
plan
I
think
it's
probably
there
so.
J
J
Is
that
better,
the
minimum
width
across
the
proposal
is
is
five
meters,
so
we
nearly
double
the
width
of
the
existing
walkway.
So
if
you,
if
you
walked
along
there
today
and
I'm
sure
you
do
fail
regularly
anyway,
it
doubles
that
width,
so
there's
a
much
greater
width
in
terms
of
Riverside
and
that
allows
an
understanding
the
fact
that
more
people
will
be
using
it
all
been
well
and,
and
it
can
take
more
traffic.
J
The
major
Riverside
Improvement
that
we're
offering
is
the
pocket
park
in
front
of
Whitehall
Waterfront,
which
which
isn't
insignificant.
So
the
semicircle
to
the
left-hand
side,
which
historically,
has
been
left
in
a
very
poor
State.
It's
been
quite
desolate.
J
V
So
can
I
stand
as
well.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
Leeds
really
needs
is
somewhere
to
sit
by
the
river
there's
very
few
places
where
you
can
sit
by
and
see
the
water
in
the
city
center
bear
in
mind
that
the
river
runs
rise
through
the
middle
of
the
city
center.
So
I
think
what
we're
the
main
you
know.
V
So
there's
a
there's,
a
whole
range
of
options
for
people
of
different
times
a
year
and
different
types
of
seating
as
well,
which
might
encourage
different
age
groups
to
use
them
in
slightly
different
ways,
but
I
think
there's
a
real
opportunity
to
create
a
place
by
the
Riverside
which
doesn't
exist
in
too
many
places
across
Leeds.
At
the
moment,.
M
Thanks
chair
I,
also
missile
yeah,
that
piece
of
London
we've
just
been
talking
about.
It
was
also
intersection
106
from
the
previous
application,
so
as
such,
that
should
be
getting
wet
care
of
without
all
right.
If
this
comes
along
first,
that
will
get
done
then,
but
the
fact
is
is
if
you
look
across
the
full
the
two
developments
we're
we're
getting
half
of
that
from
each
really
aren't
we
so
we're
not
actually
getting
the
full
amount
of
green
space,
so
we
should
be
getting
as
far
as
I
can
see.
A
Might
it
might
actually
be
better
for
officers
to
answer
that
question?
We
did
talk
about
on
site
when
we
looked
at
the
semicircle
and
there's
a
commitment
for
bug,
buildings,
the
consented
one
and
the
one
you're
bringing
towards
us,
and
we
didn't
want
to
miss
out
the
the
first
one
built
would
do
it
and
the
other
would
get
off
scot-free,
and
that
was
a
bit
we
didn't
quite
like.
A
U
Yes,
cheers
thanks
Council
bugman
I
think
Mr
Perkins
did
raise
that
in
the
the
presentation
that
there
would
be
a
mechanism
put
in
the
106
agreement.
So
we
hear,
what's
being
said.
A
Any
further
questions
I
have
no
hands
or
no
can
we
thank
the
supporters
and
developers
then
for
their
contribution
and
answering
questions,
and
we
we
don't
need
you
to
sit
there
anymore.
Thank
you
and
we
go
back
to
Andrew.
So
it's
questions
to
officers
or
around
the
table
highways
as
well
might
be
an
issue
I've
seen
Kaylee.
First.
I
Thank
you,
chair
I'm
I'm,
a
bit
confused
about
the
the
wind
safety
aspect
of
this
application.
I
C
So,
in
terms
of
once
the
development's
completely
built
out,
it
will
be
safe,
but
because
the
development's
coming
forward
in
stages
there's
two
conditions
on
the
proposal
which
relate
to
the
detailed
scheme
and
the
outline
scheme
to
ensure
that
they
don't
come
forward
until
the
residential
development
is
built
out.
I
B
So
when
the
windows
impact
assessment
was
done,
it
did
an
assessment
based
on
the
Residential
Building
being
there,
and
it's
shown
that,
with
the
Residential
Building
being
the
the
wind
environments
are
safe
around
the
buildings
without
the
Residential
Building
there.
Although
there's
an
improved,
improved
wind
environment,
there
are
some
areas,
two
areas
I
think
one
is
between
Whitehall
Riverside
and
building
nine
and
the
other
area
is
on
Whitehall
Road
itself,
which
aren't
safe
and
they
can
only
be
made
safe
by
the
windshielding
effects
of
the
residential
building.
So
we've
conditioned
this
development.
B
M
You
have
to
excuse
me,
I
might
be
best
in
here,
the
it
says
about
offside,
work
on
biodiversity
and
that
and
but
it
says
within
the
world,
and
we
speak
as
as
World
members
being
consulted
on
on.
Where
that
that
work
will
take
place.
M
C
So
in
terms
of
the
biodiverse
improvements,
that's
the
parks
and
Countryside
and
so
they're
in
the
middle
of
appointing
someone
who
looks
at
the
biodiversity
improvements
off-site
and
it
would
be
spent
within
the
hunslet,
Riverside,
Ward
and
I.
Imagine
as
part
of
parks
and
Countryside.
They
would
speak
with
the
ward
members
over
those
improvements.
M
Because
I
think
it's
important
that,
because,
when
we're
dealing
with
cities
enter
that,
not
that
many
areas
that
we
can
find
and
I
think
it's
important
I
mean
within
this
there's
a
number
of
things
where
there's
question
marks
and
that's
one
of
them
and
we
need
to
know
them
and
make
decisions.
A
F
Thank
you,
Chad.
It's
coming
back
on
on
the
parking
point,
just
because
so
I
understand
in
terms
of
the
long
stay
that
is,
for
the
development.
F
A
short
stay,
I
understand
the
restrictions,
we've
got
and
I
understand
and
accept
that
that
is
policy.
I.
Do
wonder
whether
the
policy
is
no
longer
enough
in
a
more
flexible
working
environment
to
deter
regular
commuters,
which
I
think
was
the
the
aim
of
that
we
may
still
aim.
F
We
may
still
get
people
coming
into
work
for
fewer
than
five
hour
shifts
in
a
day
and
parking
there
every
single
day,
so
I
I,
just
wonder
whether
we
could
have
a
comment
on
that,
but
I
I
appreciate
it
might
not
be
for
this
development,
Cena's
and
and
I
see,
obviously
that
the
public
cycle
parking
is
all
outside
on.
Sheffield
stands
as
far
as
I
see
for
for
the
general
public
who
may
not
be
using
this
site
at
all.
F
What
is
their
own
policy
around
that
considering?
We
seem
to
be
providing
ample
space
for
somebody
in
a
car
to
leave
their
car,
regardless
of
whether
they're
using
the
site
or
not,
but
secure
and
presumably
staffed,
because
it's
a
multi-story
car
park,
but
we
don't
appear
to
be
then
building
that
same
one
up
in
terms
of
secure
cycle
parking
for
people
who
may
be
not
using
any
aspect
of
of
the
development.
I
appreciate
that
that
might
not
be
written
down
specifically
in
policy.
F
A
Jill,
do
you
want
to
come
in
on
that?
Our
Highway
expect
thank.
D
You
chair
so
yeah,
just
starting
with
the
car
parking
I
think
you
know,
the
planning
policy
is
clear
that
this
is
within
policy
in
relation
to
allowing
short
stay
parking
within
the
city,
center
I
think
clearly
we're
going
through
an
update
and
a
review
and
I
think
it's
it's
the
kind
of
policy
we
do
need
to
review,
because
our
transport
strategy
is
very
much
about
encouraging
people
to
use
other
forms
of
travel
transports
coming
to
the
city
center
and
I.
D
Think
at
the
very
least,
for
these
sorts
of
projects
going
forward,
we
probably
need
an
assessment
as
to
need
to
look
at
you
know
providing
them
rather
than
just
a
policy
that
that
we
have
at
the
moment,
but
in
terms
of
the
policy
position.
I
think
we're
certainly
within
policy,
subject
to
the
management
being
as
as
we've
set
out,
and
as
it's
going
to
be
conditioned
the
cycle
parking
again,
it's
something
we
could
look
in
more
detail
at
going
forward.
D
In
terms
of
when
we
review
the
transport
policies,
the
there
is
visitor
parking
it
is
to
standard.
We
do
tend
to
request
visitor
parking
to
be
in
the
public
realm.
So
that
it's
well
overlooked,
so
it's
not
hidden,
but
it
does
tend
to
be
by
use
of
Sheffield
Stones,
because
that
is
often
the
most
convenient
for
people,
but
you're
right.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean,
therefore,
that
it's
it's
you
know
the
best
quality
in
relation
to
being
covered
and
and
and
staffed.
D
So
again,
if
we
can
have
that
discussion
about
the
possibility
of
moving
some
of
that
visitor
parking
into
the
cycle,
Hub
I'm
sure
that's
something
that
we
can
certainly
have
a
conversation
about.
Yeah.
Is
there
a
third
Point
I've
missed
no
okay.
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
there's
a
few
things
if
I
could
start
with
the
issue
of
the
daylight
impact
assessment.
I
understand
that
that,
on
the
portal
there
isn't
actually
any
evidence
of
this
having
been
done.
This
is
in
terms
of
building
nine
is.
Is
this
correct
because
it
seems
to
be
contradicted
by
what
you're
saying?
Is
it
10
point?
Something
I
can't
remember.
C
Yeah
a
report
has
been
done.
It
was
submitted
quite
late
in
the
day
in
terms
of
the
deadline
for
the
report
and
because
of
the
size
of
the
file,
it's
not
been
able
to
be
uploaded
to
Public
Access
yet,
but
the
findings
of
the
report
are
within
this
document
in
front
of
you.
G
That
seems
to
be
a
bit
of
a
detriment
to
our
actually
considering
all
aspects
of
this
proposal
today,
read
in
my
opinion,
I'm
concerned
about
the
distance
I
understand
between
the
existing
rifle
Waterfront
and
building
nine
I
can
understand
the
objections.
I
also
understand
that
at
17
meters,
it's
not
unknown
within
the
city
center
for
that
sort
of
distance,
and
yet
we've
also
talked
about
expanding
and
increasing
the
distance
between
buildings
in
other
parts
of
this
site,
and
without
seeing
that
assessment,
I
really
don't
know
how
we
can
make
up
our
minds.
G
To
be
quite
honest,
it
does
seem
to
me
that
it
would
I
know
it's
an
oil
spacing,
but
it
would
seem
to
me
that
it
would
well
I
want
to
see
the
assessment
I
don't
want
to
start
getting
and
speculating
as
to
what
it
might
be.
G
However,
now
that
we're
talking
I
will
ask
other
things:
the
I'm
also
going
back
to
guidelines
on
tour
buildings
about
extra
space,
particularly
around
building
nine
for
landscaping.
I,
don't
think
it's
enough
to
say:
well,
we
can't
put
it
here,
but
we'll
put
it
somewhere
else.
Instead,
that
to
me
is
totally
unsatisfactory.
C
The
Landscaping
stage
will
come
forward
at
Reserve
matters,
but
obviously
we
will
achieve
the
land
Landscaping
enhancements,
that
we
can
within
the
site
and
the
restraints
and
the
constraints
were
on
the
site.
G
There's
the
issue
of
the
width
of
the
access
road
being
reduced
by
half
I
mean
I
know
we
want
people
to
bicycle
and
all
this
sort
of
thing
and
that's
fine,
but
is
it
can?
Can
it
accommodate
extra
new
users
when,
at
the
moment,
it's
under
quite
a
lot
of
pressure
and
the
access
road
between
plots?
Four
and
five
give
access
only
to
two
buildings,
so
that
won't
actually
help
matters?
If
I
understand
it
correctly,.
B
Yeah
I
may
have
misunderstood,
but
the
the
gut
between
Whitehall,
Riverside
and
plot
nine
is
going
to
be
19
meters.
This
application
site
deals
with
about
half
that
space
in
terms
of
red
line,
so
nine
to
ten
meters.
The
other
space
is
obviously
out
with
the
red
line
boundary
now.
The
intention
from
our
side
is
not
that
you
have
a
fence
down
the
middle
of
that
Gap.
The
whole
Space
will
be
treated
holistically
now.
B
Clearly,
some
of
that
space
will
be
needed
for
Access
and
servicing,
but
that's
all
it'll
be
needed
for
it's,
not
us
through
route,
and
there
will
be
opportunities
as
part
of
the
reserve
matters
to
ensure
there's
adequate
Landscaping.
It
may
not
be
trees
because
of
underground
conditions,
but
there
can
be
other
forms
of
landscaping
so,
but
that
will
come
before
members
that
Reserve
Master
stage,
I
I,
think
that's
the
best
answer
we
can
give
at
this
stage
in
in
terms
in
terms
of
that
position
between.
W
G
And
this
is
possibly
a
question
that
something
I
addressed
with
the
developers
when
we
were
down
there
or
looking
around
at
the
plans,
but
the
issue
of
noise
in
the
multi-story
car
park
and
whether
this
is
likely
to
be
a
detriment
to
the
immunity
of
residents
on
the
site,
particularly
if
people
are
coming
and
going
in
a
way.
I
mean
I,
totally
understand
the
policy
around
commuter
parking
and
why
we
want
people
to
come
in
by
by
other
methods
of
public
transport.
B
I
think
I
think
it
it's
inevitable
that
in
a
city
center
environment,
it's
a
nicer
environment,
you
have
road
traffic
noise,
you
have
noise
from
the
railway,
which
is
not
too
far
away
on
the
other
side
of
the
river
and
clearly
there'll
be
noise
from
comings
and
goings,
as
this
site
gets
developed
out,
but
I
think
the
immediate
buildings
around
that
multi-story
car
park
are
less
sensitive,
they're,
either
Office,
Buildings
or
Hotel
use.
B
If,
if
you
know,
there's
one
hotel
use
already
and
there's
a
proposal
now
as
part
of
this
development
for
another
hotel
use,
so
they're
not
the
most
sensitive
uses
within
the
city
center
context,
there
are
residential
blocks,
white
or
Riverside,
but
they'll
be
they'll,
be
intervening
buildings
not
not
least
the
residential
building,
which
was
being
given
approval
for
a
previous
panel.
So
I
think
you
know
that
will
safeguard
noise
to
a
certain
extent.
