Transcript

Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to planning committee. Just want to check Councillor Bickney's meeting. Can you hear us all right online? Yes, I can. Thank you very much. Welcome everyone to planning committee. This meeting is being held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in the city of Chambers High Street, Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the council's website. The council is the data controller under the data protection, regulation and data protection act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfil our public task obligation to neighbour members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be obtained in accordance with the council's published policy. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when finished speaking. Taylor, can you take us through the agenda, please? Yeah, thank you convener. So item one on the agenda is order of business. Just to note, we have Councillor Kumar substituting for Councillor Gardner today. The meeting papers were published on the 20th of June 2024 and motions and amendments have been circulated electronically and are available to view by members of the public on the council's website alongside the papers for this meeting. For any members and officers joining remotely, you are reminded that you should mute your microphones when not speaking to reduce interference from background noise and that the chat function should be used to indicate to the convener that you wish to speak. Please label your comment question, contribution, point of order, et cetera. The chat function should not be used for any other purpose and all business should come to the convener. If members are planning to substitute for other members at any point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who has left and who has joined the meeting and all votes will be taken by show of hands. Just to note that as per standing order 22.16, each item is subject to a 40 minute time limit unless agreed by committee under the order of business. The convener has discretion to allow proceedings to continue beyond the time limit. I think we'll be sticking to the 40 minute rule today. Thank you. In that case, we'll move on to section two, which is declarations of interest. The councilor's code of conduct requires members to publicly declare interests and that it has been considered at today's meeting. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? I don't think so. Perfect. We'll move on to section three now, which is deputations. There are no deputations. There's also no minutes at section four and nothing at forward planning at section five. There's no business bulletin and nothing at sections seven either. We'll move on to section eight, which is planning policy. At 8.1, we have the city plan 2030 supplementary guidance on developer contributions and infrastructure delivery consultation draft. It's a report by the executive director of PLACE and I'll pass over to David Gibbons to speak to the report. David, over to you. Thanks, Taylor. Thanks, convener. This report is on city plan 2030 supplementary guidance on developer contributions and infrastructure delivery. It's a consultation draft and we're seeking your approval to consult on this over a period of eight weeks. The background to this is the report of examination on city plan, which was considered by the planning committee last week and city plan will be considered for adoption tomorrow by full council. The examination report and the plan as modified requires supplementary guidance to support policy infrastructure three. Supplementary guidance is a statutory provision of the 1997 planning act, but it's a provision that will fall away in March of 2025. So in order that we get the supplementary guidance in place within that time scale and provides sufficient time for ministers to consider it and for us to consult on it and for us to consider that consultation, we need to have the consultation draft approved at this time and go out to consultation over the summer. So the consultation draft is appended to the report and you'll see that it covers topics of education, transport, healthcare, and blue green infrastructure, which also includes public realm. The appendices within the guidance set out the detail on costs and the methods for calculation using expected housing output numbers relevant to the contribution zones, which we've set out. We've included supporting information to set out how the proposals within it meet the tests of the planning obligation circular, which you'll be familiar with from development management subcommittee. We're proposing that we use the city plans action program and subsequent delivery program as a mechanism to be able to update costs and funding in the future. So that would be down the line and in the future. And as I say, we're seeking consultation for seeking approval that we can go and consult for eight weeks subsequent to publishing the report, we have identified some minor errors in the consultation draft. And with your permission we would like the authority to be able to update the consultation draft before we go out to consultation so that we can correct those. They relate to the referencing of some of the city plan opportunity sites. We don't think it makes any substantive difference to the consultation draft, but we think it's important that we do correct those errors and any consequences arising from them. So we have Naomi Sandilands on hand as well if there are any questions. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Before moving to questions, I just need to double check with Councillor Cameron. Do you have anything in terms of no declarations? Brilliant. Thank you so much. Any questions from members? None in the room. Looking on, oh my goodness. Councillor Jones and Councillor Thornley. Thank you, Kaveena. I'm just scrolling through. When I read this in detail yesterday, I'm just scrolling through for the page. It's to do with the, Bruntston is named as a primary school where I think you mean New Bruntston because that's the new Craig Hall, which is now going to be coming New Bruntston as opposed to Bruntston School, which is undergoing a retrofit. I'm just trying to find the page. Yes. Sorry. I think there are some references to this in around page 33 of the public pack, the overall pack, and I think we are defending it. Possibly page 34. It should be New Bruntston, should it not? Is that correct? We can correct that and make that clear that it's New Bruntston that we're defending. Yes. Great. Thank you for that. Councillor Thornley. Thank you. I think this might be, I'm not sure if David or Ian is the best person for that. Regarding the West Edinburgh zone transport interventions, given the scale of what's already going in in West Edinburgh and the time it's taking to get the infrastructure interventions which have already been agreed for the developments which have started, are we confident that under this guidance, we're going to be able to deliver any future agreed contributions in a, agree and deliver them in a timely manner so that residents can feel the impact of them and don't develop, and don't become used to working around the fact that they're not there and then we don't get the behaviour changes and the modal shift that we're looking for. This is something that we're very conscious of and perhaps Ian or Naomi will want to comment on this as well, but we're already out to consultation on the West Edinburgh police making framework, and as you'll be aware, that contains a series of interventions, transport interventions. At the public consultation, one of the key takeaway points for us from local community people was the idea of infrastructure first, and they were saying that to us on the basis of some of the challenges that they find within the area. So that is something that we're focused on as to how we can deliver the infrastructure in good time. That has to be balanced, I guess, against the viability of development, because as you'll be aware from the extent of what's proposed in West Edinburgh, there's a very large amount of development. It's going to take many, many years to build out, and if all of the infrastructure was to get delivered up front, which would be the ideal Utopian scenario, the level of investment early on would be enormous. So what we're trying to do is set out ways in which the necessary infrastructure comes forward at the right time, but we are conscious of what people in West Edinburgh have been saying to us, but I don't know whether Ian and Naomi would want to offer anything further on that. I think, I mean, as you say, David, the framework does cover infrastructure in more detail than the plan itself, which is logical, and that derives from a lot of the work that was done through the examination and was pointed to by the report of examination and the reporter's findings. We do need to make sure it is deliverable as well as the actual infrastructure that's needed, and part of that is working through the application process, so you work through the layers of the plan, the guidance, and then the applications themselves in terms of the phasing of those, or the likely phasing of those developments, and then for the Section 75, you arrive at the likely phasing of the payments to provide the infrastructure at an appropriate time according to the phasing of the development. So the plan is based on an understanding of the phasing from a couple of years ago. The framework is based on an understanding of the phasing from a few months ago. There are applications in, and when we determine them, we will need to have a more up-to-date understanding of the likely phasing of the developments at that