Transcript

Okay, good afternoon members. Welcome to today's extraordinary full council meeting, which is being held in the council chamber at Portsmouth Guildhall. Preliminaries as always, for the attention of those members of the public wishing to record proceedings, the council's rules prohibit the filming, photographing or recording of members of the public, including those making deputations. Should the continuous fire alarm sound, please evacuate the room and public gallery by the stairwells. Do not attempt to use the lifts and please assemble by the statue of Queen Victoria in Guildhall Square. Just remind members wishing to speak, you simply press the talk button on the unit in front of you and I'll activate your microphone when I call you to speak. I'll also turn off your microphone once you've finished speaking. Now, moving to agenda item one of this extraordinary council meeting, declarations of interest. Members, if you have any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal and prejudicial interests to declare in relation to the items on the agenda before us, can you please indicate? Right, there are none. Apologies. Apologies received from Councillor Tom Coles and Councillor Judith Smythe. And Councillor Cadea, I think you are with us, aren't you? I saw you earlier. Yes, you are. Okay. Communications. Nothing particular has had various letters in respect to Mayor making, but I've replied to each of those. So we move on to agenda item four, deputations from the public, understanding order 24. Mr Balfe. My Lord Mayor, there are four deputations for this meeting, details which have been circulated on the green sheets. Can I ask Viola Langley to make your deputation in objection to cabinet recommendation in respect of item five, pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. You have up to three minutes in which to deliver your deputation. The bell will sound when there is one minute to go, and again at the end of your time. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councillors, for your pre-submission local plan, which I oppose. Portsmouth City Council declared a climate emergency in 2019, and I quote, Changes to our climate that pose threats to our health, our planet, and our children and grandchildren's future. There is no time to waste if we are to avoid the consequences. In addition, 2022, PCC declared a nature emergency in Portsmouth. I am very concerned about Portsmouth City Council's priority as indicated in the plan. In my opinion, the number of houses proposed to be built over the next 15 years is damagingly high. In this draft plan, it suggests there are major challenges between land availability and home delivery. National planning police framework indicated the outcome of the standard methodology for determining housing need is only an advisory starting point. PCC should revise downwards the housing target in this plan. Previous housing targets have not been achieved. I'm not breathing out numbers because I haven't got the time. Yet this plan has even higher targets. This draft plan focuses too much on increased housing numbers and growth, which will require use of our most precious and scarce resource, land. Nature is in crisis. Biodiversity is lower than ever before. Air pollution dangerously high. Mental health of residents at risk. Increased flooding risk. Climate emergency. Yet the draft plan focuses on even more reduction of natural habitats, increased number of homes with associated cars. In the chapter, greening of the city, PCC is committed to 30% of land for nature by 2030. How can this be achieved and at the same time create 13,603 new homes? The Imagine Portsmouth 2014 vision focuses on culture, heritage and history. It lists our waterfront, naval base, international port and strong links across the south. Why is there no mention of a healthy environment in the 2014 vision? This vision was adopted in January 2021 after two years of consultation. During and after this period, the Council has declared a climate change emergency and nature emergency. Can this vision still be valid for the 2025 plan? Haven't the priorities changed? The number of houses must be dramatically reduced and our natural environment enhanced. You Councillors who are going to decide on the final draft of the plan can say now to many houses, future residents including your own children and grandchildren will thank you for the protecting of their future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Langley. Please be seated until the deputations on this item are concluded. Can I ask Rod Bailey to make your deputation in respect of item 5, pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. You have up to three minutes in which to deliver your deputation. The bell will sound when there is one minute to go and at the end of your time. Thank you. I'm also opposing the recommendation to approve the plan. I helped make the Milton Neighbourhood plan back in 2022 so I've got some idea of what a plan is supposed to do and why. I also know how much work it takes to prepare one. What bothers me most is the evidence to support the housing target of 14,400. Why? Because it's not reasonable to cram so many into an already congested and densely populated city. The vision for an attractive, healthy, happy city where everyone can get about freely, where we value heritage, culture, homes, places, et