B
We
clearly
can't
control
what
normally,
with
the
new
residential
building
up
we've
approved,
we've
controlled
glazing
and
sound
insulation
Etc.
We
clearly
can't
revisit
Whitehall
Riverside,
that's
not
part
of
this
site
and
it
was
built
many
years
ago.
But
what
you
can
do
is
make
sure
that
you
haven't
got
very
noisy
uses
immediately.
Next
to
that
and
I,
don't
think
I
think
the
intervening
office
blocks
will
act
as
a
as
a
mitigator.
A
Well,
moving
on
Colin,
please.
A
Wellness,
that's
what
you
wish
tell
us
a
calm,
please
yeah.
B
Thank
you
Andrew,
just
on
my
previous
question
regarding
the
comments
from
the
elected
members
and
from
Lee's
Civic
trust
have
those
been
addressed
and
how
many
have
been
addressed
and
how
many
not
been
addressed.
C
So,
in
terms
of
the
comments
from
the
Ward
members,
a
few
are
just
in
terms
of
General
comments
in
regard
to
discrepancies
of
measurement,
so
they've
been
clarified,
scale
plans
have
been
provided
in
terms
of
privacy
in
light
of
white
or
water
from
we've
had
the
date.
C
The
assessment
carried
out
and
the
findings
of
that
are
within
the
report
in
front
of
you,
and
the
majority
of
comments
that
have
been
raised
have
been
have
tried
to
be
an
addressed
in
terms
of
the
reduction
of
plot
nine
and
the
details
of
the
waste
and
services
in
terms
of
comments
from
the
Leeds
Civic
Trust.
B
Just
to
add
to
Andrews
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
Ward
members
aren't
the
least
of
it
trust
have
various
concerns
which
reflect
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
by
the
residents
of
Whitehall
Riverside
I'll
I'll
position
in
the
report
is
different.
B
We
we
note
and
acknowledge
those
concerns,
but
we
feel
that
you
know
the
development
is
acceptable
for
the
reason
it's
given
in
the
report
that
that
any
development
of
a
cleared
Brownfield
site
is
going
to
have
some
impact
on
the
existing
neighbors,
but
that
level
of
impact
is
acceptable
when,
when
you
compare
the
character
of
the
city
center
and
other
developments
and
the
gaps,
the
height
of
buildings
and
the
gaps
between
buildings
and
the
nature
of
those
uses,
so
we
feel
what's
been
proposed
and
being
reported
to
panel
today
is
contextually
acceptable.
B
So
in
that,
in
that,
in
that
way,
no
we
we
haven't
it.
It
addressed
members
concerns
and
Civic
trust
com
concerns
because
they
have
a
different
opinion,
but
it's
for
members
here
to
take
their
own
judgment
and
view
on
that.
So
that's
that's
the
position
in
the
report.
B
Thank
you
Andrew
and
thank
God.
Just
briefly,
this
is
the
first
time
I've
seen
actually
do
we
have
a
son
study
is
yes,
have
we
got
a
report
for
some
I
think
this
is
the
same
point
that
comes
to
gas
weight
raised.
We
received
the
sunlight
and
daylight
assessment
very
late.
In
the
day,
however,
we
Andrew
has
provided
quite
detailed
commentary
on
that
in
his
report.
That
pages
31.
B
through
two
pages
30
35
now.
B
Clearly,
if,
if
members
want
to
see
that
study
in
full,
that's
your
prerogative
but
and
Andrew
does
have
a
copy
of
it
here
or
a
summary,
a
summary
of
it
and
we
can
pass
that
down.
But
because
we
received
it
late,
it
has.
It
hasn't,
been
uploaded
onto
our
website
because
of
the
reasons
that
Andrew
get.
But
there's
a
there's
a
there's,
a
detailed
summary
of
it
in
the
report
to
members.
A
It's
okay,
okay,
Caroline!
Please.
E
Yes,
you
have
dealt
with
the
issue
about
how
you've
addressed
councilors
concerns,
World
Council
group,
but
the
one
that
that
stands
out
to
me
is
the
one
that
says:
Whitehall
Waterfront
will
be
excluded
from
and
not
integrated
into
the
overall
site
plan.
Did
you
have
an
opportunity
to
explore
where
that
comment
was
coming
from
what
it
meant
and
have
you
investigated
its
implications.
C
In
terms
of
that
comment,
The
Proposal
will
provide
natural
surveillance.
Enhanced
public
connections
through
there'll
be
lighting,
so
in
terms
of
merging
into
the
existing
neighborhood,
it's
considered
an
improvement
because
of
the
enhancements
and
people
feel
more
safer,
walking
through
the
site
when
it's
built
out
than
as
it
is
currently
as
a
car
park.
That's
only
used
through
the
daytime.
S
I
I'm,
just
I'm
just
wondering
how
late
in
the
day
the
the
report
was
submitted
that
it's
it's
been
There's
a
summary
available
in
the
pack
and
yet
it's
not
available
for
us
to
view
on
the
portal
I
think
it's
a
bit
strange.
B
So
we
received
it
last
week
before
Wednesday
or
Tuesday
was
a
Tuesday
final
deadline
and
I
understand
it's
a
300
page
report.
There
must
be
a
lot
of
appendices
and
I
I,
don't
know
if
it's
we've
managed
to
get
it
uploaded
just
because
of
the
the
way
we
upload
information
onto
Public
Access,
but
but
the
panel
report
it
was
received
just
before
the
pattern
report
deadline
on
on
the
day,
yeah
on
the
day,
foreign.
I
B
C
So
in
terms
of
I
received
the
report,
I
went
through
it
there's
an
executive
summary
which
you
can
pass
to
you,
which
highlights
them
the
comments
that
are
in
the
report
and
the
findings
of
that
which
breaks
it
down.
So
I'm
happy
to
pass
that
through
to
you.
If
you
wanted
to
review.
A
F
Sorry
I
appreciate
it
coming,
but
it's
a
bit
of
a
difficult
position
where
what
is
one
of
the
tricky
items
on
the
proposal
and
members
of
the
panel
could
look
at
it
now,
but
obviously
it
will
take
us
some
time
too,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
understanding
here
is.
F
Members
of
the
public
haven't
seen
that
documents
I
I,
don't
want
to
curtail
discussion
and
welcome
other
members
thoughts,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
can
make
a
decision
if
members
of
the
public
haven't
seen
the
information
that's
there,
regardless
of
whether
we've
got
a
summary
in
our
reports
as
well.
I
appreciate
that
it
must
have
been
a
difficult
time
for
officers
to
then
receive
that
and
have
to
go
through.
I
would
like
members
and
and
members
of
the
public
to
be
able
to
confirm
that
they
agree
or
disagree
with
the
comments
made.
F
I,
I
probably
will,
if
you
don't
mind
yet
formally
put
in
a
motion,
then
that
we
defer
this
until
members
of
the
public
have
had
a
chance
to
see
that,
and
everyone
else
has
welcome
thoughts
if
members
have
otherwise
but
I,
don't
know
whether
it's
worth
having
the
rest
of
the
discussion.
If,
if
that's
where
we
go,
thank.
A
N
Sorry
to
strike
a
discordant
note
at
this
point,
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
looking
at
a
development
of
two
elements-
one
is
two
detailed
plans
for
the
multi-story
car
park
and
the
office
block
and
I
have
to
say:
I've
made
a
few
notes
about
it.
But
if
you
wanted
me
to
say-
and
you
know
I'm-
not
a
big
fan
of
developments
down
there,
but
I
I'm
quite
relaxed
about
those
developments,
I
think
the
designs
are
more
than
adequate.
N
The
Landscaping,
compared
with
the
the
block
next
door
that
we
agreed
to
two
cycles
ago,
is
extensive
compared
with
what
we
put
it's
not
as
good
as
it
could
be.
I
think
there
are
elements
in
relation
to
biodiversity,
which
we've
touched
on
and
I
worry
when
you
use
the
phrase
or
it'll
be
down
to
parks,
because
actually
I
don't
think
we'll
get
any
biodiversity
net
gain
and
it
yeah
I
think
we
really
need
to
start
quantifying
what
we
want
and
actually
say,
if
we're
giving
it
to
Parks.
N
What
are
you
doing
to
increase
the
biodiversity
within
the
area?
Not?
Are
you
just
going
to
use
it
to
perfectly
for
some
repairs?
So
it
seems
to
me
that
for
the
buildings
that
we've
got,
the
detailed
planning
permission
file
I,
don't
see
any
reason
why
you
couldn't
make
a
decision
in
relation
to
those.
N
The
other
part
of
the
The
Proposal
really
is
a
principal
idea.
Isn't
it
one
is
in
relation
to
the
apart
Hotel
one
is
the
in
relation
to
the
block
nine,
as
we
call
it
the
the
offices
and
keep
going
here.
It
seems
to
me
looking
at
the
apartment
hotel
which
nobody's
mentioned,
but
the
the
the
volumes
for
the
apart
Hotel
seem
to
be
they're
similar
to
the
the
hotel
that's
already
on
site
and
therefore
it
seems
to
me
if
it's
the
same
principle,
we
agreed
it
on
that
one.
N
It's
we
just
agreeing
the
same
thing,
so
the
principle
of
the
development
apart,
Hotel
I'm,
okay,
with
the
volume
of
the
the
apartment
Hotel
I'm
happy
with.
We
then
come
to
UNI
to
to
block
nine
and
I.
Think
there
are
a
number
of
questions
around
block,
nine
or
plot
nine
I
won't
be
calling
it,
and
we've
raised
the
issue
about
what
the
daylight
study
says.
N
N
So
it
seems
to
me,
rather
than
simply
deferring
it
full
stop
bearing
in
mind
that
this
is
really
just
an
outline
on
nine.
We
know
there's
going
to
be
development
there,
so
we've
got
to
accept
that,
but
I
don't
think
it
would.
You
know
that
that
site's
been
a
car
park
for
a
long
time,
I'd
like
to
see
him
on
site
doing
something.
Quite
frankly,
so
my
view
would
be
that
that
we
can
say
yes
to
those
three
elements.
No
to
number
four.
A
Knuckle
and
it's
it's
a
nice
idea,
but
it
is
one
application
and
we
have
to
determine
as
one
application
but
I'm
sure,
I'm
sure
that
your
comments
regarding
the
hotel
and
other
the
albums
you
touched
on
will
be
great
comfort
to
developers.
So
can
I
suggest
that
we
do
defer
that,
and
this
is
your
opportunity
to
say
what
you'd
like
to
come
back
clearly
there's
the
light
survey.
Is
there
and
clearly
there's
Landscaping?
Is
there
any
anything
else
you
want
to
add
to
it?
Do
you
want
to
come
in
councilman?
Well,.
E
It
oh
if
we
are
going
to
defer
it
I'm
I'm,
quite
happy
to
support
that
for
the
reasons
that
you've
said.
But
I
don't
feel
apart
from
Colin's
contribution
that
we've
really
heard
what
people
think
about
it,
and
it
would
be
helpful
to
the
developers
to
know
what
we're
thinking
about
it.
Would
it
not
so
I
mean
I,
do
Echo
a
lot
of
what
you've
said.
Colin
I
think
the
design
is
good
and
I.
E
I
also
feel
that
the
materials
are
appropriate
and
a
significant
Improvement
on
what
we
felt
about
the
materials
last
time
around
and
I
think
it's
got
potential
but
I
do
not
think
it's
green
enough.
So
I
wanted
an
opportunity
to
say
that
and
in
terms
of
the
biodiversity
and
the
carbon
footprint,
I
agree
with
points
that
have
been
made,
that
they
really
do
need
to
be
measurable
and
we
need
to
know
what
they
are,
but
I
don't
feel
in
the
current
circumstances.
A
I
have
to
say
from
sitting
in
a
chair,
I
watch
you
all
very
closely
and
I
think
it's
a
general
agreement
on
that.
We
could
go
on
to
comments
and
add
extra
to
it,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
there's
quite
a
few
elements
of
this
stack
could
be
supported
as
Colin
highlighted,
but
we
can't
do
that
because
it's
one
application,
so
it
seems
to
me
that
deferral
is
probably
best
I
mean
the
objectives
certainly
should
have
the
right
to
look
at
the
late
one
and
I.
A
Guess
it's
not
any
planet's
fault
and
come
in
after
the
deadline.
The
deadline
was
last
Wednesday
for
sending
papers
out
when
very
successful
with
that
I
know,
but
still
that's
the
deadline.
I'd
rather
have
somebody
from
the
floor
from
diff
moved
to
Pharaoh
Peter.
You
did
say
you
do
that
you
can.
Yes,
of
course
you
can.
Yes.
G
I,
don't
want
to
repeat,
what's
already
been
said,
much
of
which
I
totally
agree
with
just
that.
I
would
think
that,
given
what
the
developers
have
heard
today
about
particularly
concerns
around
the
whole
aspect
of
block
nine,
that
they
might
look
at
it
again
in
a
slightly
more
radical
fashion
than
perhaps,
we've
had
the
opportunity
to
outline
here
in
our
discussions,
which
I
was
going
to
do
in
comments,
but
that
is
not
now
appropriate.
G
V
K
Thank
you.
Just
question
read
for
officers
am
I
right
in
understanding
that
the
view
of
officers
is
that
fundamentally,
this
application
is
policy
compliance
and
that
if
we
keep
delaying
it
too
far,
there
is
a
risk
of
the
applicants
taking
an
action
for
non-determination
and
and
if
that's
the
case
can
I
urge
that
we
make
sure
it's
because
there's
clearly
something
into
I
understand
why
we
need
to
defer
it
on
this
occasion,
there's
some
documentation,
I'm
saying
something
fabulous.
It's
definitely
worth
listening
to.
B
X
B
You're,
correct
counselor
Cohen,
the
the
applicant
yes
you're,
correct,
counselor
Cohen,
the
applicant
could
Appeal
on
the
grounds
of
non-determination,
that's
part
of
the
checks
and
balances
of
the
system,
so
we're
not
in
a
position
where
we
can
just
in
indefinitely
keep
deferring
but
I
I.
Think
both
the
applicant
and
officers
will
take
the
comments
that
be
made
here
clearly
very
seriously
and
and
consider
them
in
detail
before
we
do
come
back.