stage that we can then work through to the Section 75 to get the contributions in at the right time so that the infrastructure can be delivered at the right time. So it's a process of refinement as you go through this, and we're very conscious of the current context of West Edinburgh. We're conscious of the funding for projects like WETIP, which will help with the whole of, well, with that aspect of infrastructure in West Edinburgh, and the WETA 2016 refresh, which has been part of the basis of the Transport Assessment of City Plan. And there's already funding being gathered for that from existing applications, and that will obviously filter through to new ones as they come through. I don't know if Naomi would want to add anything to that. You've both mentioned the phrase the appropriate time. What's the mechanism behind determining the appropriate time, and how is that done in consideration of plans that are being made in other parts of the Council, say through the various transport plans that go through tech, for instance? I think it's a challenging situation, because we've got several large developments being proposed. There's two really big applications. We've got the West Town application, we've got the Crosswinds application. There are other sites identified in the plan, and depending on when those are coming forward, there might be different things that you'd want to do at different times, depending on the actual timing. So there's going to have to be discussion through the applications about what's necessary and when, but there will be, I think, a very strong focus from us on making sure that the public transport going through the West Edinburgh area is prioritised and prioritised early. So that will be a significant focus for us. But it's going to depend on looking in detail about when things are happening, when things are proposed, and what we think the impacts are, depending on numbers of housing at different stages. Short follow-up? Thanks, Convenor. On that basis, then, does that mean that it will be decided what the appropriate time is on a case-by-case basis, based on what officer's opinion, or is there a structure through which that will be decided? Is it more ad hoc, or is there a specific mechanism? Well, I think that the general principle is infrastructure first. So I think what I was trying to outline, answering the initial question, was that's the general principle, but we have to be practical about the way in which we do it. So there will be individual discussions, and it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but with that underlying principle as being the driving factor in our consideration about, and being, as I said, being very conscious of what people have told us about their experience of living in the locality and the transport impacts that are resulting from development that's already underway, and how we then deal with that for the future. So it's, yeah, it's, I think we looked hard at this when we were considering the framework itself, about, you know, whether we should be prescriptive about phasing and see this bit of development can happen here, provided this element of infrastructure is in place, and we felt that would be potentially creating a too onerous situation that wouldn't be adequately flexible and enable the developers to come forward in a way that, you know, the market is going to help deliver the development. So, yeah, it's, the underlying principle is an infrastructure first, but there has to be a degree of flexibility in how we apply that. Okay. Thank you very much. We've got Councillor Matasquale, Councillor Osler, Councillor Mebbitt. So Councillor Matasquale. Thank you, Ken Veena. Maybe this is a question from someone that hasn't been in the committee for that long. I'm a bit confused because on 4.5 it says it is anticipated that updates or reviews, once approved, will not be possible due to legislative changes. And then in 5.2 says responses to the consultation will be reviewed. So can you just explain to me a little bit of the process, because I'm a bit confused about is it city plan first and consultation then DSG after the consultation? Is that it? Thank you. So in 4.5 of the report, read that, if we did that in context with, I think all of what's being said in that section, the way that the legislation is set up, there's section 22 of the act, which provides the provisions for supplementary guidance. What the reporters have said to us is you have to have supplementary guidance to support this policy. So we know we've got to do that. But then because the 2019 planning act came in, it said that this provision section 22 in respect of supplementary guidance should fall away. It should stop being used. And the point at which that happens is March of next year. So what we're seeing is we can't make that in paragraph 4.5 is we can't continue to update the supplementary guidance thereafter because there'll be no provision after March of 2025 to create new or updated supplementary guidance. What we're seeing is that we will do that through the delivery programme or the action programme. And then subsequently, as it will be known, the delivery programme. Okay. Thank you very much. We've got Councillor Osler. Thank you. Following off on Councillor Matusquale's question, because it was partially mine, it's how confident are we that we have everything in? Because the point I want to draw back to was obviously we had an application recently, which was about a bridge over the Warshaw fleet and the problem, the reason why it couldn't be delivered was the fact that it wasn't within our developer's contributions. Bear in mind what you've just said, David, how confident are we that we've actually got everything within this plan? I would say I'm confident that we've got everything that we know about at this stage. There will be things that may emerge in the future and we'll have to think about how we secure those, where those are arising as a direct consequence of development. But there's that general principle that of the necessity of infrastructure arising from development that kind of underlies the concept of us securing such infrastructure. So if we've got situations in the future where there are new matters emerging, potentially we could be looking at the delivery programme to take account of those or potentially what we'll be looking at is addressing those through individual applications if we think there's a policy basis for it. But it should be conscious from development management subcommittee. I think we're always pretty clear on when we think and when we think it is not appropriate to secure contributions or to secure through other means necessary infrastructure. Just to add to that, the policy in three specifically reference the tables in part four of the plan. So this SG tries to cover all of the proposals in there where they're specifically relevant to using a cumulative contribution zone or where this SG can clarify and set out the appropriate calculation for it that would be more complex than just a simple assessment of it and of a development and the proposals in the plan. So a lot of those proposals in the tables in part four will be directly delivered by development on the whole. And it's the SG that looks through those tables and looks through the individual proposals that are more complex and that need that cumulative impact to be assessed. And that's why they're in the SG. But it's relating specifically to -- it has to be linked back to proposals in the plan. Thanks. This is my follow up. Obviously we've discussed it with officers. We think officers have supplied from other parts of the council like transport, education. And we've gone through all the information they've given us. We put it into the document. It's gone back to them. They've checked it off. They're happy with it. Yeah, this is a very collaborative document. Yeah. Thanks. I just wanted to add a little bit to that. One of the principles that we are pursuing through this guidance is that it is the likely level of contributions that will be required to give people an upfront idea of likely costs. It's been established through other supplementary guidance and other authorities. And I think through the ELSIC decision that you can only really talk about the likely levels because clearly if the guidance is set now and is difficult to change in five years' time, the values will be different. And also the material considerations affecting both plan sites and windfall sites will have shifted and changed. So we're saying in the guidance it's the likely level. And that's why we would use the delivery program to update both the projects, depending on what's happening, and the level of contributions required, and indeed the phasing of those. Lovely. Councillor Mowat, then Councillor Booth. Thank you. I appreciate that the report has come back and said that we need to prepare this. We have prepared this on previous occasions, and it's never survived contact with the Scottish government. And I don't believe anyone else's supplementary guidance of this nature has been approved. So how confident are we that this will survive the process that we're going to push it through and be adopted? And I've got a secondary question. I'm much more confident would be the short answer. I think Naomi and the team that have been involved in preparing this have been looking back at those previous decisions. And I think we've done everything we can, we feel, to address what's been set out in the city plan policies. Supplementary text, I think a paragraph. I forget the numbers reference. But I think in doing that, we think that we're covering the necessary ground that will overcome the issues that we've previously faced. So I'm