cetera, et cetera, is great. In 1998, the Portsmouth 2020 vision was much the same. An accessible city free from unnecessary congestion with good public transport alternatives to the car, with important areas for nature conservation, parks, et cetera. Great stuff. In those days we had a number of households of 79,000. In the regulation consultation which preceded this one, this regulation 19, back in 2021, the number of households was given as just shy of 90,000. So it took 20 years to get from 79,000 to 90,000. That's 11,000. Why? Because Portsmouth is a small city for the population that accommodates with nowhere near enough open space and because it has strict nature conservation constraints and we ought to be grateful for these for our harbours and our seafront. By 2020, no, sorry, by 2021, this accessible city was the fourth most congested in the UK between 2009 and 2019 according to DFT data. Vehicle registrations here rose from 109,000 to 129,000. That's 8,600 per square mile. In 2019 we had to prepare a clean air zone. In 2023 we found it wasn't good enough. In 2019 we declared a climate emergency and in 2022 we declared a nature emergency. Our air pollutions are still high and they're above legal limits. That's without another 14,400 new homes. The aspirations for Tippner, Lakeside, the new park and ride in Horsey Island, they're all great. I've got problems with having the Langston campus and St. James's as a strategic site but at least that was consulted upon. Fraser on the other hand which is on the seafront, our precious seafront is included in this and wasn't consulted on back in 2021 at the regulation 18. Meanwhile the seafront master plan which looks to deliver something totally different was only agreed in 2021. Nature conservation is clashing with development and there's no evidence to say that actually all the mitigation and compensation measures actually work. In Kent in 2021 the British Ecological Society did some research and of 50 sites with between... Mr. Bailey, sorry, can I just ask you to sum up quickly? Your three minutes has gone. Yeah, well the housing, the housing target is too high and actually we're not learning from the previous plans. If we can't get it right in the plan for 2001 to 2011, why should we do it now? To quote Albert Einstein, we can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Please be seated until the deputations items have concluded. Can I ask Paula Savage to make your deputation and objection to cabinet recommendation in respect of item five, pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. You have up to three minutes in which to deliver your deputation. The bell will sound when there is one minute to go and again at the end of your time. Thank you. Hello everybody. Well I've got quite a lot to say so I'm going to say it quite fast. I hope you can all keep up. Okay, on page 201, air quality and pollution, planning permission will only be granted for development proposals when it can be demonstrated in a proportionate that that will not contribute to and will not be subject to unacceptable levels of pollution which cannot be mitigated. What are their mitigation plans? So my main concern of this plan is the air pollution and as much as our port isn't going to be developed in certain aspects, I'd like to just bring your attention to it. The Portsmouth air quality plan updates stop in 2019. Any reason for this? Okay, as a member of the public it's really hard to track air pollution in Portsmouth when we have a port. Port regions emit more greenhouse gases than non-port regions. So we've got shore power. Brilliant. Okay, so Southampton port claims UK shore power first. That was on the 14th of May 2021. I've got quite a bit to say about that but as I haven't got long, only one charging point will operate at a time to avoid an excessive drain on power in Southampton. Will Portsmouth be doing the same? I looked at our port on the live boat map and 21 vessels arrived in the past 24 hours. Shore power at our port can accommodate up to 15 vessels at any given time. Seven more vessels are due to arrive over the next week so nearly half of those vessels will be unable to plug in. Half is good but cruise ships are often likened to floating cities because of their size and capacity. For example, the icon on the seas can accommodate over 9000 passengers. One area of concern of cruise ships like the icon of the seas is methane or what is known as methane slit referring to leakage during combustion from pressure-dual fuel engines that have been criticised for the harmful effects on the ocean including the dumping of sewage. Imagine 9000 people's rubbish out on our sea. And because of the unleveled laws on the high seas, you can do whatever you like by a mile out. So yeah, we get all that. The waste water emissions on our air pollutants and greenhouse gases and the heavy use of fuel oil to put this in perspective, a medium sized cruise ship can emit as much particulate matter as one million cars. It is totally unethical for this city council to back the cruising industry. Who benefits apart from it being an economic benefit considering there are 5.5 million people with asthma in England right now? Have I got any longer? Is that it? That was your three minutes. Right, okay. I'd like to say a lot more but there you go. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms Savage. Please be seated until the deputations items have concluded. Can I ask David Langley to make your deputation in objection to cabinet recommendations in respect of item 5, pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. You have up to three minutes in which to deliver your deputation. The bell was sound when there was one minute to go and again at the end of your time. Thank you. Well, I hope this is working. Yes, it is. Okay, in my opinion, there's a glaring contradiction within the 2040 plan that's glossed over and perhaps even ignored. Throughout the plan, one gets the impression that PCC understands the impact of climate change and the risk posed to Portsmouth. PCC acknowledges that there is a climate emergency, states that net zero carbon targets are just interim targets, that net negative targets are required if we are to reduce the elevated concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. And PCC furthermore recognizes that the current trajectory towards increased concentrations of greenhouse gases cause climate change. So much so they declared a climate change emergency 2019 and they say there's no time to waste if we are to avoid the consequences or risks of climate change. You would think from these comments that PCC really gets it. I think the truth is somewhat different. This local plan proposes development growth at a time when our city faces a risk, an imminent risk. So one concern particularly is that as a low lying island city where our risk of flooding as identified by the environment agency and sea defenses are being built, a wall is arising around our city. My particular concern relates to what happens within this protective wall. All development that would cause risk of flooding within this flood defense wall should not be permitted. And the risk of this is considered in various detailed subsections within the flooding section of this plan. You might still think that all's well, that development will only be permitted where it will not result in the increase of flood risk. And there's constant reassurance that the most effective systems of drainage, water reuse, water storage, et cetera will be used and that we'll just be fine. We'll be just fine. But be sure though, flood events will happen. If we cover our land with substantial areas of impermeable material implicit in building development, surface water runoff will increase and climate change they say will bring much heavier rainfall. So runoff water volumes will increase dramatically. So where will the water end up? Sea levels will be higher than present. City land levels will be below sea level, the new sea level, and the water's nowhere to go. So this risk should not be increased by deliberately planning for excess numbers of future building projects. All building development will increase the overall risk of flooding. And yet the plan accepts the need to build, build, build. So this contradiction is clear. In this plan, PCC acknowledges the imminent risk posed by climate change. And despite the acknowledgement, our city is planning to build, build, build, which will make flood risk more likely. Indeed, the vision of Portsmouth in 2040 makes no mention of this. I'd just like to think that we can do something before it's too late. I may not live to see the consequences of this plan, but I have seen three previous plans and there's been some success and some failure. I hope we can hopefully succeed with this plan and make it safe for our future generations. Councillors, it's in your hands. Thank you, Mr. Langley. Could those of you who have made deputations please retire to the public gallery if you wish to watch the remainder of the meeting. Thank you all. Okay, members, that brings us to the end of deputations for this meeting and we now move on to agenda item five, which is a pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. We received the recommendation of the cabinet held on the 15th of May, 2024 as previously circulated within the agenda. Understanding order 60, I will use my discretion to allow officers with the relevant technical expertise present at the meeting to interject should the need arise and they indicate a wish to speak. This will only be used when it is felt necessary in order to provide any technical knowledge required to inform the debate. I now propose to call the minute. If members wish to either question or oppose the minute, please indicate by standing and calling out either question or object once I have called the minute. Can I also remind members that understanding order 27, any item to which no objection is made will be deemed to have been approved? I therefore call cabinet minute 43, pre-submission Portsmouth local plan. Okay, thank you. I wish to object to this in order to get a debate on this matter, which I think was essential for this Council to know what it is approving. Thank you, Councillor Mason. As there is an objection, in fact, there's two objections to cabinet minute 43, I now call for a proposer and a seconder to the recommendation. Can I remind members that understanding order 45A, details of any amendments are to be given to me in writing before commencement of the debate? I already actually have one. But can I have a proposer first of all and a seconder? Councillor Pitt. Happy to formally second, LORD MAYOR, I reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Thank