B
If
that's
your
decision
today
to
do
first,
just
following
comes
with
comment:
can
we
hear
from
the
legal
or
from
Jonathan
on
this
final
say
before
we
make
our
decision?
Please.
S
Q
I
am
you?
Girls
have
to
agree
that
counselor
Cohen
is
right
in
terms
of
non-determination,
but
it's
a
report
about
like
material
planning
consideration
so.
R
Yeah
so
again,
just
to
repeat
councilor
going
is
right
that
there
was
a
certainly
a
potential
risk
of
an
appeal
against
non-determination,
but
one
would
hope
that
the
applicant
has
heard
what
members
have
said
today
and
that
there
are
some
real
concerns
regarding
plot
nine
and
some
uncertainties
to
how
members
feel
about
that.
But
they
certainly
have
had
some
comfort
with
regard
to
the
other
plots.
R
If
we
can
resolve
those
issues,
get
the
assessment
uploaded
as
required.
Bob
would
help
could
bring
that
to
the
next
meeting.
This
item
back
to
the
next
meeting,
with
those
issues
probably
considered.
F
Based
on
that
that
that's
my
concern
really
I
appreciate
that
the
developers
may
be
in
a
difficult
position,
but
members
of
the
public,
who
will
be
impacted,
haven't
seen
the
information
of
how
it
may
impact
them
and
and
I
always
trust
our
planning
offices.
Obviously,
but
members
of
the
public
don't
always
feel
that
they
can
do
that
with
the
faith
that
that
we
know
we
can
and
I
would
like
them
to
have
that
Faith
as
well.
In
the
in
the
decision
we
make
today.
B
I
I
think
in
in
the
interests
of
reasonableness
and
and
the
fact
that
I
I
wasn't
aware
that
there'd
been
this
issue,
that
the
documents
hadn't
been
uploaded.
We
as
officers
were
aware,
I
think
it
it
it's
sensible
to
differ
and
to
ensure
that
no
one's
interest
is
Prejudice
and
due
processes
seem
to
be
followed.
So
so
I
think
I
think
it's
a
perfectly
reasonable
suggestion.
N
Well,
it's
important
because
the
question
is:
what
exactly
are
we
voting
on?
Why
are
we
asking
the
developer
to
do
so?
If
we,
if
just
let
me
finish,
are
we
are?
We
is
the
proposal
that
we
defer
for
a
cycle
so
that
the
the
this
particular
document
can
be
uploaded
onto
the
but
there's
no
other
reason
for
deferring
unless
somebody's
slipping
one
in
that
we're
not
sure
about
yeah.
E
G
Which
is
obviously
up
to
the
developers
whether
they
chose
to
do
that
or
not
yeah,
but
that's
so
you
know
I,
don't
think
we're
saying
that
they
have
to
do
that,
but
that
it
would
some
of
us
feel
strongly
that
it
would
be
a
good
thing.
S
A
I
think
we
made
a
decision
to
the
fair
I'm
going
to
ask
dalgia
to
sum
up,
and
if
you,
if
you
want
to
add
any
other
things
to
come
back
for
well,
we
have
three
things
there
haven't
we,
the
oblique
nature
of
the
building,
landscaping
and
daylight
survey
and
members,
and
certainly
local
residents,
should
have
the
opportunity
to
see
that
we
might
have
had
a
very
different
speech
from
Wendy
today.
Had
she
been
in
possession
as
that
that
was
just.
Could
you
would
you
like
some
of.
B
That
thank
you
chair,
so
we
there
have
been
comments
made
in
particular
on
the
the
biodiversity
net
gain
and
how
that's
dealt
with.
There's
been
comments
on
the
the
the
the
the
the
amount
of
greens
greenness
or
of
the
development,
if
I
can
put
it
in
that
way
and
clearly,
there's
been
some
concerns
about
plot,
nine
and
and
the
potential
impact
of
those
proposals.
But
those
are
those
are
comments.
I,
don't
think,
we've
had
an
opportunity
to
properly
discuss
those,
but
we
we
will
take
those
on
board.
B
The
reason
for
deferral
is
that
there's
a
document
that
that's
come
to
light
that
there's
a
document
sunlight
and
daylight
assessment,
which
was
presented
very
late
in
the
day.
It
appears
it
hasn't
been
uploaded
onto
our
Public
Access
so
for
reasons
of
soundness
and
to
ensure
all
parties
have
had
a
chance
to
look
at
that.
That's
a
reason
for
deferral.
Thank
you.
A
L
P
T
B
A
We
could
have
had
some
more
clarity
from
the
developers,
one
in
and
wanted
to
come
forward
and
speak
again
and
given
that
we
have
objectives
here,
we
it
wouldn't
have
been
fair,
so
I
said
no,
but
he
may.
He
may
well
have
answered
some
of
the
questions
we
need
to,
but
it's
not
part
of
our
procedure
and
we
have
to
be
straight
down
the
line.
So
we
have
agreed
to
the
fairer
and
it's
unanimous
from
Paul's
abstention.
A
I
will
know
that
against
you
Paul
it's
majority
counts,
so
we
will
bring
it
back
as
soon
as
possible
and
you
may
well
be
right.
We
might
not
manage
it
in
one
sec,
one
cycle
and
that
will
depend
on
the
conversations
between
our
planners
and
the
developers,
but
I
mean
I'm
sure
they
can
go
away
now
with
quite
a
bit
of
comfort,
because
it
was
summed
up
very
nicely
I
think
by
councilor
Cohen.
A
E
Right
colleagues,
if
you'd
like
to
take
your
seats,
we'll
continue
with
the
next
item,
which
is
item
eight.
E
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
for
your
prompt
response
to
that.
Thank
you
very
much
folks.
Councilor
McKenna
will
remain
in
the
meeting
until
he
he
needs
to
leave
in
order
to
make
his
trip
and
we'll
start
on
item
eight,
which
is
over
to
Robin.
X
Thank
you
so
I'll
take
you
through
my
presentation.
This
is
a
bird's
eye
view
of
the
site.
It's
3.1
hectares
in
size,
it's
framed
by
Sweet
Street
West
to
the
North
Marshall
Street
to
the
East
and
the
railway
curves
around
from
the
Northwest
to
the
southeast
corner.
X
There's
the
commercial
in
Pub
that
you
can
see
at
the
corner
there
and
there's
also
the
listed
former
holbeck
Library
building
at
the
southern
corner.
X
X
The
land
was
acquired
by
Burberry
about
10
years
ago
for
a
regeneration
scheme
that
came
to
nothing
and
the
site
is
allocated
for
development
in
the
site.
Allocations
plan,
it's
part
of
site
mx35,
but
it's
remained
cleared
vacant
and
undeveloped.
It's
flagged
as
a
key
regeneration
site
in
the
holbeck
South,
Bank
SPD
and
then
the
whole
back
neighborhood
plan
foreign.
X
X
X
X
So
The
Proposal
is
for
1351
dwellings
and
20
000
square
meters
of
office
place,
thus
supporting
communal
and
commercial
space.
The
scheme
has
been
shaped
through
pre-application
proposals
submitted
in
2021.
X
You
can
see
how
the
heights
of
buildings
Step
Up,
From,
The
Pub
at
the
corner
over
to
the
West,
and
you
can
see
the
large
open
space
behind
the
behind
the
pub
and
the
Pavilion
building.
X
You
can
see
that
the
tallest
building
is
at
the
Western
tip
of
the
site
next
to
the
railway,
and
you
can
also
see
the
separation
of
the
full
application
and
the
outline
application
with
the
detailed
color
depiction
of
these
buildings
being
the
full
application
and
the
outline
being
in
white
buildings.
The
white
buildings.
X
So
the
on
this
side,
you
can
see
the
full
application
elements
facing
Sweet
Street
West
and
facing
Marshall
Street.
So
it
includes
the
resi1
building
to
the
north,
the
pub
The
Pavilion
and
then
the
office
one
building
facing
Marshall
Street,
and
you
can
also
see
the
dashed
line
through
the
site
that
separates
the
the
full
application
from
the
outline
application.
X
X
X
And
this
is
a
photo
montage.
Looking
from
the
northeast
corner,
the
commercial
in
Pub
will
be
refurbished
with
modest
sight
and
rear
extensions
and
looking
down
Marshall
Street,
you
see
the
unique
Pavilion,
so
I
pressed
the
wrong
button
there.
You
can
see
the
unique
Pavilion
building
and.
X
That
will
house
a
cafe
a
gym,
a
workspace
for
local
residents
and
and
a
bar.
X
It
comprises
14,
000
square
meters
of
floor
space
and
Rises
up
to
eight
stories
with
the
basement
car
park
and
in
terms
of
the
relationship
with
the
listed
building
the
listed
Library
building.
Here
you
can
see
how
the
building
drops
down
to
respect
the
listed
building
and
also
you
can
see,
there's
a
substantial
gap
between
the
buildings.
That's
approximately
30
meters.
X
Moving
on
to
landscape
on
this
slide,
you
can
see
there's
a
substantial
landscape
buffer
alongside
the
railway
and
there's
also
the
tree-lined
boulevard
along
Sweet
Street
West.
X
And
all
the
buildings
are
set
back
at
least
10
meters
from
the
center
line
of
the
road
and
that's
in
order
to
be
able
to
accommodate
the
mass
transit
line
that
might
eventually
go
along
Sweet,
Street,
West
So.
The
plan
shows
213
trees
planted,
which
will
replace
the
71
trees
that
will
be
lost
at
the
three
to
one
ratio.
That's
required
by
policy.
X
This
plan
shows
the
wind
mitigation
features
are
a
bit
difficult
to
see,
but
the
the
screens
are
shown
by
the
red
lines:
sorry
that
there's
one
there
they
show
up
better
on
the
computer
screen.
They
don't
they're,
not
quite
so
apparent
on
here,
there's
also
some
pergolas,
which
one's
on
the
side
of
the
Pavilion
there
and
one's
on
the
side
of
the
ready.
X
The
Western
sides
of
the
Rezi
one
building
there
so
they've
been
positioned
to
ensure
that
they
don't
present
obstacles
to
pedestrians
or
Hazard
hazards
to
highway
safety,
and
they
don't
detract
from
residential
Outlook.
Some
some
of
the
mitigation
features
will
be
removed
once
the
outline
buildings
are
completed
because
they'll
no
longer
be
necessary.
X
X
This
this
shows
the
Public
Square
to
the
rear
of
the
Hub
and
the
Pavilion
building,
it's
a
substantial
space
north
south
it
measures
45
meters
and
East
West
35
meters.
X
It's
also
worth
noting
that
the
scheme
proposes
a
lot
of
green
roofs,
which
would
only
be
available
for
use
for
the
building
occupiers
and,
if
I,
just
flip
back
three
slides,
you
can
see
those
green
roofs
there.
X
The
oh
and
there
there's
E2
so
they'd,
be
accessed
by
the
residents.
X
So,
in
terms
of
highways,
all
of
the
highway
matters
have
been
resolved.
These
two
slides
it's
this
one
and
that
one
they
show
the
interim
access
arrangements
for
the
access
road
to
serve
phase
one,
the
full
application
part
temporary.
X
Turning
heads
are
needed
in
order
that
that
part
of
the
development
served
before
the
full
length
of
the
access
road
is
provided
later
on.
X
So
that's
a
rundown
of
the
scheme
in
terms
of
the
planning
issues,
I
mean
the
the
scheme
has
been
taken
to
development
plan
panel
twice
last
year
in
January
in
May,
sorry
City
plans
panel,
and
we
believe
the
scheme
is
compliant
with
planning
policy,
so
can
be
recommended
for
approval.
X
X
X
So
this
slide
has
it's
got
recent
photos
of
Bath
Road.
It
illustrates
the
the
poor
state
of
the
road
and
pavement
and
the
pavement
on
the
left
actually
disappears
halfway
up
the
road,
so
it's
not
at
all
inviting
for
pedestrian
use
and
desperately
needs
enhancements.
X
So
it's
just
going
to
say:
there's
also
there's
896
000
pounds
towards
comprehensive
Remodeling
and
enhancement
and
repaving
of
Bath
Road,
and
this
would
be
considered
a
major
Improvement
to
the
area
consistent
with
the
aspirations
of
policy
and
the
whole
back.
Spd
there's
also
368
000
pounds
as
a
contribution
towards
the
city
center
transport
package
and
we've
also
agreed
70
000
for
a
crossing
over
Nineveh
Road,
and
this
is
important
to
improve
pedestrian
connectivity
to
the
scythe.
X
So
option
one
is
that
if
all
other
planning
benefits
are
delivered,
affordable
housing
would
be
three
three
and
a
half
percent
or
44
units,
and
if
option
two
were
delivered,
this
involves
the
reduction
of
the
residential
travel
plan
fund
to
a
hundred
thousand
and
the
green
space
and
biodiversity
net
gain
reduced
to
zero,
but
then
affordable
housing
would
be
5.5
percent
or
70
units
Plus.
For
this
option,
the
applicant
has
offered
a
further
one
percent,
giving
a
possible
affordable
housing,
total
of
6.5
percent
or
82
units
foreign.
X
So
my
overall
conclusion
on
this
is
that
the
scheme
offers
lots
of
benefits,
there'll
be
significant.
Investment
in
lead,
City,
Center,
regeneration
of
a
Brownfield
site,
that's
Lane,
dormant
for
many
years,
considerable
off-site
improvements,
considerable
public
space,
public,
open
space
on
the
site,
improved
permeability
and
connectivity,
a
substantial
green
buffer
along
the
railway
and
sweet
Street
West
remodeled.
As
a
tree-lined
Boulevard,
the
scheme's
been
robustly
appraised
for
viability
with
the
conclusion
accepted
by
the
district
value
other.
X
E
Thank
you
very
much
indeed
Robin
and
as
you've
heard,
there
is
a
viability
issue
regarding
this
application
and
we
do
have
Brian
McGuire
with
us,
who
is
now
a
familiar
figure,
welcome
Brian,
who
is
available
for
questions,
and
we
also
have
Tom
Cook.
Who
is
the
agent
and
members
of
the
developers
team
here,
but
as
we
don't
have
a
speaking
objector,
they
can't
actually
formally
speak,
but
they
can
be
made
available
for
questions.