much more confident. I don't think we can guarantee that the ministers will accept what we're proposing, because it's obviously got to go through their process, but as I say, much more confident than have been in the past, given the circumstances that we've faced. Can we get Mr McFarland and then Joseph? Just to follow on, there are examples of developer contribution supplementary guidance that have been approved by ministers, and we've looked at those as well as looking at court decisions, legal decisions, and the principles that the reporters or the government were concerned about in the previous guidance. One of those was that there wasn't a hook in the plan in the right place or of the right type for the health care guidance, so the relationship was wrong in terms of that. And the other one was related to methodology for calculating education contributions and insufficient clarity as to what was needed for existing pressure on education and what was needed from development through the LDP. So we have worked really hard with education and with the NHS to address those issues, as well as the principles under which this guidance is considered, and I think it's consistent with the legal side of things, it's consistent with the policy side of things in terms of Scottish Government legislation and guidance as well, and its methodology has been thoroughly reviewed in the process. So whilst you can never have a guarantee of what ministers will say about something, we've addressed those previous points as well as adopting that principle at a likely level of contributions, and we also have additional flexibility going forward through the delivery programme. The way the reporters amended the wording of City Plan 2030 built in that flexibility at that stage, so it wasn't something we just had to try and tack on to it. That's in the wording in the plan in respect of the delivery programmes, and we also have policy INF4 in relation to assessment of contributions at the time of a decision on an application, which allows us to consider new circumstances which have emerged. So I think it's comprehensive in addressing the previous issues with guidance. >> That's reassuring. There's a limited life for this, and then it rolls over into part of the delivery programme. I've got a tangential concern. We're going to put this out to consultation. We've all been aware of the impact on the amount of construction costs and the difficulties in suppressing the market, and we're going to go out with a document which says this is the impact of the building that we want to do that we've assessed, and there's an argument still about whether it delivers sufficient housing to meet our housing need or not, but because we've agreed and the reporters agreed that it does, we'll just take that as read. So we're going to go out to the market and say this is going to cost you X amount of money on top of your housing costs, on top of your construction costs, bank costs, all the things that make up development. Now, gazing into my crystal ball, which is a bit cloudy, but I don't think it's going to come as a lot of surprise when we get a lot of responses going back. Development is starting to look really uneconomic in Edinburgh because we may well start hitting the point at which land values just become, it's not worth their while to develop, so people are just going to say I'm just going to not bother because I can't make my returns if we've got these costs. So if that comes back and we have to then continue this and consider that, what do we do at that point if we get an overwhelming, sorry, there's no going to be an over-development in Edinburgh if this is what you're asking of us? What do we do in that situation? I think that type of situation has always occurred when a developer contribution's guidance or indeed a policy which affects things in terms of say, you know, when 25% affordable housing was introduced, it was I think stated quite widely that development would grind to a halt and quite clearly development didn't grind to a halt. Clearly, there's emergent policies, some of which have been flagged up for a good number of years through both national processes and indeed our own planned process and developers will have started to work through those long before now in terms of how they might affect their investment appraisals and ultimately the question will be for landowners to decide whether the land values they're receiving are sufficient for them to give their land over to development. There have been other changes in terms of costs, et cetera. The development industry is adaptive. It does look to amend its model to reflect circumstances in terms of costs. I think there's a lot of information out there about what's happened to the development industry since both financial issues have emerged and construction costs have increased. Whilst it has impacted on house building rates, which is particularly due to the unavailability of mortgages, the actual business of the developers seem to be reporting quite strong results and therefore clearly they've tailored their financial planning to protect their businesses so that they can continue to build homes. What the rate of that will be will depend on how circumstances continue to change in terms of mortgageability, which is the principal one in terms of market developers, and also affordable housing funding, because we know there's significant need rather than demand in housing and the funding scenario for that is not promising at the moment. Obviously we considered the referral of the ship report planning committee last week. That situation may change. So the market housing context may change to help support it better, and the affordable housing may change, the funding may change to support it better. We're always dealing with shifting circumstances. Developers are always advising that policy changes, policy shifts, has an impact on their businesses and they've proven to be adaptable and robust in many circumstances other than perhaps 2008 where there was significant impact on the number of house building firms, but new ones have emerged since then in terms of the strength of the market over the past probably, where are we now, 2024, probably the past 10 years up to 2022 when it's been affected by the financial circumstances that are in the context of all business. So we will get negative feedback in terms of what we're saying, and there will be critiques of we will get finely detailed critiques of the levels of contributions and we'll consider that in taking it forward and it will come back to committee for a committee to make a decision. Just a final follow-up. So we know we get the critiques because we always get those and I appreciate that, but have we done any modelling about affordability and at which point, because I know we always get the critiques and we go everything adapts, but actually what the adaption is, is that house building slows and I think a lot of the contributions, if you trace it back you could see that house building has slowed as contributions have been required because you play into the laws of supply and demand, but have we done any modelling to look at that or do we plan to when we get those responses in just to ensure that if we put this out to ministers when the consultation comes back, that we aren't slowing a market where we know we need to deliver because that's the only way we deal with a lot of the council's key policies is to deliver housing, whether that's the poverty agenda or trying to tackle the homelessness agenda. The delivery of houses is actually vital for us to meet the wider aims of the council. So are we going to undertake that model? The main measure that we consider is what is the likely level of contributions per unit because we know what the market has borne before, and if that is significantly above the levels that we've asked for previously, then we know it could become problematic. That's the kind of measure for us as planners. We will receive certainly a lot of financial modelling, although I expected to receive a lot of financial modelling in relation to the proposed plan and what that set out, and we didn't receive anything on that at all in terms of detail, which was quite a surprise to me. So developers will provide their commentary on it and that will go into some detail both in critiquing methodologies and contribution zones and the overall levels, but we do know what the market can bear. Do we have a detailed financial modelling of that? No, we don't. Thank you. Councillor Booth. Thanks, Camino. Thanks very much indeed to officers for an enormous amount of work that's gone into this. One of the criticisms of the previous plan that we heard quite often from community councils and sometimes also from residents was about the lack of healthcare, and you touched on this in your answer to Councillor Mallet's question. I noticed that this one does have a substantial chapter on healthcare, so can you talk us through the process? I understand NHS Lothian were actually much more involved in the process this time around. Can you talk us a wee bit more about the process and also how confident are you that we will now be able to get some sort of contribution to GP surgeries? One of the criticisms I heard quite often from my community councils was we've got hundreds of new homes, but we've got GP surgeries that are bursting at the seams and there's no contribution towards them, so how confident are we that we're going to address that challenge? In terms of the principle, again, that's been established through other plans. The principle of developer contributions for healthcare capital projects is appropriate, which was not always the case, but certainly that is the case now, and other local authorities have gathered developer contributions under those regimes, so in principle it is established