E
If,
if
members
would
like
to
do
that,
so
we'll
kick
off
and
if
you
just
say
who
your
question
is
too
I've
seen
councilor
Carlin.
F
Thanks
Joe,
it's
a
question
to
the
district
value.
If
I
understand
it
correctly,
you
did
a
a
first
report
based
on
typical
or
assumed
values
that
am
I
right
in
saying
would
have
shown
that
that
all
of
the
contributions
were
viable,
and
then
there
was
a
second
report
based
after
he
received
information
from
the
applicant
on
some
of
their
real
costs
to
find
that
it
was
unviable.
Are
you
able
to
help
us
with
any
information
that
tries
to
bridge
that
Gap
foreign.
Y
Yes,
I'll
probably
just
start
with
a
bit
of
background
and
then
answer
your
specific
question:
the
the
viability
that
we
first
viability
report
from
the
applicant
that
we
first
considered
was
dated
August
22,
and
we
confirmed
that
our
instructions
in
in
September
and
we
started
to
look
at
what
the
applicant
had
submitted
and
and
consider
their
conclusions.
Y
Y
So
then,
myself
and
your
independently
appointed
cost
consultant
started
to
look
at
the
appraisal
that
had
been
submitted
and
I.
Think
it's
fair
to
say
that
the
principal
issue
was
building
costs,
construction
costs
and
it
was
quite
interesting
that
they'd
put
forward
an
estimate
as
to
what
they
thought
some
of
the
abnormal
costs
would
be,
but
it
turned
out
when
we
went
to
inspect
the
site.
Y
There
were
only
you
know:
they'd
only
just
started
to
do
the
site
investigations,
so
that
was
one
of
the
first
things
we
challenged
them
on
in
saying,
look
your
abnormal
costs
probably
aren't
right,
because
you
haven't
completed
your
intrusive
investigations
which
which
they
held
their
hands
up
to
it.
Wasn't
it
wasn't
anything
on
down
or
trying
to
pull
a
fast
one,
so
we
allowed
them
then
to
to
get
on
with
doing
their
investigations
and
quantifying
the
extent
of
the
extent
of
the
abnormal
cost
and
how
that
affected
viability.
Y
In
the
end
it
it
came
in
a
little
bit
lower
than
their
initial
estimate,
which
was
checked
and-
and
you
know,
critiqued
by
your
independent
cost
Consultants
in
terms
of
sort
of
other
headline
issues
in
in
terms
of
costs.
Y
Y
When
you're
looking
at
development
in
round
terms,
they
were
suggesting
that
the
construction
costs
for
the
entire
scheme
was
295
million,
500
000
and
when
you,
your
independent
cost,
consultant
considered
everything
in
the
round
they
concluded
that
it
was
significantly
lower
and
came
in
at
281
million,
so
a
difference
of
14
million
pounds.
So
you
can
see
how
we're
starting
to
build
a
picture
of
their
opinion
and
our
opinion
and
and
reviewing
their
their
viability
appraisal.
Y
Another
significant
area
of
disagreement
was
this
often
mysterious,
subject
of
The
Benchmark
land
value.
This
is
the
the
value
at
which
the
value
that
you
put
on
the
site
as
part
of
the
viability
assessment
you
have
to
arrive
at
an
opinion
of
the
sites
value
in
order
to
arrive
at
a
viability
conclusion
and
when
it
came
to
the
Benchmark
land
value.
The
applicant
believed
that
a
fair
Benchmark
land
value
was
13
million,
seven
hundred
thousand,
and
that
and
and
we
concluded
that
it
was
a
it-
was
significantly
lower
at
eight
million
seven
hundred
thousand.
Y
So
again,
you
can
see
how
the
applicant's
opinion
of
a
significantly
significantly
unviable
scheme
is
now
starting
to
move
towards,
let's
say
Break,
Even
or
even
viable
in
the
course
of
the
discussions.
You're
absolutely
right.
My
initial,
my
initial
opinion
was
that
it
was
viable,
but,
as
I
alluded
to,
there
were
a
lot.
There
was
a
lot
in
the
initial
report.
That
was
what
was
missing.
Y
You
know
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
down
to
the
nitty-gritty
of
what
was
being
proposed
in
terms
of
revenues
and
costs,
and
as
discussions
progressed
from
September
through
to
December
and
January,
we
managed
to
resolve
what
what
the
actual
position
was
after
the
completed
all
of
their
let's
call
it
due
diligence
and
and
site
investigations.
Y
We
also
in
terms
of
some
other
costs.
We
we
disagreed
on
professional
fees,
contingency
where
we
thought
they
were
taking
a
slightly
pessimistic
view
in
terms
of
costs,
which
then
led
us
to
also
discussed
with
officers
planning
officers,
how
the
scheme
was
going
to
be
appraised
because
I
think
you're,
obviously
considering
considering
a
detailed
consent
at
the
moment,
which
is
effectively
phase
one.
But
then
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
development
to
come
forward
in
the
later
phases.
Y
So
we
looked
at
the
scheme
in
two
ways:
we
initially
just
we
just
appraised
the
the
first
phase,
the
detailed
consent
to
see
what
that
could
deliver
in
terms
of
affordable
and
then
later
we've
well.
At
the
same
time,
pardon
me.
We
also
appraised
the
entire
scheme
over
10
years,
which
resulted
in
a
more
viable
position
at
5.5
percent
and
as
as
has
been
quite
right,
they
said
by
Robin.
Y
The
the
applicant
has
then
offered
an
extra
one
percent,
but
in
terms
of
I
suppose
the
bottom
line
in
terms
of
the
difference
between
ourselves
and
the
applicant
is
that
we've
had
to
acknowledge,
as
we
have
done
in
the
last
few
planning
meetings
with
build
costs.
Etc.
That
costs
are
increasing
the
building
industry,
which
is
a
pressure
on
on
viability.
F
Yeah
it
does
thanks
I
guess
what
I'm
struggling
with
in
some
way
is.
Some
of
the
costs
are
always
assumptions
from
from
your
part
or
or
average
costs
or
similar.
Yes,
some
of
them
then
have
been
clarified
better
when
you've
had
information
from
the
applicant,
but
does
that
mean
there's
always
leeway
one
way
or
the
other
in
several
we're
dealing
with
a
mix
of
some
assumptions
or
estimated
costs,
some
real
costs
and
yeah,
and
the
difference
in
this
two
reports
is
obviously
quite
quite
substantial.
Yes,
in
terms
of
this.
Y
So
to
answer
that
question
as
a
viability
consultant
you're,
never
quite
sure
how
much
this
is
going
to
cost,
but
to
be
to
be
fair,
neither
does
the
developer.
This
is
a
scheme
that's
going
to
to
take
place
over
10
years
and
it's
very
difficult
to
to
foresee
any
kind
of
bump
in
the
road
where
what
they
anticipated
actually
comes
to
fruition
in
terms
of
abnormals
risk
Etc.
So,
but
to
reassure
the
the
committee
we
did,
we
did
say
to
the
applicant
look.
Y
This
doesn't
seem
to
be
based
on
in
an
intrusive
site
investigation,
which
was
which
was
proven
to
be
the
case,
because
when
we
did
a
static
visit,
the
first
thing
I
did
was
take
a
picture
of
the
vans
on
site
that
were
doing
the
intrusive
investigation
and
straight
away.
We
said
to
the
apple
and
look.
Y
These
figures
can't
be
right
because
you're
only
on
site
now
doing
them,
but
I
do
think
we
have
got
to
a
position
where
we've
got
the
most
certainty
in
in
the
in
the
circumstances,
in
terms
of
how
much
it's
going
to
cost,
but
equally
that
may
not
be
to
to
the
pound.
Shillings
and
balance
what
it
will
cost,
but
the
these
are
the
constraints
that
you
know
we
work
under
as
a
viability
consultant
as
a
planning
committee,
but
also
again,
to
be
fair.
F
F
Is
anyone
able
to
clarify
with
me
so
I
can
understand
better
what
kind
of
thing
600
000
pounds
worth
of
biodiversity
improvements
across
Leeds
may
may
fund,
and
what
260
000
pounds
worth
of
Green
Space
improvements
may
may
in
the
end
deliver
just
so
that
I
can
be
aware
of
the
balance
between
the
two
options.
We've
got.
B
B
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
we
we
haven't
got
a
off-site
scheme
which
we
can
say
we
can
put
this
money
too,
and
that's
one
of
the
considerations
in
terms
of
our
recommendation
to
you.
So
these
figures
some
are
being
generated
by
a
formula.
You
know
our
policy
accepts
that
on
multi-story,
dense,
City,
Center
type
sites,
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
meet
our
formula
for
providing
on-site
provision
in
all
cases.
Just
because
often
the
formula
throws
up
a
figure
which
is
larger
than
the
site
area.
B
So
so
there's
an
Acceptance
in
policy
that
you
can
make
up
the
difference.
You
you
provide
what's
reasonable
in
terms
of
practicality,
Place,
making
you
know,
gaps
between
buildings
and
so
on
and
usability
on
site.
But
then
the
difference
is
provided
as
an
off-site
contribution
and
I.
Think
it's
fair
to
say,
although
we've
got
a
number
of
strategies,
so
one
of
the
strategies
in
the
city
center
is
our
spaces
strategy
which
has
led
to
improvements
around
the
city
center.
Some
of
those
have
been
funded
schemes
and
have
been
delivered.
B
Others
still
are
being
funded,
so
the
examples
I
can
give
is
around
the
corn
exchange
Out
close
to
this
building
outside
the
kohlberg.
So
there
are
those
that
kind
of
proposals
as
part
of
the
extensive
Highway
Works
we've
done.
You
know,
for
example,
Meadow
Lane
and
the
new
bridge
over
the
river
air
from
Sovereign
square.
There's
some
public
realm
that's
been
provided
there,
so
it'd
be
those
type
of
projects
for
what
we
what
we
haven't.
What
we
don't
have
is
a
ready-made
scheme
which
is
directly
related
to
the
site.
B
So
hopefully
that
addressed
the
question
in
terms
of
Green
Space,
the
kind
of
monies
it
would
have
been
to
obviously
there'd
be
an
opportunity
to
if
there
was
a
existing
space
and
we're
developing
the
city
park.
Here
you
could
look
at
funding
that
existing
spaces
within
the
relevant
Ward
boundary
and
those
discussions
are
normally
had
with
Ward
members
and
and
other
colleagues
in
the
council
in
terms
of
biodiversity
Net
game
that
that's
even
more
embryonic.
Well.
B
Well,
that's
more
that
that
is
more
embryonic
I
mean
the
Green
Space
strategy
or
policy
has
been
around
for
a
while,
and
we
do
have
some
public
realm
strategies,
but
for
the
biodiversity
net
gain
I
think
this
is
on
the
back
of
the
the
incoming
legislation,
where
we're
going
to
be
providing
a
a
figure
on
how
much
biodiversity
net
gain
they
should
be,
and
then
you
can
as
a
developer,
pay
for
off-site
biodiversity,
Netgear
and
again,
I
think
we're
we're
looking
at
and
trying
to
develop
a
strategy
for
that
and
it
could
be.
B
You
know
that
you're
contributing
towards
the
the
the
northern
you
know
Forest,
you
know,
and
ideas
of
that
type
and
we're
doing
extensive
works,
for
example,
as
part
of
the
aviation
scheme
and
providing
some
natural
green
areas
for
natural
flood
waters
storage.
You
know
so
that,
but
again
there
isn't
a
specific
scheme,
and
this
is
a
Formula
that's
generating
this.
So
what
we're
saying
is
members.
You
have
two
options.
E
Do
you
have
a
further
comment,
Peter
on
that
yeah
Council,
councilor
Cohen.
K
H
Any
consultation-
that's
happened
on.
It
was
before
my
time
being
elected,
so
I
can't
say:
I've
been
consulted
on
it
in
its
current
plan
with
option
one
and
two
I've
asked
my
colleagues
as
well
and
they've
also
not
been
consulted
on
the
current
plans.
Just
the
previous
applications
they've
been
in
they've
been
mentioned
in
here.
It
does
say
somewhere
in
this
report
about
board
members
comments
or
public
comments
from
a
while
ago.
I
think
it's
2022
again
before
my
time
zone.
It's
current
status,
I
can't
say
that
we've
been
consulted.
E
K
Yeah
I
really
think,
given
that
it's
a
binary
proposition
I
would
want
a
real
steer
from
the
Ward
members
because
they
they
may
well
know
what
their
preferences
are
and
something
like
this
I
would
really
want
to
be
guided
by
them
quite
happy
with
personally,
with
pretty
much
all
of
this
from
that
aspect.
So
my
suggestion
is
we
defer
to
that
bits
being
consulted
on
with
the
ward
members,
and
then
we
can
come
back
and
make
a
decision.
E
It
is
the
plan's
panel
responsibility
ultimately,
of
course,
to
make
this
this
decision,
but
I
do
see
what
he's
saying
that
we
we
don't
want
to
be
entirely
influenced,
but
we
do
need
to
understand
what
their
views
are
in
order
to
make
that
decision.
I
think
delti
wants
to
come
in
at
this
point.
B
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
I,
understand
what
councilor
Cohen
has
has
raised,
but
can
I
make
a
suggestion
for
panel
to
consider
which
is
if,
if
we
consider
the
items
to
there
and
panel
is
supportive
of
the
proposals,
then
you
defer
that
element
in
terms
of
which
option.
If
you,
if
you
know,
if
you're
happy
to
forward
members
to
influence
the
option,
then
we
can,
we
can
discuss
that
with
board
members
and
do
it
in
that
way.
E
Everybody
who
wants
to
object
to
that
no
I
think
that
sounds
eminently
sensible.
The
one
thing
I
would
say
is
that
if
the
option
that
is
eventually
decided
upon
is
the
one
where
a
sum
of
money
is
invested
in
a
project
or
a
range
of
projects
elsewhere,
I
do
think
it's
very
important.
That
panel
understands
eventually
where
that
money
has
gone
and
what
it's
been
spent
on.
Sometimes
we
lose
sight
of
it
at
that
point.
So
I
would
request
that
yeah,
so
councilor
yeah.
I
Thanks
chair
I'm
I'm,
just
wondering
why,
of
the
two
options,
there's
no
option
for
social
rented,
why
it's
all
the
20,
affordable.