• I do not think for a moment the ministers would seek to change that, although you never know - but that's well established by previous plans and guidance. The critique of our previous guidance was that we didn't have the right relationship in the plan to do that guidance in the way we did it. This is not an issue in terms of this draft. Then it's a question of the methodology and the robustness of that methodology, so we worked very hard with NHS to ensure that we understand what their needs are in areas and how they provide a financial quantification to address that need for space, effectively, for physical space. The other issue with availability of GPs, obviously, is the staffing, which we can't address through developer contributions, as you know, so that has been done in conjunction with the NHS and their standard methodology for the cost for space, and therefore we feel that is robust. I don't know if you want to add to that, Naomi. Any more questions? Councillor Jones. Just a final point of clarification. I'm just trying to understand these figures with regards to the contribution zones. I'm looking in particular at Castlebury contribution zone. Can you tell me, I don't see where the nursery provision is located in these figures. Just give us a second on that, Councillor Jones. I'm just trying to understand. I'm just trying to understand. I'm just trying to understand. We think that there's not an early years action in that particular location. So if we're including early years, there is an action, and we've set that out. But obviously at the start of the proceedings today, I was seeking authority. If we identify any errors, we will double check that. Yeah, I can double check with our education colleagues, but there are specific actions for early years in some of the tables you'll notice, and my assumption is therefore if it's not specifically identified, there isn't in that particular area a requirement or a need based on the information in the model at this time. So we can clarify that with our education colleagues, but certainly there is the provision within the policy to take contributions for extensions, including things like additional capacity for dining halls and that kind of stuff as well as early years. That's all encompassed within the definition of education infrastructure. That's very helpful. I'm just trying to recall from what I read yesterday that it may have been listed somewhere else or separately, but anyway, if you could double check that, that would be very helpful. Thank you. We'll do that. Okay. Any other questions? None in the room. I don't think there's any online. No? Okay. That's fine. I just move the report to thank officers for the connections. Oh yeah, with the additional corrections. I'm of course happy to move that. David, do you want to comment on that or? Well, it was just to say, obviously we've set out the recommendations, the written recommendations, and I am asking for an additional recommendation there that we make any corrections that we identify. If that's okay. Sure. I'll be quite happy with that. So just moving the report to thank officers for the work and as we know, developing contributions are very, very important. They're also quite politically sensitive to make sure we get the right balance between hopefully not burdening business and development, but making sure when we do build new communities and build new spaces, which is what we need to do, that we have the facilities that we need to particularly in terms of education, transport and whatever else. So I think getting this consultation out as soon as possible is a good thing. I think as Councillor Thornley hit on, which is correct, that in new developments, particularly, say for example, in West Edinburgh, we make sure we do our best to have facilities there for when residents move in and indeed before that. And I think to get to that, we need to get a consultation out as soon as possible. So I don't think there's any other counter proposals. So is committee happy to agree that? Great. Lovely. Taylor, can you take us on to the next item, please? Yeah, thank you, convener. So there is nothing at section nine on the agenda. So we'll move on to section 10, which is plan and performance. At 10.1, we'll have the annual report on the Pre-Application Advice Service. It's a report by the executive director of PLACE and Lewis McWilliam and Claire McDonald will speak to this report. If I could just introduce it. So we're asking you that you agree to changes for the Council's Planning Pre-Application Advice Service and that we implement these with your approval from the 1st of July. This is a follow up report. So we annually update you on the progress of our Pre-Application Service and you'll see from the report that it's generally been very well received, but there are a couple of changes that we're proposing and I think we've got some slides which will set that out. So I'll pass over to Lewis and Claire. Lewis over to you. Okay, thank you. So I just got a couple of slides basically to highlight the main aspects in the report in front of you. So brief background, what is Pre-Application Advice? Advice to prospective applicants before a planning application has been submitted. The Council offers two tiers, generic and bespoke, generic being without charge, which is available on the Council website via the planning help desk and bespoke advice, tailored advice on a specific proposal. Now, Pre-Application Advice is not a statutory planning function. However, the Council provides this to support the efficient operation of the planning system, can help improve the quality of applications, provide a level of additional certainty to customers. Now importantly, the advice is without prejudice to the Council's determination of any subsequent application. So we've provided bespoke advice since July 2019 with the overall objective of achieving cost recovery. Some of you might remember approximately a year ago, first quarter 2023, the Council reviewed the way in which we provided this advice and there were various refinements to the service that were approved by committee. This included a standardization of the overall service. At that time, it was agreed that we'd present the results of the following 12 months of this implementation. And as part of that, we have a Pre-Application Working Group where we meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the Pre-Application Service. So as David highlighted, generally in terms of the customer feedback, we're generally receiving positive feedback on the service, that it gives clear advice and provides good value for money. We've also received officer feedback that generally the standardization of the service has been a positive. However, specifically there have been issues that have been raised in relation to the pre-position discussion. Now this option was aimed at customers requiring a high level view from planning. For example, customers considering purchasing a site or seeking a general opinion on the development potential of the site. And specifically, it's not appropriate for customers with more developed proposals requiring detailed information or more complex advice. Now as a result, many customers using this service are typically looking for that more detailed design comments. And this, as a result, has put additional pressure on officers that it's not resourced for in terms of the officer time for delivery. It is therefore proposed to remove this service and continue with the three main categories of service, the local development small, local development medium and the major development category. Now the other change that is proposed is to streamline the target for issuing the advice letters across all three services. And this would include changing the target time for the advice letter for major developments from 20 working days after the final Pre-App meeting to 10 working days. And if I just move across to the two appendices, these outline the full extent of the changes to the service. Appendix two shows the, so there's a slight increase in the fees in line with that. The emission of the preposition discussion as of detailed and changing the advice letter target time for the major developments from 20 working days after the wrap up meeting to 10 working days. Now, if committee were agreeable to these changes, it would be enforced from the 1st of July, 2024, and it'd be our intention to bring a progress report back approximately this time next year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. Almost feels a little bit like development management subcommittee, but for presentations, we hardly get any at planning, but thank you Lewis. I've got a question for Councillor Osler then Councillor Jones and then Councillor Matusquale. Thank you very much indeed for that Lewis. It all looks very, very positive indeed and supportive of what's being recommended. My question though relates to the target time because I mean, that's quite a dramatic target time because in layman's term that's going from a month to two weeks in terms of response. How, what impact, I mean, one, how feasible is that over a period of time? And two, what knock on impact could that have possibly to other services and offices time? I think, yeah, I think so. So at the moment we have the 10 days as a target for the local development medium after the last meeting, I think, I think the, the, the intention with the major developments is because you're having, you know, you have more meetings as part of that service. You have, you know, I think five or six in total, there's, there's an at the end of these meetings would be the intention that the officers provide briefing notes back to the applicant. So I think that the intention there or in terms of its reasonableness is that you're actually, it should be a work in progress throughout that major pre-application that in a sense when it comes to the end of the wrap up meeting, it's not a blank canvas that you're starting from in terms of writing that final report. You've actually made the steps throughout that process to be completing that. So I think with that in mind, that that's where it's, it's deemed to be a realistic change. And I suppose just to add to that, like it is a target. And if there are certain officer pressures at the time, then there'd be the expectation that you'd be in contact with, you know, with the agent on those, on those timescales. If I could just have a follow up. Is that, is that a request that's coming from us or from actually the developers for this change of target? The change is, is predominantly made from us to streamline it to the 10 working days across. Sorry, can I just add that we have streamlined the response, the formal response because before we were, they were too long, we had, you know, information in there. We didn't really need like maps, et cetera. So we have, and we've also given, you know, quoting too many policies cause it was beginning to kind of drift into an actual assessment. So we have made it much more simple, you know, giving kind of advice and more general themes with more kind of standardized sections. So that should help as well. Okay. Councillor Jones. I have actually three questions, but I'll obviously just put one at the moment. You say that this bespoke service, which has been introduced since 2019, is providing good value for money. And you indicate that that is information you've received through the survey results. We don't actually have those survey results in the report. And so, can you expand a bit on how do you know that it is really providing good value for money? Yeah, well, at the end of when we issue like the advice letter to the applicant, there's a link to survey monkey, which the applicants can fill in, which provides like, I think it's about 10 different questions on different elements of the pre-app service. I don't have the specifics of that survey to hand, but I suppose what I would say in terms of like the value for money is in terms of the numbers of pre-apps, we've not seen a drop off from the previous year. So in that regard, customers are still willing to pay the price of the pre-app that we've got outlined in the service. Sorry, I was just going to say to add to that anecdotal evidence from officers' experience, including both of us, is that we got a lot of positive feedback from agents, you know, saying that when the application comes in, it takes a shorter time to process because many of the kind of contentious and difficult issues can be, you know, for example, with historic environment, Scotland can be bashed out before the application goes in. So the whole overall process is quicker. This is probably a second question, but it is really going on from the first question. It's to do with the pricing structure and I'm wondering with regards to the pricing, how have you established that? I mean, is this in line with market prices and are other councils doing this as well? Yeah, I mean, I maybe didn't kind of touch upon that, but the actual pricing was like agreed around a year ago by committee in terms of the pricing to each scale of application. And I know, I mean, I'd be going back kind of over a year ago in terms of when that was reviewed, but I know that the other local authorities were considered as part of that. And I think in particular, sort of the more similarly scaled authority of Glasgow was taken into account as part of that pricing structure. If I can just come in on that, the pricing reflects the actual cost. So there's a cost to obviously all the officer time that's involved and what we find is that P-UP does take us quite a bit of time to do. There'll be the particular officers that are delivering it and there'll be management involved and so on. So it can take quite a bit of time and involve quite a number of people. So the cost things that we've got in there are reflective of the kind of average costs for those types of cases. We've got you further questions in a bit, Councillor Jones. We've got Councillor Matasquale, Councillor Booth, Councillor Merritt, Councillor Matasquale. Thank you, Ken Veener. Just to see if I'm understanding this right. So there's positive feedback about this service but unfortunately the council cannot cope with the demand because of the officer's time. So and I've seen as well the impact, the cost income, sorry, I'm reading on 6.1, the income from the pre-application advice on 2324 was 314,000 compared to 104,000. So my question is very simple, hypothetically. If we would like to still offer this service, what would we have to offer on top of what we have? I agree with your report. I completely understand where we're coming from but would we be talking about more officers or I know there's a pressure as well to hire nowadays. So if we wanted to offer this service properly, what would we have to add? Thank you. I hope I made sense. I think the challenge is that the pre-position service is we have an idea about what it's about which is providing this very high level view. But what we're finding is it's slipping into through conversations with the developers and the agents and to actually provide them more detailed advice. And that seems to be the pattern kind of across, Claire and Lewis you'll confirm, it's pattern across the boards. What we feel is it's just something that we shouldn't be providing in that form. There are the three kind of scales of the kind of small, the medium and the major stroke national. So we feel that that's a better fit for what's actually happening and it makes sure then that we're recovering adequately the costs. If I could add to that as well. It's very risky that pre-position service because you really need experienced knowledgeable officers to give that advice. So it's heavy in cost and resources. If you don't have the right people that have the right knowledge and background knowledge, you're in danger of actually putting the council at risk by giving inaccurate information, especially when the amount of information that they usually provide is scant. So you can't really give meaningful advice at that level, which is why we have abandoned it. It doesn't mean that they can never approach a high level, but it would need to be at really quite high level. Thank you. Sorry, it's just a very short comment. It's because you did say when the applications came it was easier and quicker because they had the information, hence my question. Thank you. That's okay. Thanks, Claire. Thanks, David. We'll move on to council booth. Thanks, Camila. Thanks very much indeed for the report and the presentation. So this is perhaps a history question and apologies for not knowing this. So 2019 was when we introduced the charge for bespoke advice. Was that the same date that we withdrew a bespoke advice for householders? And can you just remind us what the reasons for that were? I presume it was around the cost of providing that service and that there was no realistic chance of charging a fee that would cover the cost. Have I understood that correctly? Have I remembered that correctly? Your recollection is correct. I think in general terms, what we were finding was that providing pre-application for householders, often what we were doing was referring back to our guidance and we think our guidance is good. It's pretty comprehensive. It outlines a number of scenarios for householders, for extensions and things that they might be interested in doing. And so we felt that's the best way to give them that advice. And so that's, if you look at the report, obviously what we're seeing is that there's those two categories of the generic and the bespoke, and that's certainly in that genetic category. If I may come back a minute, that's helpful. Thanks very much. So just in terms of the generic advice that's available to householders, which is available on the website, have we done any sort of surveys of householder applicants in terms of whether they find that to be useful, accessible, you know, relevant to them? I just ask the question because I have had a number of conversations recently with householder applicants who have told me that they don't necessarily find the information on the website to be accessible, easy to, you know, easy to understand, and easy to be relevant to them. So I suppose the question is, have we done a survey of householders about the information that's available? I mean, I think specifically, no. We did have customer forums, but that was possibly some time ago, and I think that's probably something that we would look to implement again in terms of getting additional feedback from customers. If I can come in as well. On the point around the accessibility of the guidance, I think we'd like to reflect on that. We are proposing to bring the guidance back in the householder guidance in September for committee's consideration, then go out to consult on that. I think we always take care to try and write our documents, which are often explaining quite complex planning issues in as plain English and simple a language as we can. So there will be an opportunity for - it's typically the householder agents who are often the architects and the technicians and the consultants that prepare these applications, they'll have an opportunity to comment on that guidance at that stage. Thank you very much. Councillor