B
That
we
don't
have
a,
we
can't
set
a
preference.
So
what
we've
done
in
our
wisdom
is
adopted,
a
policy
which
allows
flexibility
for
build
to
rent
development.
This
is
a
bill
to
rent.
These
will
be
built
to
rent
developments
and
they'll
be
controlled
as
such,
and
they
allow
the
developer
flexibility
how
they
offer
us
affordable
housing.
They
could,
in
this
case,
just
offer
us
off-site
contributions.
They
could
provide
less
units
at
the
social
rent
that
you
indicated
councilor
Brooks,
but
they
also
have
the
option.
It's
their
option,
not
ours.
I
Is
there
any
aspect
of
like
housing
need
that's
taken
into
account
with
that,
like
we've
got
26
000
people
on
social
housing,
waiting
less
than
six
thousand
of
those
wrong
band
day,
so
I'm
just
wondering
whether
that's
been
taken
into
account
by
any
applicants
or
not.
B
In
terms
of
the
influencing
who
ends
up
living
in
the
flats,
we
do
as
part
of
our
policy
as
for
the
local
lettings
agreement
to
be
made
with
our
Housing
Services,
so
that
people
are
chosen
off
the
housing
waiting
list
and
my
understanding,
although
we
don't
get
involved
in
the
details
of
that,
that's
an
agreement
between
Housing
Services
colleagues
and
the
developer.
My
understanding
is
that
for
those
residents
or
potential
residents
on
Universal
Credit,
then
their
Universe
their
housing.
B
What
used
to
be
housing
benefit
payments
but
they're
Universal
Credit
payments
does
cover
the
cost
of
their
rent.
But
that's
a
discussion.
That's
the
way
we
deal
with
that
to
prioritize
local
people
in
need.
So
it's
not
just
a
case
of
80
of
Market
rent
to
anybody
that
wants
it.
It's
80
of
Market
rent
but
offered
to
people
on
our
housing
waiting
list
to
a
local
lettings
agreement.
But,
as
a
chair
has
indicated,
the
the
applicant
is
here
and
that
that
it
may
be
a
better
question
put
to
them
because
it's
their
decision.
E
E
AA
So
if
I'm
right,
the
the
query
was
around
how
we
nominate
the
affordable
units,
if
that's
correct,.
I
In
terms
of
affordable
housing
types,
you've
got,
you've
got
your
50
shared
ownership,
you've
got
a
social
rents
which
are
genuinely
affordable
and
then
you've
got
the
80
off
the
20
off
which
make
it
80
of
market
rate.
So
I'm
just
wondering
why
you've
chosen
that
particular
product
instead
of
the
social,
rented.
AA
I
Thank
you,
I,
just
I,
just
think
in
terms
of
like
your.
I
What
would
you
call
it?
Corporate
responsibility
to
the
people
of
Leeds
I
would
certainly
have
liked
to
see
you
be
a
bit
more
radical
in
in
new
approach
to
it,
but
that's
planning,
I
suppose.
E
E
That's
amazing
I
knew
you
wouldn't
let
us
down
Colleen
well,.
N
I
think
there
are
two
alerts:
well,
there
are
more
than
two
elements
of
this
I
think
we've
we've
been
a
look
to
this
on
several
occasions.
I
have
anyway
it's
a
huge
site,
and
potentially
it
will
be
a
significant
development
and,
let's
be
honest,
it
will
accrue
to
the
developer
a
significant
profit
and
I
appreciate
the
discussion
around
affordability
and,
in
fact,
I
I.
Don't
this
is
a
this
is
an
affordable
site.
N
In
my
opinion,
it's
only
not
affordable
because
of
the
way
our
good
friends
at
the
district
valuers
have
to
calculate
these
things.
It's
it's
not
in
some
ways,
it's
an
artificial,
in
my
opinion,
artificial
way
of
calculating
value.
N
So
the
long-term
value
on
this
site
is
considerable,
not
just
for
the
residential
developments,
but
for
the
wider
employment
Etc
developments
on
this
site
and
so
I'm
slightly
surprised
that
we
haven't.
Actually,
if
we
go
back
to
affordability,
why
we're
not
proposing
a
a
regular
review
of
affordability
to
see
because
the
market
changes
and
values?
Certainly,
rental
values
are
going
up
all
the
time
what
the
value
of
one
of
these
blocks
might
be
in
three
years
time
as
opposed
to
what
it
is
now.
N
I
think
my
second
point
and
the
reason
that
again
that
I'm
not
very
supportive
of
this,
is
because
actually
I
don't
like
the
design
I'm
looking
at
you
and
you
might
be
grumpy
with
me,
but
I
find
it
blocky
I
find
it
I
was
going
to
say
almost
Soviet
state
style,
it's
a
huge,
great
block
without
a
lot,
certainly
on
the
drawings
anyway,
about
a
lot
of
articulation
and
interest
within
it,
the
site
itself-
and
we
we've
touched
on
the
The,
Green,
Space
Etc,
actually
I,
just
think
it's
badly
designed
the
the
green
space
is
minimal.
N
There's
there's
a
bit
of
public
open
space.
Quite
a
bit
of
public
open
space,
that's
paved,
which
is
not
green
space
and
and
I
know.
We've
touched
on
the
point
that
I
don't
know:
25
of
the
sites
notionally
Green
Space,
but
actually
25
of
it
isn't
usable
Green
Space,
because
a
lot
of
it's
the
the
railway
embankment
which
is
unusable
and
it's
planted
up
simply
so
the
people
who
live
there
don't
have
to
look
at
the
trains.
N
So
again
the
Green
Space
itself
is
below
the
standard.
I
think
we
should
accept
and
I
know
what
developers
try
and
buy
out
of
these
things
and
I
know
developers
say
you
know,
we'll
give
money
to
parks
and
somewhere
in
the
city.
Something
will
happen,
but
actually,
if
you
live
there,
this
is
an
intensely
built
up
area.
N
When
we
went
to
look
at
it
was
it
was
it
last
month
or
the
month
before
we
went
to
look
at
it.
Okay,
this
is
a
cleared
site,
but
around
it
there's
a
huge
amount
of
development
gone
on
and
I
walked
back
and
you
can't
find
any
green
space
until
you
get
to
the
canal
and
then
it's
a
small,
it's
the
Towpath.
N
So
really
these
people
need
Green
Space
on
that
site
and
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
not
providing
that
the
initial
phase
doesn't
provide
it
and
it
certainly
won't
be
provided
in
the
more
intense
phase
phase.
Two
so
again,
I
think
this
is
a
substandard
development
and
I
I
I'm
I,
look
in
vain,
but
The
Pedestrian
cycling
elements
associated
with
the
development
you
know.
N
Okay,
there
is
discussion
about
I
forgot
the
name
of
the
road
now
whether
the
the
tram
may
go,
but
when
we
walked
along
there
last
months
on
one
side
of
the
road,
the
developer
has
been
very
positive
and
put
in
a
really
great
pavement,
walk
away
scheme,
I.
Think
I,
don't
think
it
supplies
on
this
side
of
the
road.
So
there
should
be
cycle
provision
that
you
know
this.
The
street
the
street
Network
needs
to
be
pedestrian
and
friendly.
N
We
need
all
these
things
that
I
keep
banging
on
about
about
Crossings
absorptions
and
things
like
that,
none
of
which
appears
to
be
on
the
drawings
I've.
Seen
so
notwithstanding
my
general
view
on
affordability
and
affordable
housing.
As
you
know,
I've
got
a
very
strong
view
on
that.
I,
don't
think
the
development
itself
is
good
enough
for
us
to
agree.
B
B
It's
it's
in
effect
the
eastern
half
of
the
site
that
where,
where
we
think
that
that
there's
usable
Green
Space
in
terms
of
the
Sweet
Street
treatment,
again
Robin
may
not
have
focused
on
it
but
there,
although
there's
not
a
contribution,
there's
Works
in
kind
both
along
Sweet
Street,
the
whole
Sweet
Street,
Frontage
and
Marshall
Street,
which
will
deliver
wider
footpaths,
green
planting
and
a
cycle
way
along
Marshall
Street
as
as
agreed
with
highways
colleagues,
so
they're
they're
there
Works
in
kind
which
will
be
controlled
through
the
consent.
Thank
you.
Okay.
B
No,
they
won't
be,
but
but
that
was
at
the
request
of
Highways
colleagues,
that
that's.
N
N
X
The
when
we're
talking
about
25
it's
for
the
whole
site-
and
it
was
a
judgment
on
spaces
that
we
felt
fulfilled
the
criteria
of
meeting
public
open
space,
so
the
entirety
of
space-
that's
not
built
on,
and
it
is
a
lot
bigger
and
something
like
30
percent
of
the
site,
plus
there's
the
roads
that
are
not
not
included.
X
B
Just
just
I
don't
want
to
live
with
the
point,
but
the
green
space
is
a
bit
of
a
misnomer,
so
in
in
the
city
center
context.
It's
really
publicly
usable
space
like
Sovereign
Square,
for
example,
where
you
have
green
elements
and
hard
elements,
but
it's
all
a
public
space
and
there
was
a
plan
that
Robin
showed
it
didn't
show
up
too
well
there.
But
it
was
much
clearer
on
the
computer,
which
actually
delineates
what
we
consider
to
be
forming
the
25
percent.
B
N
Can
get
into
a
semantic
argument,
can't
we
about
what
What's
usable
and,
what's
not
usable
and
I,
think
we've
had
this
discussion
on
more
than
one
occasion,
but
if
everybody
who
couldn't
if,
if
they
build
those
Flats
out
and
everybody
who
lives
there
decides
to
come
out
because
it's
a
nice
evening,
there
will
not
be
on
the
on
the
remaining
space
for
him
to
stand.
Well,
it
might,
there
might
be,
it
might
be
cozy,
but
quite
frankly,
it's
not
Green
Space,
it's
paved
space.
N
You
know
you
need
this
mixture
of
elements
and
and
we've
set
it
on
more
than
one
occasion
haven't
we.
You
know
these
These
are
people
who
will
be
living
in
a
high
density
situation,
surrounded
by
a
high
density
developments,
and
so
it
is
a
very
important
that
the
priority
is
for
them
to
have
a
usable
public
open
space
to
relax
it.
Quite
frankly-
and
that's
just
my
view-
chip
thanks.
B
Yeah
thanks
Joe
just
follow
up
from
Colleen.
Is
that
I?
Actually
it's
a
huge
site
and
it
needs
to
be
a
good
quality
development
ticking
on
that
site.
It's
a
massive
site
and
when
Colin
walked
from
the
site
Visa
last
month,
he
walked
towards
north
of
his
in
city
center
and
because
I
live
in
South
Leeds.
And
if
you
walk
towards
South
Leeds,
the
nearest
Green
Space
is
holdback
Mars
and
that's
quite
a
bit
of
distance
as
well,
so
I
think.
B
Definitely
the
Green
Space
needs
to
be
improved
on
the
site
and
also
Robin.
When
we
were
on
the
side.
The
Jack
Lane,
the
traffic
on
the
jack
Lane
was
very,
very
busy
and
where
the
crossing
is
gonna
be
installed
on.
I
suggested
that
to
you
as
well-
and
there
were
other
members
who
was
in
agreement
as
well,
it's
the
wrong
location
needs
to
be
more
bit
further
down
and
it's
just
like
it
needs
to.
B
We
have
a
proper
Crossing
there,
because
it's
a
major
road,
so
that's
one,
and
because
we
previously,
we
just
discussed
supplication
on
the
Whitehall
Road.
What
a
fantastic
development
is.
The
quality
of
that
development
is,
you
can
see
it
as
well
and
that
development
needs
to
be
on
this
site
as
well
Robin,
because
it's
just
side
of
Us
South
leads
or
we
can
get
away
with
it,
tick
the
boxes.
No,
it
shouldn't
be
taking
the
box
and
I
agree
with
Colin
I'm,
not
happy
with
this.
E
O
Unusual
for
me,
I'm
a
bit
numb
plus
I,
don't
really
know
what
I
could
comment
to
be
helpful.
I
have
to
have
to
note
I
do
note.
Shall
we
say
that
the
members
comments
and
I
do
understand
them,
but
the
service,
as
it's
policy
compliance
and
it's
been
put
forward
for
a
recommendation
to
support
buying
in
design
terms.
You
can
always
get
more,
but
the
service
you
know
private.
Like
me,
I
want
a
royal
gold
medal
winning
scheme.
Then
you
can
start
again.
You
know,
but
that's
not
helpful.
It
is
policy
compliance
it.
O
It
does
make
aesthetic
issues
of
its
Mass
housing.
I'll
send
this
to
members
before
it's
Mass
housing.
Now
you
either
lie
and
make
it
look
like
offices
or
an
airport
or
something
else
and
bring
it
up,
but
that's
not
architecturally
right.
It's
deceiving
it
there's
no
architectural
discipline.
It
is
what
it
is.
I'm
not
sure.
I
have
to
say
that
someone
when
you
look
at
some
of
the
design
that
we've
worked
with
the
applicants,
actually
not
that
bad.
O
When
you
look
at
the
secondary
detailing
the
secondary
elements
and
things
like
that,
but
it
I
I
just
feel
it
there's
not
a
lot.
I
can
say
because
it
is
a
big
site
with
a
lot
of
work
going
on
a
positive
investment
for
lead
and
I
can
fully
understand
why
the
service
supports
it.
You
know
I'm,
sorry,
if
I
sound
like
I'm
sort
of
bumbling
along
here,
but
that's
where
we
are
with
it
and.
F
Thank
you,
I
was
going
to
go
back,
I
guess
the
main
questions
I
had
were
around
the
the
viability
side
and
and
that
description
around
weighing
up
the
two
options
and
Dan's
point
on
that
was
very
useful
because
yeah
I
imagine
if
you
asked
Ward
members
they'd
say
they
both
won
lots
of
for
this
particular
Ward.
F
They
want
both
lots
of
affordable
housing
and
lots
more
green
space
and
how
they
balance
that
up
that'll
be
up
to
them
coming
up
with
whatever
plans
they
think
so
that
was
an
eminently
sensible
position
to
put
forward
I
guess
the
reason
I
haven't
commented
on
a
lot
of
the
design.