Mehmet. Yes, thank you. Just, Claire, coming back to what you were saying about you're seeing a reduction in the time taken to assess the applications, are we monitoring the overall time taken on applications of pre-app and then the applications coming in to look at whether this is making it more efficient? And then if we are doing that, is there any benchmarking that's done across other councils about time taken to do applications when I suppose that would just be looking at the assessment part of it? So I think on that first part, that was possibly something that was kind of mentioned last year as well. I have had a discussion. I think we don't currently have the tools to provide that comparison in terms of timescale without pre-app, timescale with pre-app. That's possibly something that we can look to in the future. I suppose if I talk from sort of my own experience, I can think of cases in the last year where the pre-app discussions have certainly improved efficiency and the ability to make the consideration quicker at the application stage, so without going into the details of the pre-app discussion, the civil to oxygen accommodation one would be an example where the pre-app discussions did help in terms of the efficiency of determining it. I don't know if Clare has anything to add on that. I can maybe comment on that. I think the key thing is we aren't providing advice early on and some of that advice will be around what kind of information do we need to get that application determined and sometimes through the pre-app discussions you'll find that the applicant's agents weren't aware of something that is going to be needed to determine. If we find that out once we've got an application rather than a pre-app stage, it will slow things down because what will happen is maybe a few weeks into determining it, we become aware and then we'll let the applicant's agent know. They will then have to go away and prepare the report or some other information. We then might receive that. We might, depending on what it is, need to go and consult with neighbours. That's one aspect where things could slow down. I think the other is often we'll be discussing design matters and offering advice around our thoughts about the extent to which we would be able to support or not support something on those grounds. Again, if we're upfront and early with that advice, it does help applicants get their applications into better shape and something that is potentially more likely to be supported by us as officers. I have to stress that the pre-app advice is given without prejudice to any future decisions of the Council. I was just going to add that the timescale of the application depends on whether the pre-app advice has been heeded and whether all the relevant information has been submitted according to what we've asked for. The quality of it is not always even. We need to factor in quite a lot of different elements to really prove either way was it making a difference. At the moment, it's anecdotal evidence from officers as opposed to a more scientific approach. We can find a mechanism and a way to get that information. I think it is probably important to come back, given that potentially people are being charged an additional fee as well as the standard planning fee. From our point of view about securing best value, if that is delivering faster decisions and quicker decisions for people and improves the speed of the service, that is generally a good thing. But if we can't demonstrate that, I suspect someone is going to come and ask us to do that at some point. I think I would be comfortable if we can try and attempt to do that. There is a commitment in the report, obviously, to return next year. I think that is something that we could look at, look at the statistical basis. It might be difficult to prove a link because often it will come down to those scenarios we have just described, but we could certainly look at sampling a number of cases that haven't had pre-application advice and some that have and see if there is any difference in overall timescales and see what that tells us. Happy to look at that for the future. The first part of my question was asked by Councillor Matz. We have a budget setting process in February. Is there any possibility that we could have an update before a year to see whether there needs to be any changes made? That would be quite helpful in terms of budget setting. Could we bring the report back earlier potentially or maybe something for the business bulletin? What I pretty much ask in all my committees is if we could possibly have six-month updates towards the end of the year so that we all as political parties are fully aware of what the requirements are for budget setting for the following year. It makes it a lot easier and it is much more standardised. Maybe if we could do that via the business bulletin rather than the full report. I would like to allow the time for proper consideration of what has happened. A year is a good period for that. We could maybe provide an update. I think there is a committee programme for January of next year. Aim for that for the business bulletin. Good suggestion, Councillor. We have got Councillor McNeese. Thank you. I was wondering, has the Council found itself at risk in that we have provided the paid for pre-application service? We have given advice. The applicant feels they have acted on that advice but ultimately they didn't receive approval. I can understand the rationale for streamlining and I also understand that we give advice without prejudice. I am just wondering if we have come up against that situation where we gave the advice in good faith. The applicant thought they had implemented it in good faith but the outcome wasn't what they hoped for and is that coming back upon us in terms of the service we offer? I think perhaps Claire and Lucy will want to come in on this but it wouldn't be the typical picture. There may be time to time from time to time that applicants will come back and say you didn't explain that to us at the pre-application stage but I would say that is more of the rarity rather than the norm. Perhaps Claire would want to comment on that. That is correct. Usually it is to do with time scales coming along because of poor information, lack of information. More likely what you get is that you give the advice but then there is a minor, in perhaps the developers mind, a deviation from it and they think it will be OK but it is not OK. The ones that tend to stick to the advice and adhere to it properly, there usually isn't an issue. I have never come across a case where anything has been refused that they have adhered to the pre-app advice. Just on that, we have provided advice, we will make our recommendations to you and we are very clear that it is without prejudice to future decisions. There is an understanding that that is the basis on which it is provided and for the very large part that is accepted. It was my third question relating to pre-application advice and this potentially thorny statement without prejudice. You are saying on the one hand that those who take up the pre-application advice, pay for it, are more likely to get the application which is going to be successful. In terms of how that looks from the outside, those who do not take up the advice and don't get accepted, how robust is that statement without prejudice? Do we need to be more transparent with regards to showing those who have had advice and those who have not had advice and the outcomes? I think it is absolutely necessary that we include a phase like that within the advice because what we are most often seeing at the pre-application stage is an overview of the proposals. We potentially don't have all of the accompanying reports and information. We also don't have the comments from members of the public who may comment on an application and that in itself could raise material considerations that haven't been apparent. It is important that we do put that statement in there. As I say, for the very large part, that is accepted, that is the general principle. I think if we became overly concerned, the danger would be that we step away from providing pre-application advice because we would be worried that somehow that would be prejudging our future considerations. I think that the benefits that we have outlined would be lost. When I came into planning 18 years ago and we were providing pre-application advice there, that is a statement that was going out on all of our letters at that stage. It has been something that is very much part of our approach for a very long time and predates the service that we are providing now. Can I just add that firstly, we don't always give out positive pre-application advice. Sometimes the advice is this is a known starter, obviously putting far nicer words. Or indeed, often the pre-app advice is we give them positive pointers about certain aspects, but we will often raise areas of our proposal that we think could be contentious. We are very careful about how we use words that we do not pre-assess an application. The other thing is it is not a static process because often a proposal comes in and part of the pre-application process is to work through it. Whether to come in with that application without pre-app advice, you are missing out a big stage of development. What has maybe not been seen is the development of the pre-app proposal within that process so that by the time you get to the end of the pre-app proposal, they have already changed a lot of elements that were contentious. You are moving in the right direction, but there is no guarantee. Just a quick follow-up. I absolutely agree with the principle of pre-application advice and the helpfulness of it and the term without prejudice. I absolutely agree. It should be there. Just finally, do we actually publish the figures with regards to those who have taken pre-application advice and been successful and those who have not and have been not successful? We do not publish it in that format. The main statistical information we provide is via the business bulletin and that really looks at the applications and enforcement cases and so on. But I think, as we said, I have that commitment that we will look at, is there a statistical link between what we have described, what we understand from conversations with developers and from our own experience about the benefit of it and what is actually coming through in terms of our application, overall application timescales. Any other questions? I cannot see any in the room. Just to note and if we can offer our thanks to officers who I think said they would consider whether or not they could get feedback from householder applicants and their agents and perhaps feed that back as part of the next report, which I think is probably going to be in about a year. I think that would be extremely helpful if that is feasible. I think we can look at that. Thank you, Councillor Booth. I can not see any other questions. I will actually make a comment on what you said there, Councillor Booth, in terms of householders. I do think that is important and I look at what is not directly linked to this, the conservation adaptation work that we will be doing and a lot of residents who will be living in conservation areas will probably need that help and support more. That is a welcome comment from officers that will look into that. In terms of our pre-app service, I think it is probably one of the most important bits of planning, but unless we have a report in front of us, it is potentially in the parts that we do not talk about very much or indeed the public are not aware of, but it provides a hugely important service. I think we are all aware in planning and in our capacity to development management, the decisions that we make will last for decades and decades and decades in the city. So it is important that we have a robust structure and that it is well funded, well resourced to make sure we can have those conversations with developers and other stakeholders at the earliest possibility to make sure that they are on the right tracks as to how we would perceive it. So I think this report will help streamline our service a bit more, will help ensure we have a good quality service available to developers and I think actually at the moment it is one of the best pre-app services in Scotland and we want to continue to do that. So with that I will move the report. I don't think we have got any objections, so is committee agreed? Lovely. Taylor Q take us on to the motions. Thank you. So there is nothing at section 11, so we will move on to section 12, which is motions. At 12.1 we have the motion by Councillor Matos-Cuelo on development management sub-committee protocol and there has been a Liberal Democrat group amendment circulated on this item. Councillor Matos-Cuelo, you have four minutes to move your motion. Thank you, I don't need four minutes. I need about 30 seconds. It is pretty clear what is there. It is very straightforward, so there is no point on expanding too much. This is reflecting some situations we had in former development sub-committees. Just to make your life a bit easier, I am happy to accept them as an addendum, removing the first line which basically says, deletes all. It says, accepts first paragraph and deletes the reminder. I actually think the workshop is a really good idea, and it is a shame I didn't think about it, but I am happy to welcome that as an addendum. Thank you. Councillor McNeese-Mekin will be seconding. Lovely. Councillor McNeese-Mekin, on to you. Lovely. Thank you. To move the amendment, we have Councillor Osler. Thank you very much indeed. There is a lot to welcome in this. I do think it is important we have had a large change in membership in terms of DMSUB. It is a very onerous committee, but I would like to remind elected members, it is not only an onerous committee for elected members, it is an enormously onerous committee for planners as well, and for officers. It takes up a huge amount of time, so it is something we need to be very mindful of. If we are asking for additional information to be provided to reports and things like that, we do need to have discussion with officers to see what can be best done. We had a very good workshop under the previous administration where we looked at the level of detail that was put into reports and streamlined them because they were pretty weighty. I am very conscious of the fact that people have different levels of workload, and I would like us to be able to have a much fuller sort of discussion over this. We have several new committee members also arriving as well who are not present. I do have a bit more worry about prescriptively saying having a meeting at 9.30. I know Jay has worked extremely hard when trying to organise additional meetings and things, trying to fit it into when people can actually manage, and it is phenomenally difficult. When we have suggested 9.30 in the past, there has been an issue for individuals in terms of school drop-offs and all sorts of things, so I am a little wary about prescriptively saying we are going to do certain movements now without having a wider discussion over it. I think the points being raised within this motion can be discussed within the workshop, which is where I would prefer it to be. I would rather we didn't say we are definitely going to do something now. I would rather we just wait into the workshop to have a wider discussion, because I would also like to have officers to have some input into it as well to see what impact, because I would be delighted if we could start a committee at 9.30. That would be extremely helpful, especially in terms of hearings and other things as well, but I understand this has been problematic for members in the past, and so I would like us to have a much sort of wider discussion over this so that it is fair for everybody taking part, because the other thing we really do need to discuss as well is breaks and other things as well. So there is a lot to recommend this, but I would like a wider discussion about how committees are actually being sort of organised so that everybody can take part, hence the suggestion of having a workshop. With that, I move this amendment. Thank you, Councillor Thornley. Formally. Very quick, Councillor Thornley, thank you. Can I check before we move to Councillor Booth, does anyone wish to move no action on this item? If not, we can just move to general comments. I don't believe so, Councillor Osler. Sorry, I should have said. I take on board Councillor Metzger's comments, but we will be just moving it as an amendment. I don't feel that it is right to have this as an addendum, so to finish off, because of what I have just stated, I would rather we just had a straightforward workshop. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Councillor Booth, you would like to come in with a comment? Thanks very much indeed, Camino, and very much welcome Councillor Masa Scolio's motion. I think there is a lot that is extremely helpful and useful in here, and a lot of it is stuff that we have discussed again and again and again, and in particular, you know, the last point about ensuring that we have got sufficient information. Unfortunately, the number of times that we have been at DM Sub and just the consultation responses from statutory consoltees have not been on the council's planning portal, and how on earth are we supposed to take informed decisions when that information is not there? I also welcome Councillor Osler's amendment. I think the suggestion for a workshop is extremely helpful. I do have a concern, though, that the Lib Dem amendment is effectively, I mean, it is not quite a deletes all, but it deletes all but the first paragraph, and there is a lot that we are losing with those deletions, in particular the mention of, you know, let's try and find family-friendly working practices. I think it is important to remember that this is not just about the current members of committee, this is about ensuring that as the role of a Councillor shouldn't be the preserve of those who are, like me, male, pale and stale. We want to, you know, I mean, I have got to hold my hands up, I am male, pale and stale, but we should be having fewer male, pale and stale Councillors. We should have more diversity in terms of gender diversity, but also those with disabilities and those without, those with caring responsibilities, and we also know, those of us who have attended the workshop recently from the Scottish Women's Budget Group, we know that women are overwhelmingly more likely to have caring responsibilities. So this is not just about the current members of committee, this is about ensuring, and actually from a purely selfish perspective, my son is going up to secondary school next year, he is not going to be need to be walked to school, so I could quite happily come in at 9 a.m. That is not what is best for us as a committee then. So I would strongly support Councillor Matus-Coelho's motion with the Lib Dem amendment as an addendum, and I would also, with the mover's permission, like to insert the words where practicable in the paragraph about private briefings that comes before they take place on the day of the meeting. So in other words, where practicable they take place on the day of the meeting. It is not a hard and fast rule. Finally, I would just like to note that the original motion does not say that we must have these things. It