Is
we've
seen
it
a
few
times
before
and
looking
back
at
that,
we
had
comments
around
the
buffer
between
the
railway
line
and
the
residential
blocks
and
that
that
was
extended.
F
And
then
there
was
some
comments
in
increasing
the
public
open
space
which
was
done
there
and
some
comments
in
terms
of
design
and
and
it
we
didn't
have
many
concerns
on
that.
I
had
a
slight
concern
just
around
the
the
look
of
the
commercial
in
on
the
cgis
that
were
appointed
in,
but
then
I
did
note
that
we
had
a
condition
set
around
that
so
I
appreciate
the
officers
will
look
at
that
and
make
sure
it
retains
it's.
F
It's
important
Heritage,
so
I
guess
from
where
I
am
I
then
went
straight
into
the
only
issue.
I
thought
was
left
on
the
table,
which
is
the
the
the
idea
of
the
viability
and
what
we
may
pick.
But
in
terms
of
that,
you
can
take
it
that
I'm
happy,
because
we
have
moved
a
long
way
from
where
we
were
originally
and
members
didn't,
have
adverse
comments
at
that
time.
L
Sorry
sure
I
thought
there
might
be
a
cue.
It
was
just
coming
back
to
councilor
Khan's
point
about
the
ending
these
comments.
Saying
itself
leads,
it
doesn't
really
matter,
I,
don't
think.
That's
the
case
at
all.
I
think
you
know
it's
it's
Mass
Housing
and
you
know
you
would
complain
if
it
was
all
gold
plated
and
then
the
rents
were
high.
Wouldn't
you
you
know
it's
must-housing,
there's
a
lot
of
it.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
repetition
and
I.
L
Think
probably
it's
a
repetition,
that's
upsetting
you
rather
than
the
quality,
but
you
get
that
with
you
get
that
with
a
big
site
and
also
you
have
got
a
very
with
the
former
Library
building.
Wouldn't
we
all
like
it
all
to
look
like
that,
but
I
mean
you
know
that
was
built
when
they
had
serious
money
to
build
buildings.
Didn't
they
you
know
and
that's
what
we
would
like
to
keep
for
the
door
sizing
for
the
whole
city,
but
we
have
to
move
with
the
times
and
we
have
to
look
at
the
viability.
L
But
the
other
thing
is:
I
am
really
concerned
that
war
members
haven't
had
an
input
in
the
scheme,
not
just
the
viability,
but
they
can't
really
comment
on
the
design.
And
that
does
upset
me
because
it
wouldn't
have
happened
in
guys
in
Rhoden.
I
have
to
say.
E
Yeah,
it
wouldn't
have
happened
in
Bramley
either
I
I
do
think.
That's
a
major
flaw
and
I
think
you
know
councilor
Cohen's
suggestion
that
that
Ward
members
are
re-approached
about
that
and.
E
I
know
yeah:
are
there
any
further
comments
or
suggestions.
N
Can
I
just
make
one
chair,
and
that
is
I,
do
not
believe
that
simply
because
sorting
is
Mass
housing,
it
should
be
crap.
N
Sorry
I'll
I'll
finish
the
last
one
is
below
the
standard.
We
would
accept
for
high
quality
housing.
K
K
We've
looked
at
multiple
times
and
you
know
what
developers
are
entitled
to
bring
something
to
Panama
and
get
a
decision,
and
sometimes
it's
a
little
frustrating
that
we
don't
do
that
and
for
far
too
long,
and
we
are
not
here
to
design
things
which
which,
if
you
remember
me
at
last
meeting
trying
to
turn
parts
of
kirkstra
into
Las.
Vegas
is
probably
a
good
thing,
but
you
know
Steve
is
always
very
sensible
opposite,
it
is
what
it
is.
Could
it
be
better?
K
Of
course
everything
could
be
better,
but
but
we've
got
it
to
a
good
place,
we're
making
sure
the
ward
members
get
a
good
say
as
to
as
to
how
we
take
the
affordability
bit
forward
and
I
think
really
in
all
seriousness,
the
developers
are
entitled
to
a
decision.
If
we
really
don't
like
it,
then
we
can
reviews
it.
Otherwise
we
should,
you
know,
let
it
move
on
and
show
that
we
are
a
city
that
welcomes
turning
areas
of
land
that
aren't
properly
used
and
bringing
them
into
use.
E
Are
we
the
one
thing
that
I
feel
very
strongly
about?
Is
the
fact
that
Ward
members
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
say
which
of
the
two
options
they
prefer
and
I
think
they
they
should
have
that
opportunity.
So
I
would
suggest
that
we
do
defer
it.
For
that
reason,
or
could
we
approve
it
and
defer
that
part
of
which
option
it.
B
It
thank
you
Jay.
If
I
can
just
come
in
here,
you've
been
asked
to
do
a
green
principle
and
defer
for
not
least
the
completion
of
the
section
106
legal
agreement,
for
example,
I,
would
suggest
you
add
an
extra
requirement
to
consult
with
Ward
members
on
the
options.
If,
if
panel
is
happy
for
Ward
members
to
decide
which
option
so
I
would
ask
for
that,
we
make
we
make
a
decision,
so
we
don't
need
to
come
back
to
panel
on
those
matters.
B
I
suppose
so,
if,
if
I
can
turn
your
attention
to
page
67
and
the
recommendation
at
the
bottom
of
the
page,
so
the
recommendation
at
the
moment
is
to
defer
and
delegate
to
the
chief
planning
officer
for
approval,
subject
to
the
specified
conditions
and
I'm
going
to
skip
some
paraphrase
some
of
this
and
the
completion
of
the
section
106
legal
agreement.
And
it
goes
on
to
list
what
the
headline
terms
are.
In
addition,
I
would
say
and
to
consult
with
the
relevant
Ward
members.
I.
B
Think
it's
based
in
holbeck
on
the
options
for
the
planning
obligation
spend
in
terms
of
affordable
housing.
E
E
E
So
we've
now
got
the
pre-application,
so
we'll
just
have
a
moment's
informal
pause,
while
the
presenters
arrange
themselves
appropriately.
E
Right
members,
if
we're
ready
to
commence
on
the
final
item,
which
is
a
gender
item,
nine,
which
is
actually
page
211
of
your
packs,
and
we
have
Chris
Wickham
and
Tom
Lauren
with
us.
Would
you
like
to
in
your
own
time
start
your
presentation?
Please.
AB
Thank
you.
Yes,
since
lodging
this
pre-application
in
2021,
we've
engaged
proactively
with
officers
on
to
reach
agreement
on
all.
We
believe
all
the
key
issues
will
be,
of
course,
subject
to
those
matters
which
will
require
further
documentation
at
application,
formal
application
stage,
so
just
to
look
at
the
site
of
the
first
slide.
Are
we
in
control
of
that
yep?
It's
like
if
you're
on
the
south
side
of
York
street,
it's
occupied
by
a
two-story
vacant
building
last
users
and
Nightclub
into
joins
the
raised
Railway
Viaduct.
AB
On
its
southern
side,
the
western
boundary
faces
Brick
Street,
which
passes
beneath
the
railway.
At
this
point,
Brick
Street
has
already
closed
at
the
junction
with
York
Street,
some
Motor
Vehicles
I
mean
other
other
uses.
We've
got,
we've
got
the
medical
practice
to
the
West.
We've
got
the
northern
ballet
to
the
north.
The
sites
within
the
city
limit,
City,
Center
policy
limits
area,
but
it's
not
allocated.
AB
The
Wider
area
has
a
commercial
character
with
buildings
of
varying
height,
including
a
number
of
tall
blocks,
and
also
a
number
of
current
planning
permissions
for
tall
buildings
nearby.
The
sites
close
to
the
city
Center's
main
bus
station
has
a
bus
station.
A
Pretoria
bus
stops
directly
outside
we're,
not
in
a
conservation
area,
and
there
are
no
designated
Heritage
assets
directly
affected
in
the
in
the
vicinity.
We're
proposing
a
full
Redevelopment
to
provide
a
10-story,
purpose-built
student
accommodation,
pbsa
building
the
height
of
the
Block's,
been
reduced
significantly
during
the
pre-application
discussions
with
officers.
AB
The
design
qualities
of
my
colleague,
Tom
Lawrence,
will
come
on
and
talk
to
you
about
in
a
moment.
I
just
want
to
talk
at
land
use
policy
issues
first,
so
this
development
will
obviously
take
pressure
off
private
housing
for
student
use.
It
also
meet
the
continuing
demand,
strong
demand
and
leads
for
student
accommodation.
AB
We
believe
the
overall
quality
and
the
ratio
and
the
standard
of
accommodation,
Compares
very
favorably,
with
other
pbsa
schemes
recently
approved
in
the
city
center,
just
wanted
to
touch
on
two
further
matters
on
servicing.
We've
had
a
lot
of
discussions
with
officers
about
how
we
would
serve
with
this
Services
site
officers
are
Keen
to
have
the
full
closure
of
Brick
Street
between
York
Street
and
Brussels
Street,
which
is
the
road
to
the
south
of
the
Railway
Network.
Rail
access
would
continue
to
be
assured
because
there'd
be
no
obstructions
on
that
area.
AB
There'd
be
probably
bollards,
which
would
be
removable
for
Network
rail
emergency
or
maintenance
access.
We've
engaged
with
the
medical
practice,
which
is
on
the
western
side
of
Brick
Street
and
they're
broadly
happy
with
the
proposals
we're
making
to
relocate
servicing
south
of
of
that
existing
location
under
the
under
the
bridge,
we're
proposing
that
the
existing
Bay
on
Brussels
Street
would
be
enlarged.
This
would
also
provide
two
student,
drop-off
and
collection
points
for
weekend
use
on
successive
weekends,
on
a
timetabled
slot
basis,
very
similar
to
what
you've
done
on
other
pbsa
schemes
in
Leeds.
AB
If
initial,
if
additional
space
is
needed
in
addition
to
that,
and
our
documentation
and
application
stage
shows
that
we
believe
other
space
can
be
provided
in
the
facility
for
student
drop-off.
Finally,
a
microclimate
we've
commissioned
a
win
study
that
was
for
an
earlier
taller.
Iteration
of
this
scheme.
AB
No
issues
were
were
were
found
either
for
pedestrian
or
rail
safety.
We've
also
engaged
with
network
rail
on
construction
matters,
cranage
access,
safety,
access
for
their
infrastructure.
We've
had
some
very
positive
feedback
on
that.
But
again
that
is
those
are
issues
we
would
return
to
so
without
any
further
Ado
I'd
like
to
turn
over
on
design
matters
now
to
Tom
Lawrence.
AB
Z
Thanks
Chris
and
hello,
everyone
in
design
terms,
we
have
we're
gonna,
have
to
go
through
this
fairly
quickly.
Obviously,
but
starting
with
how
the
building
sits
in
its
sites,
you
can
see
the
footprint
there
of
the
proposed
building
in
Gray.
Z
You
can
see
that
it
occupies
the
majority
of
its
its
red
line:
ownership,
boundary
we've
moved
the
building
away
from
the
viaducts
which
sits
to
the
south
of
us
there
and
that's
in
line
with
the
requirements
of
network
Rail
and
we've
also
moved
it
away
from
the
back
of
pavement
on
Brick
Street,
which
improves
pedestrian
pedestrian
experience
there
and
looking
at
the
3D
view,
looking
West
along
York
Street
as
we
approach
the
building
and
you
can
see
how
we've
broken
the
massing
of
the
of
the
block
down
into
a
series
of
separate
elements
and
they
will
be
differentiated
from
one
another
by
setbacks
from
Main
elevation
line
by
materiality
and
by
detailing.
Z
If
we
look
East
along
York
Street,
we've
been
able
to
turn
the
low
the
west
facing
Apartments
to
overlook
brick
streets,
which
adds
a
good
level
of
natural
surveillance
to
the
closed
end
of
that
road
there
and
also
provides
some
good
visual
interest
as
we
approach
from
this
direction,
and
if
we
move
further
back
still,
we
start
to
get
the
impression
of
the
the
the
reduction
in
the
scale
of
the
blocks
from
highest
in
the
East
to
lowest
in
the
west
and
by
treating
that
lowest
West
most
Block
in
Brick.
Z
Z
We've
maintained
a
vertical
emphasis,
despite
our
reduction
in
overall
height,
which
you
can
see
shown
by
the
dot
the
dotted
Red
Line
there
on
the
image.
That's
where
we
originally
started.
Z
We've
maintained
a
defined
base
middle
and
top
to
each
block,
and
each
block
gets
its
own
distinctive
character,
either
by
the
material
that
it's
that
it's
treated
in
or
by
the
approach
to
the
window
reveal
design
subtleties,
but
they
they
should
really.
They
should
really
work.
Moving
on
to
plans
essentially
located
core
and
at
the
ground
floor
our
engines
is
adjacent
to
that
core,
so
very
Central
to
the
plan.
Z
The
apartments
sorry
just
go
back
to
that.
The
apartments
begin
at
first
floor,
121
Studios,
provided
in
total
and
they're
all
over
20
meters
squared
and
they
have
a
an
excellent
standard
of
layout,
very
much
zoned
to
provide
living,
dining
kitchen
spaces
separate
to
each
other,
all
on
Suite,
obviously,
and
the
kitchen
spaces
are
moved
away
from
the
main
entrance
store
in
the
interests
of
fire
safety.
Z
We've
provided
a
generous
amount
of
immunity
space
on
this
one.
The
in
the
pandemic
world
is
obviously
critical.
Z
We
have
a
gym
and
a
common
amenity
space
in
York
Street,
so
we
have
glazing
all
along
those
elevations
and
we've
returned
that
onto
Brick
Street,
as
well
again
for
the
for
the
for
the
advantages
that
it
gives
in
terms
of
natural
surveillance,
cycle
storage,
located
off
York
Street
as
well,
which
is,
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
plan
there
and
that's
very
convenient
in
terms
of
where
the
newly
installed
cycleway
is
and
if
we
move
up
to
the
roof.
Z
We
have
further
immunity
space
up
here
we
have
a
central,
enclosed
internal
immunity
space
next
to
the
core
that
has
glazing
which
overlooks
Terrace
to
the
east.
That's
confusingly!