says, asks that officers adapt current procedures to consider the requests below. This is not a hard and fast thing, it is let's consider these options. So I would strongly urge that we try and find compromise on this. I don't think we are a million miles apart, so let's not have the deletions, let's keep in the original motion a plus the Lib Dem amendment as an addendum would be my plea. Okay, thank you very much Councillor Booth. I would recommend not putting a meal, pill and seal on your next re-election leaflet. Just keep that one to committee. Councillor Millett, you wish to make a contribution? Thank you. I think one of the difficulties with this is where people come and even when they say asks officers to consider proposals to changing how committees work. If you just ask officers to consider a set of proposals, no one else actually at that point technically has an opportunity to feed in. We have just undergone a significant piece of work that some people have given significant amounts of their time to, looking at the barriers to elected membership. I would suggest that we need to wait for the outcomes of that meeting and factor that into a workshop because we will never be able to take into account each and every individual Councillor's circumstances to create the perfect Council timing that makes it, that it allows Councillors who work and have second jobs, Councillors who have caring responsibilities, Councillors who have non-child related caring responsibilities and those who have child related care responsibilities. It is actually really, really difficult to find the arrangement that can work sit easily with those. That work is going on elsewhere, so rather than duplicating that, can I ask that yes, we do have a workshop, we are supporting the Lib Dem amendment. The reason we are supporting the Lib Dem amendment is because I am fed up in this Council with having contradictory motions and I think we have just got to understand sometimes we can't always come to a smushy agreement because we are putting through a lot of stuff that has inherent contradictions in it, so we have just got to be a bit tougher on saying that giving to officers things that they can actually do because they aren't facing in two directions. Our Council officers, talented and hard working as you all are, are not Doctor Doolittle who can deal with the push me pull you that we are handing over as Councillors, so I know people don't like deletes all and as the victim of the first deletes all, I know it stings, but I think sometimes you just have to give officers stuff they can work with and that to me, the cleanest way to do that is to adjust the amendment rather than having two things that slightly face in different directions and I am not going to re-edit it for you now, so what I have in front of me, I will be supporting the Lib Dem's amendment, not because the ideas aren't there and I think these are ideas that are also being discussed elsewhere in the Council and we really need to take that thinking in and use it and try to streamline rather than constantly reinventing the wheel because that work is ongoing. Thank you very much, any other contributions? Councillor Cameron. Thanks, I agree with much that has been said by everyone who has spoken and also what's in the motion and the amendment and just following up from what Councillor Mowat was saying about important work being done elsewhere around these kind of issues, I mean I chair the Cross Party Council Group on Equalities and we have touched on that stuff and within all sorts of other groups and I fear that, well, we have a newly appointed Council Chief Executive who is going to look at a number of things in terms of how this Council works and I would make a plea for finding a way that kind of avoids the duplication of effort across different working groups and kind of, if we could, as a Council, as a political body, come together because the points that the motion raises are fundamental, the points that the amendment raises are fundamental and I think workshops with elected members and officers are a good way and I very much support, which I don't support about Councillor Booth, how he describes himself, I wouldn't describe him as that at all, but the points he raises about this is for everybody and, you know, we have to find a way and we keep going round in circles on this point about how we can best make this place and the things that we all have to do in our various committees work smoothly and I think there's a lot of, I feel for, I mean I've been an officer in local government and it has its challenges but I really feel for our officers these days, the pressures they're under and the distractions and these are important points that we need to address but nevertheless, you know, our officers are there to deliver very, very specific services so I do hope that the new Chief Executive will find a way of being able to pull together the points that I think, you know, it would be a shame if we end up having a vote on this, we can't find a kind of way of avoiding a vote, I don't know, I'm not going to suggest that we break, that's for movers of the amendment and motion I think to suggest if they wish to do so, I hope we don't have a vote on this but I do think that it's for senior, senior people in the council and starting with the Chief Executive to look at this and say a lot of this work is happening, it's duplication not just of our time as elected members but our officers' time as well and we need to streamline that and be more, have more clarity so that we can get ways of working that really do allow us to have ways of working that work in summary. Thank you, convenor. Thank you very much, Councillor Cameron. I agree with a lot of what you said as I am grateful for Councillor Matthew's quill for bringing this forward and for Councillor Osler to put forward this amendment. I think, you know, there's always the risk and actually indeed in any process that we have, we just keep going along and sometimes we do need to sort of pause and take a step back and say are things working in the best possible way and I think obviously it's a little bit more in the development management world than it does in the planning world but I think it's fair to ask the question in terms of what we do, are officers providing enough information? I think it's also important for us as elected members that we sort of reaffirm and confirm to ourselves what is our job on the committee and what do we need to look at and where is that information when we're going through the planning application process and I think we all agree that it would be unfair to look at one another and assume what our lives are outside of work. Some of us will be carers, some of us will not be and I think that's, I take that on board a huge amount as a convener and as a pale male, I'm not going to say I'm stale yet, a few more years probably, so I'm glad that both these applications, these motions and amendments have come forward and I think it's right that we have a meeting to sort of take a step back and discuss it and I would be willing to support Lib Dem one but we'll see what happens but enough for me, Councillor Matus Quayle, you have a right to reply and I think you've already said, Katie, that you accept all of the amendments but you're right with reply. Okay, thank you, Ken Veena. I appreciate all the views and I think you all have tons of reasons. I appreciate Councillor Moolach's reference to the various elected members working group which I've been part of as much as possible and the equalities group which I'm now a member as well and the reason I am welcoming the Lib Dem amendment as an addendum is because I agree with the workshop. The timing of the workshop is something to be discussed so what I would suggest would be that the timing of the workshop would be after the results of the working group findings. So with that, this is my view, so taking Lib Dem as an addendum, deleting the first line which has deletes all basically and if it is possible to add a verbal amendment at some point indicating that the workshop would take place after the findings of the working groups that have been mentioned which is the barrier to elected office, I think that's it. I was just going to say would you be willing to accept Councillor Booth's verbal suggestion? Yes, sorry, I forgot to say that. Does Taylor want me to repeat it? I think I've got it but yeah, if you could. It was just to insert the words where practicable in the paragraph that deals with the 930 briefings before the words they take place on the day of the meeting. So in other words, it would read where private briefings are needed, for example to cover financial matters, that where practicable they take place on. Perfect, yeah, I've got that, thank you. Okay, that's fine, Councillor Osler, do you wish to pursue your amendment? Yeah, we will be pushing our amendment. Okay, that's fine Taylor, could you take us to vote please? Thank you convener, so in that case we have two positions, we have the motion by Councillor Matus-Cuelo, seconded by Councillor McNeese-Meekin which is to move the motion by the SMP Group with the Liberal Democrat amendment as an addendum and as adjusted and we have the amendment by Councillor Osler, seconded by Councillor Thornley which is to move the Liberal Democrat amendment as circulated. Can I have votes for the motion please by Councillor Matus-Cuelo. Perfect, thank you and votes for the amendment please by Councillor Osler. Thank you, so that is five votes for the motion and six for the amendment, so the amendment is carried. That's all our business isn't it Taylor? Yep, that is the end of today's business. Okay, Thank you. [End of Audio] [BLANK_AUDIO]