That's
to
the
left
of
our
image
there,
that
is
a
very
sheltered
space.
High
walls,
climbing
foliage,
covered
seating
protected
from
any
wind.
It's
it's
a
very
sort
of
tranquil
space
to
be,
and
in
contrast,
on
the
right
hand,
side,
we
have
something
much
more
dramatic
and
much
more
exposed.
Z
So
there
we
have
a
raised
internal
raised,
sorry
inset,
seating
area
which
will
lift
people
even
when
seated
above
the
height
of
the
solid
perimeter
parapet,
you
can
see
how
those
spaces
work
in
section
there
and
just
skimming
now
into
the
into
looking
at
each
space
in
turn.
So
this
is
the
CGI
of
the
of
the
East
most
Terrace.
This
is
the
very
sheltered,
very,
very
protected
area
and
then,
in
contrast,
this
is
the
dramatic
space
which
provides
views
in
all
three
available
directions.
Z
Really
there's
the
northern
ballet
they're
looking
North
in
the
background,
and
then
this
view
we
just
think
is
going
to
be
absolutely
fantastic.
This
is
back
towards
the
city
center
and
yeah.
Z
We
we
hope
you
agree,
that's
going
to
be
fairly
impressive
in
terms
of
how
this
building
works
for
residents,
we've
sort
of
covered
everything,
but
in
terms
of
how
it
works
for
everybody
else,
we've
gone
to
a
Great
Lengths
to
try
and
improve
the
the
the
streetscape
as
well,
so
obviously
we're
occupying
the
majority
of
site,
as
I
said,
but
we've
taken
steps
such
as
introducing
Planters
between
the
brick
appears
there
and
looking
at
the
opportunities
for
Greening
the
closed
end
of
Brick
Street.
Z
Excuse
me
at
its
northern
end
and
some
more
views
here
of
how
that
might
look
bench:
seating,
trees,
soft
Landscaping,
off
the
off
the
main
footway
line,
as
well
so
potential
for
sort
of
the
ability
to
create
moments
of
pause
there
and
looking
the
opposite
direction.
So,
looking
West,
you
can
see
the
Planters
and
how
they
sort
of
nestle
under
the
building
there
and
then
just
to
conclude
this
slide,
which
which
shows
how
it
all
sits
together.
Z
E
F
Thanks
chair
I
think
my
real
concern.
I
have
with
this
I
I
used
to
work
in
an
office
on
Monroe
house,
and
we
also
have
been
to
visit
some
other
sites
around
there
recently
haven't.
We
I
must
say
that
area
of
the
street.
We
are
some
way
away
from
the
normally
walked
City
Center
in
the
evening,
and
that's
an
area
that
I
wouldn't
personally
walk
at
night
further
out
there
there's
on
the
left,
this
somewhat
abandoned
buildings
that
maybe
we
can
update
on
what
might
be
happening
to
them.
F
There's
a
gap
of
wasteland-
and
it
doesn't
appear
in
appealing
location
and
I,
would
be
concerned
to
put
purpose-built
student
accommodation
in
the
site
that
that
I
myself
as
a
resident
of
Leeds
for
many
years,
wouldn't
particularly
feel
safe
walking
to
at
this
time.
I
wonder
if
there's
anything
you
can
give
me
that
that
would
assist
me
in
that
around
what
else
might
be
happening
in
the
area.
F
I
appreciate
what
you've
said
around
your
building,
providing
that
surveillance,
but
obviously
there's
a
number
of
walking
routes
around
that
you
may
take
across
the
center
Celia
Street
or
further
up
towards
the
bus
station
that
that
I'm
not
sure
at
half
past
11
at
night
coming
back
from
a
purple
even
later
than
that
would
feel
safe.
At
this
present
time.
Z
You,
yes,
thank
you
councilor
Carl,
for
that.
If
I
just
can
I
get
the
presentation
back
up
please
and
go
to
the
first
page
that
showed
the
aerial
views.
Thank
you.
Z
Perfect,
okay,
so
I
think
the
the
derelict
land
that
you
refer
to
is.
If
we
look
at
the
bottom
right
image
on
that
shot,
there
is
it
the
is
it
above
and
left
of
our
of
our
site.
Is
it
the
one
I.
F
Guess
yeah
that
whole
row
I
think
I'm
thinking
so,
if
you're
walking
from
the
entrance
to
Monroe
house
where,
if
there's
still
a
cafe
on
the
corner,
because
I
haven't
been
there
for
some
years,
if
you're
walking
from
that
Cafe
along
that
side
of
the
road,
you
obviously
got
the
the
piece
of
empty
land
that
we
can
see
there.
That
I
think
just
has
hoardings.
Then
you've
got
well.
The
the
side
of
Monroe
house
isn't
necessarily
that
that
activated
either.
F
Z
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
If,
if
I
just
skim
through
the
document
just
very
very
quickly
here
the
there
is
a
view.
Looking
back
here,
we
go
so
the
the
blue
volume
that
you
can
see.
On
the
left
hand,
side
there
is
a
consented
scheme
so
that
where
the
hoardings
are
that
you
mentioned
there
is
a
scheme,
that's
been
approved
there
and
is
coming
forward
and
the
the
pale
blue
volumes
forms
that
you
can
see
in
the
background.
Z
Those
are
applied
for
schemes,
I'm,
afraid
I,
don't
know
whether
any
have
been
consented
since
we
produce
these
images,
but
just
going
back
to
the
Aerials
as
well
top
right
image,
you
can
see
slightly
more
context
there
and
and
at
the
top
of
Saint
Cecilia
Street.
There
are
some
student
developments
coming
forward
as
we
understand
there
as
well.
Some
pbsa
schemes
coming
forward,
so
I
think
I
think
you.
Z
You
may
be
right
that
we
are
at
the
start
of
the
process
here,
but
the
the
area
is
going
to
change
and
it
is
going
to
become
more
secure
and
obviously
that's
why
we've
put
so
much
effort
into
the
natural
surveillance,
the
activity
at
ground
level,
so
that
we're
we're
helping
that
along
really.
F
Thanks
I
guess,
my
only
comment
on
that
will
be
I
wouldn't
need
some
more
reassurance
because
it
is
obviously
a
student-built
accommodation.
It
will
have
people
who
maybe
aren't
as
familiar
with
leads,
maybe
coming
from
overseas
as
well,
who
won't
necessarily
know
the
area
and
be
able
to
get
a
feel
for
it.
I
appreciate
you
can't
control
other
sites,
but
I
would
be
concerned.
If
the
first
thing
we
brought
forward
was
a
student
accommodation
on
what
is,
unfortunately
not
not
the
most
attractive
of
streets.
E
Thank
you,
Peter
I've,
the
next
one
on
my
list
is
counselor
Campbell.
N
I'll,
do
a
question
and
comment
as
well
and
get
it
out
the
way.
I
understand
what
you
were
saying:
Peter,
because
when
we
were
on
site
this
this
morning
we
did
run
into
one
or
two
interesting
local
characters,
but
I
think
looking
at
the
street,
you
know
it's
it's
not
very
nice
at
the
moment,
but
if
we
don't
encourage
some
sort
of
development
down
there,
it
never
will
be
and
I
think.
N
If
we've
got
a
developer
who's
prepared
to
to
do
something
down,
there
then
I
think
that's
a
positive
scheme,
a
positive
step
forward
and
I
know.
We've
talked
about
the
the
making
sight
on
the
opposite
side
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember,
but
we
are
where
we
are
with
that
one
I
think
you
know
a
quick.
My
quick
view
on
the
on
the
design.
Etc
is
I,
think
it
it's
quite
a
nice
design,
it's
a
difficult
site,
because
it's
not
it's
extremely
thin.
N
You're
constrained
by
the
railway
I
think
you've
you've
probably
tried
to
make
it
an
interest
in
design
and
and
it
it
seems
to
have
worked
I'm,
not
sure
about
the
pickup
and
drop-off
elements
of
it.
N
I
do
wonder
if,
if
you
were,
if
you
Bollard
in
the
other
end
of
Brick
Street,
it
might
actually
during
pick
up
and
drop
off
time
for
students,
whether
it
might
be
an
idea
to
take
the
bollards
out
and
use
that
as
a
pickup
and
drop-off
point,
because
it's
nearer
to
the
front
door.
The
only
other
thing
I'd
say
about
the
front
door
is
when
I
walked
back
from
there.
N
N
Think
about
the
deliveroo
driver
of
the
juvaroo
cyclist,
because
you're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
those,
because
my
default
students
seem
to
use
them
a
lot.
It
won't
form
on
another
and
I'm
just
wondering
about
that
from
tensions
about
how
you
might
do
something
with
that
front.
Entrance,
in
effect
to
predict
protect
the
people
who
just
step
out
of
the
building
from
that
cycle.
Traffic
I
thought
I'd,
never
come
to
the
stage
where
we
had
to
talk
about
the
dangers
of
cycle
traffic,
but
on
that
run,
I
think
it's
potentially
there
I
know.
N
Counselor
can't
did
express
some
concerns
about
a
seating
area
because
he
felt
it
might
attract
the
wrong
sort
of
people
and
I
think
I'd
be
tempted
to
agree
with
him
at
the
moment
in
the
long
term.
If
we
get
some
more
development
down
there
and
they
and
they
Ambiance
changes,
then
that
might
work,
but
at
the
moment
I
think
you
just
attract
the
wrong
sort
and
a
well-maintained
green
area
will
be
fine.
I
think
that
would
really
lift
the
area
and
I
think
you
know
generally
I'm
positive
about
this.
N
G
Yes,
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
design
of
it
as
as
laid
out
I
just
hope
that
as
I
always
hope
with
student
accommodation
that
it's
affordable
and
not
on
the
really
expensive
side.
G
But
I
do
have
a
lot
of
problem
with
the
location
and
the
location
of
this
site
is
suitable
for
student
accommodation,
because
a
lot
of
students
first
years
don't
actually
visit
their
Hall
of
residence
before
they
come
to
the
city.
They'd
be
booking
it
without
having
seen
the
actual
area,
and
it
looks
fine
from
what
you've
shown
that
I
was
there
this
morning.
It's
not
fine
at
all.
It's
horrible,
really.
It
badly
needs
working
on
and
I'm
really
glad
that
work
is
being
started
because
it's
a
grotty
area.
G
It's
attracts
near,
do
Wells,
and
not
just
around
Monroe
house,
as
Peter
was
saying,
but
further
on
up
it's
exactly
the
sort
of
place
where
people
will
look
near
do
well
will
look
and
students,
young
students
coming
to
perhaps
to
an
inner
city
for
the
first
time,
are
quite
at
risk
and
quite
vulnerable,
and
that
concerns
me
that
it
will
become
a
magnet
for
nerdy
Wells
to
go
and
do
whatever
they
do
and
predate
in
whatever
way
they
do
so.
G
I
think
that
the
bridge
badly
needs
attention
and
I
would
hope
that
you
would
look
as
part
of
development
to
doing
something
about
the
underside
of
the
bridge.
At
least
I
know
the
rest
is
Network
well,
I
mean
a
mural,
would
really
brighten
it
up.
It's
just
going
to
really
bring
down
whatever
is
built
next
to
it,
because
it
looks
really
bad,
then
that
would
be
fairly
low,
cost
I.
Think
and
would
brighten
things
up.
I
agree
about
the
seats
and
I
think
more
Greenery.
That
side
would
definitely
soften
it.
G
It's
a
harsh
area,
whatever
happened
to
the
roads,
it's
harsh
and
there
are
a
lot
of
Roads
there.
There's
cars
going
around
quite
fast,
so
anything
that
softens
it
and
mitigates
that
I
think
it's
a
good
thing,
but
I
do
go
back
to
safety
and
I'm
concerned
and
think
a
lot
more
I
would
like
to
see
a
lot
more
work
and
attention
paid
to
that
area
for
the
time
when
this
comes
back
so
that
I
could
feel
reassured
as
I
say,
the
design
of
it.
What
goes
on
inside
I
don't
have
a
problem
and
I'm.
G
AB
I
I
think
the
answer.
That
is
obviously
yes,
because
it's
concerned
that
you
you've
raised
I'd
say
a
couple
of
things
about
safety.
First
of
all,
2019
you
did
permit
a
Backpackers
hostel
on
this
site,
so
this
sense
of
transience
and
visiting
it's
kind
of
been
established,
albeit
that
permission
has,
has
lapsed.
I
recognized
sites
next
to
a
medical
center.
Besides,
on
a
main
road
he's
got
a
bus.
Stop
right
outside
there
are
people
returning
back,
who
would
be
able
to
come
straight
into
the
hostel
I.
AB
Think
there's
a
what
I'm
saying
is
I.
Think
there's
a
counterbalancing
point
that
you
know.
Whilst
you
can
always
write
off
the
area
as
being
unsafe,
there
are
aspects
of
investment
that
have
happened,
and
there
are
specifics
to
this
site
which
allow
this
to
work.
Well,
you've
got
the
northern
ballet
opposite
and
without
investment.
AB
How
is
that
Improvement
ever
going
to
happen,
but
but
I
take
your
point
and
if
we
can
I
don't
even
know
what,
for
example,
local
crime
figures
show
I
mean
there's
a
sense
I'm
getting
from
members
that
you
know
this
is
a
place.
You
don't
want
to
go
at
night,
but
I
don't
know
to
what
extent
that
is
borne
out
by
real
crime
issues,
and
you
may
want
to
learn
much
more
about
that
than
I.
Do
so.
G
Councilor
garflick
I
think
I
would
feel
better
if
I
could
see
that
considerable
work
had
been
done
about
not
just
this
actual
building
but
the
surrounding
area
and
how
those
concerns
that
I've
outlined
can
be
addressed
because
I
agree
with
you,
something's
got
to
happen
and
someone's
got
to
start
and
someone's
got
to
be
the
first
one,
but
and
we
want
it
to
improve,
but
I
do
still
have
concerns.
G
E
You
councilor
garthwaite
I'm,
going
to
bring
in
councilors
Blackburn
and
Cohen
in
dual
course,
but
I
will
just
build
on
a
couple
of
those
points
if
I
may
from
the
site
visit
this
morning,
your
cgis
tidy
the
area
are
up
very
considerably
and
the
area
where
you've
put
the
seating
Etc
the
Railway
Bridge,
is
absolutely
shocking.
E
The
meeting
was
on
site
this
morning
with
us,
and
this
area
abuts
his
Ward,
so
he's
very
familiar
with
it
and
he
was
very
concerned
about
the
seating
because
of
the
type
of
activity
that
he
has
seen
and
witnessed
in
the
area.
So
we
would
need
to
change
the
general
characteristics
of
the
area.
I
know
that's
challenging,
but
it
for
me.
That's
really
important
and
I
think
councilor
Garf
Works
points
about
things
like
murals
and
such
like.
We
could
transform
it
into
a
really
Young
Person's,
modern
artistic
sort
of
environment.
E
For
me,
that
would
help
a
lot,
but
it
is
and
I
agree.
Somebody's
got
to
go
first
in
the
design
of
what
you've
put
forward
today,
in
my
view,
is,
is
very
good.
It's
just
would
it
work
a
student
accommodation
at
this
time?
There's
a
question
in
my
mind:
councilor
Blackburn
I'll
bring
you
in
next.
M
As
we
were
saying,
somebody's
got
to
go
first
and
quite
clearly
a
building
of
that
nature.
There
would
be
a
great
Improvement,
that's
not
taking
aside
what
colleagues
have
been
saying,
but
you've
got
you've
got
somebody's
got
to
start
and
I
think
what
I'd
be
interested
about
was
what
comes
about
when
you.
M
We
have
a
final
application
to
see
how
you're
going
to
manage
it,
and
also
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
know
what's
likely
on
the
other
side
of
the
road
and
where,
where
it's
bodied
up
and
when
that's
likely
to
be
developed,
but
as
a
development
that
looks
acceptable
to
me
as
long
as
we
can
make
it
work.
K
K
Last
time,
I
checked,
that's
the
administration
of
a
council,
so
I'm
somewhat
concerned
that
respectfully
Administration
councilors
are
saying:
we've
effectively
got
a
no-go
area
and
does
a
result.
We're
worried
about
putting
students
there,
don't
like
the
phrase.
Nair
do
Wells
ever
because
I
just
found
that
respectfully
and
find
that
a
somewhat
of
an
offense
I,
don't
believe.
There's
anybody
who
can
never
do
well,
I
believe
that,
with
the
right
situation,
anybody
can
be
assisted
to
to
thrive.
So
I
just
find
that
I,
don't
like
that
phrase.
K
In
any
event,
I
don't
believe
it's
a
plumbing
consideration
either
I
am
went
to
University
in
Manchester.
My
accommodation
was
in
a
place.
You
may
know
called
Moss
side.
Interestingly,
there's
been
a
recent
application
to
build
350
new
homes
in
Moss
side
I'm,
not
saying
it
is
necessarily
everybody's.
First,
choice
of
location
I
moved
there
just
after
there
were
some
riots
there,
but
we're
talking
here
of
building
10
stories
of
purpose-built
student
accommodation
and
what
that
does
is.
K
It
brings
quite
a
lot
of
people
and
quite
a
lot
of
young
people
will
change
just
by
definition
of
their
being
there.
The
nature
of
an
area
now
I'm
not
suggesting
for
one
minute
that
it's
got
shabby
chic,
but
I
do
believe
that,
if
that
you
can
have
an
anchor
development,
that's
going
to
change
an
area
but
I'm,
really
not
comfortable
that
we
are
suggesting
to
you
know:
My
Views
I've,
said
repeatedly:
I
I
think
there's
too
much
student
development.
K
I
I
am
on
the
record
of
saying
that.
So
it's
nothing
new.
K
But
I'm
not
comfortable
with
us
turning
around
and
saying
it's
too
dangerous
there
that
if,
if
we
feel
that,
then
the
council
needs
to
change
that,
and
the
ward
members
and
Executives
need
to
deal
with
that.
That's
that's
the
administration's
job.
It's
not
the
job
of
this
panel
to
say
it's
too
dangerous
for
you
to
build
that
development.
There.
That's
really
not
our
place,
I'm
very
uncomfortable,
that
that
should
be
a
message.
K
The
whole
of
our
city
should
be
open
and
welcoming
to
everybody.
We
say
we're
going
to
be
the
best
city.
We
don't
say
we're
going
to
be
the
best
city
here
and
here,
but
not
there.
That's
not
what
a
best
city
ambition
is
so
I
like
this
application.
I
think
it
has
the
opportunity
and
the
ability
to
help
transform
an
area
I'm
sure
the
local
councilors
and
the
administration
will
make
sure
it
is
safe
for
whoever
is
living
there.
G
Okay,
there
are
people
who
seek
to
exploit
and
who
seek
to
predate.
They
choose
their.
They
take
their
opportunities
where
they
can
our
job
and
I
think
yes,
that
of
the
administration,
that
of
all
of
us,
that
of
every
officer
and
everyone,
who's
escaped
the
piece,
the
city
safe
and
attractive
that
everyone
who
wants
to
live
work
or
enjoy
themselves
in
it
is
to
ensure
that
those
people
are
not
able
to
do
what
they
might
set
out
to
do
whatever
we
might
call
them,
they
do
exist.
G
We've
also
talked
quite
extensively
in
this
panel
in
the
past,
about
safety
considerations
and
put
those
questions
to
developers
and
I.
Don't
recall
you
objecting
to
those
questions
at
the
time
when
I've
said
don't,
let's
look
at
this
just
one
thing:
let's
look
at
the
roots
in
and
out
I
never
said
we
shouldn't
do
it.
I
said
we
have
to
be
careful
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
considered
and
I
think
that
that
is
the
job
of
a
developer.
To
think
about
that,
just
as
it
is
the
job
of
our
officers
and
ourselves.
K
Councilor
yeah
I
think
it's
an
important
point,
so
I
think
why
I
need
to
be
very
clear:
councilor
gathway
regularly
makes
safety,
considerate
and
I
I
don't
challenge,
because,
where
you've
raised
them
in
the
past,
they
have
related
to
specifically
how
the
developer
has
been
able
to
deal
with
their
development
and
deal
with
things
like
sight,
lines,
etc,
etc.
This
what
the
the
issue
I
am
raising
here
is
the
comment
that
this
area
is
not
safe
for
this
development.
I
have
no
problem
with
us,
saying
to
a
developer.
E
The
value-
and
your
point
is
noted
and
very
clearly
expressed
for
clarification.
My
own
comments
were
more
about
the
quality
of
the
environment,
because
it
doesn't
look
like
your
CGI
at
the
moment
and
it
won't
unless
that
bridge
is
improved
and
other
parts
so
I'm
sure
you've
got
plenty
to
think
about
there
unless
there
are
any
other
contributions,
I'm
going
to
turn
to
the
themes,
we
need
to
talk.
Okay,.
F
I
wonder,
then
whether
I
mean
my
concern
is
around
the
fact
of
an
area
that
is
in
need
of
some
regeneration
to
activate
it.
Whether
a
purpose-built
accommodation
for
young
people
is
the
right
thing
to
start
off
that
regeneration,
I
I
completely.
Imagine
it
would
be
fantastic
if
every
area
of
the
city
was
an
area
where
you
could
put
any
type
of
accommodation,
what
I
guess
would
be
useful
for
Clarity
on,
probably
not
now
as
we're
in
a
pre-app.
F
It
is,
is
in
what
level
members
should
be
raising
those
concerns
in
an
application,
because
we
will
not
know
whether
there
will
be
a
fantastic
Corridor
of
things.
If
you
know
I
raised
concerns
around,
for
instance,
the
the
development
on
Brigitte
that
actually
briga
isn't
very
busy
in
early
hours
of
the
morning
and
student
accommodation
in
the
middle
of
Brigitte
might
not
be
suitable
because
actually
it
is
rammed
during
the
day.
F
F
There
will
be
surveillance
from
the
building,
but
I'm
not
sure
there'll,
be
surveillance
on
the
route
home
for
what
we
are
putting
there,
which
will
be
young
people
in
the
main
that
may
be
less
familiar
with
the
city
when
they
first
arrive
and
that
I
think
I'd
like
clarification
on
at
the
point,
whether
that
is
something
that
I
should
be
considering
in
planning
and
because
the
young
people
that
we
put
in
there
will
be
our
responsibility
and
you're
completely
right
down
that
it
is
our
responsibility
to
feel
that
the
city
is
safe.
F
The
responsibility
and
safety
of
the
young
people
we're
putting
in
that
that
may
move
into
that
building
is
also
our
responsibility
to
make
sure
sure
that
the
environment
is
safe
for
them.
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
there
is
a
lot
of
work
that
needs
doing
in
an
area
of
regeneration
before
it
is
safe
for
everyone.
I'm,
not
sure
this
is
the
right
first
one.
B
B
We
don't
have
then
go
further
and
say:
actually
there
are
busier
and
quieter
areas
of
the
city
center
and
student
accommodation
should
only
really
locate
in
the
business
areas,
not
least
I
suspect,
because
the
nature
of
those
areas
change
quite
rapidly.
You
know
the
I
mean
all
I
can
say
is
that
looking
at
detailed
design
elements
as
councilor
Cohen
alluding
to
is
a
material
consideration,
so
design
outcry,
CCTV
sight
lines,
making
sure
groups
are
legible.
B
All
those
are
relevant
planning
issues
and
we
do
look
at
those,
but
this
Council
has
not
set
a
policy
which
says
that
there
are
certain
areas
suitable
for
students
in
a
microcos
cosm
level.
You
know
at
that
micro
level
and
there
are
audience
that
that
are
not
and
I
think
in
the
context
that
we've
got
a
general
permissive
policy,
then
it'd
be
hard
to
for
members
to
say.
Actually,
we
want
to
go
that
one
step
further,
because
the
policy
isn't
there.
B
I
would
also
if
I
may,
check
and
members
make
a
point
that
we've
just
looked
at
a
scheme
in
in
the
whole
deck
large
cleared
site
now
the
the
activity
around
that
site.
This
is
my
personal
view-
is
much
less
than
the
activity
around
this
site
and
we're
introducing
a
lot
more
people,
regardless
of
whether
students
or
not
students,
young
people
will
be
in
that
development
on
Sweet
street
so
and,
and
the
same
concern
wasn't
raised
on
that
so
I
in
in
terms
of
detailed
comments
about
design,
Etc,
I
I.
B
Take
that
and
we
look
at
that,
but
in
terms
of
generally
saying
we
shouldn't
have
residential
accommodation
in
these
regeneration
areas
as
a
first.
You
know
so,
but
that's
just
a
comment
for
you
to
consider.
Thank
you
chair
thank.
E
You
think
what
might
be
helpful
for
members,
though
in
any
area
of
regeneration
such
as
this
is,
is
a
clear
understanding
of
what's
coming
forward
when
and
what
the
mix
is
likely
to
be.
Based
on
what
we
currently
know,
we
obviously
don't
know
everything,
but
a
contextual
statement
about
what
we're
likely
to
end
up
with
by
when
might
be
helpful.
B
It's
a
it's
a
perfectly
valid
question,
but
the
challenge
we
have
in
these
is
that
we
do
Grant
planning
permission
for
sites
sometimes
many
times
over,
so
the
land
south
of
Suite,
the
the
areas
south
of
the
river
and
the
lands
House
of
Sweet
Street
has
had
previous
consents
on
it,
and
other
sites
have
had
previous
consents.
But
what
we
can't
control
through
the
planning
process
is
when
those
developments
will
actually
happen.
B
So,
if
you
looked
at
the
planning
records,
almost
every
bit
of
land
has
got
a
consent
of
some
sort
or
or
is
designated
for
redevelopment,
but
the
actual
reality
on
the
ground
is
what
what
you
saw
today
cleared
sites
underused
sites
and
unfortunately
the
government
in
their
wisdom
is
saying
we
can't
control
that.
So
that's
the
reality
of
the
situation.
So
it's
we
could
say
at
a
point
in
time.
B
G
I
do
remember
quite
clearly
when
that
first
came
for
consideration,
saying
we
can't
look
at
this
site
just
in
isolation.
We
have
to
look
at
it
in
relation
to
other
sites
in
relation
to
access
routes
from
the
city
center,
and
that
was
agreed
and
I
was
answered,
and
that
was
why
I
didn't
bring
up
any
of
those
considerations
today
because,
in
my
opinion,
it's
covered.
It's
been
done.
E
Thank
you,
so
we
are
losing
our
members
in
number.
So
let
us
go
to
the
final
conclusion
of
the
report
and
ask
ourselves
the
three
questions
that
are
there.
Do
members
consider
the
proposed
use
of
the
site
for
student
accommodation
is
acceptable
in
principle:
yeah
yeah,
so
we've
got
a
yes.
We've
got
three
yeses
in
principle.
Yes,
yes,
so
with
a
general
agreement
around
that
in
principle,
but
but
you've
heard
some
reservations
and
I'm
sure
you'll
give
some
thought
to
those
after
this
meeting
subject
to
confirmation
of
detailed
proposals.
E
Do
members
support
the
approach
towards
living
conditions
for
the
student
accommodation,
I.
Think
we've
all
said
yes
to
that
during
the
debate,
so
that
is
a
affirmative
and
finally
do
members
consider
that
the
proposed
mass
and
form
of
the
development
and
its
relationship
with
the
surrounding
context
is
acceptable
and
I
think
we've
all
acknowledged
that
as
part
of
our
ongoing
debate
this
afternoon,
so
that
also
is
an
affirmative
okay.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
for
coming
and
doing
that
presentation
and
listening
to
our
various
points
in
the
debate.
E
I
hope
it's
been
helpful
to
you.
I
think
it's
been
helpful
to
us
to
be
able
to
say
those
things
to
you
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
what
the
what
the
next
stage
of
that
development
is.
So
thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
did
you
want
to
sum
up
or
make
any
concluding
remarks.
B
I
I,
don't
I,
think
you've
I
think
you've
summed
up
very
well,
and
so
thank
you.
Everyone
and
normally
the
chair,
says
the
next
meeting
is
on
the
20th
of
April.
Thank.
E
You
and
the
show
would
also
thank
you
very
much
for
your
presence
and
and
prolonged
this
afternoon
as
well
and
your
contributions.
So
thank
you
for
that
see
you
next
time
sitting
over
there.
Hopefully.