you. Now, I mentioned there are any amendments. I have received one amendment, which is here. That's proposed by Councillor Bosher and seconded by Councillor Swan. Are you happy for me to circulate your amendments? Thank you, I'm still learning, okay. I mean, I've been in for goodness how many years I should remember that, but it's very nervous up here. Yeah, Councillor Mason, there are no other amendments at this point. So, Councillor Mason. I'll forgive you, my LORD MAYOR, you're a relatively new Councillor. LORD MAYOR, the draft City Plan, which we are considering this afternoon, will replace the 2006 and 2012 City Plans, together with a large number of supplementary planning documents. It is being constructed to provide the framework for implementing the already approved 2040 in Portsmouth. The minute before us is to endorse the plan and send it forward for Regulation 19 approval. The plan is the result of many months of detailed work, which has involved not only a considerable amount of public consultation, but also the involvement of all political groups on this Council. Together, we and our highly experienced officer team have produced a plan which will enable our City to meet the challenges of the next 15 years. It is, of course, a plan which will enable things to happen, but which cannot of itself make them happen. There will always be decisions which we will have to make. In putting the plan together, there are four particular areas where we have faced challenges in achieving a consensus. The first is the number of additional homes which we will need to create each year. The National Planning Policy Framework methodology, based upon economic and population growth, the declining size of the family, increased longevity, comes up with a figure of 899 homes each year. We cannot reach this. But in PLP 16, we have agreed a figure of 13,603 homes between 2020 and 2040, or approximately 680 per year. There are those who claim that this is too many, and that Portsmouth is full up. But 680 per year is achievable, and we must remember that every home which is not provided in Portsmouth at an average density of 120 dwellings per hectare will be provided outside our boundaries, on Hampshire's green and pleasant land, and at only 40 dwellings per hectare. Goodbye Skylark and Cornbunting, Farewell Field Mouse and Mole. The second issue was the proportion of affordable homes. In PLP 17, we are proposing the provision of a minimum of 30 per cent affordable homes. Many members would have wished to see a higher provision, while our planning officers have advised a lower figure of 20 per cent, on the basis that this would normally be achievable, whereas 30 per cent would inevitably be challenged in most cases. After considerable discussion, we have settled on 30 per cent as being ambitious but achievable. The third contentious area is that of houses in multiple occupation, where for some years we have successfully planned to a maximum threshold of 10 per cent of the properties within a 50 metre radius. Some members have argued that this should be reduced to a 5 per cent threshold. After investigation, which revealed that an authority which had tried to require such a limit was unable to enforce it, and after advice from a leading planning KC that a proposal reduction would be extremely risky, a consensus was reached that we should retain the maximum threshold at 10 per cent, but also strengthen other requirements to ensure that communities do remain mixed and balanced. The most contentious issue, however, has been that of Tippner West and Horsey Island East. We could not dodge this issue for two reasons. The first that in 2012 City Deal we accepted 49 million pounds of government funding to plan for manufacturing and housing development of this area, and the second, that without spending many millions on renovating Tippner's decaying sea defences, not only might land be lost to salt marsh, but it would expose a much wider area to the risk of severe flooding. As you will see in PLP 3, we are planning for 58,000 square metres of marine manufacturing and research. Jobs which if not provided here would likely go to continental locations rather than anywhere else in the UK, and we are planning for between 814 and 1,250 homes. It is surely better to provide homes here than on swathes of the Hampshire countryside. In coming to a consensus, no-one is pretending that it will be simple to implement this policy, since we will need to mitigate for the inevitable disruption to nature and especially to bird life. On the basis of the detailed habitat regulation assessment which accompanies the draft plan, we are convinced that this can be achieved. Consensus could not have been achieved without all party involvement across the Chamber, and I would like to thank colleagues for their positive input to what has been a long and complex process. I hope, however, that those who remain unconvinced on any point will desist from proposing amendments today, since the whole plan is made up of interlocking elements and any substantial amendment would have ramifications across the whole of the plan. Were that to happen, the delay could well push the plan back beyond the expiry of current legislation, and that would have huge financial implications. The plan, my Lord Mayor, is an achievable city plan. It is a comprehensive city plan, it is a visionary city plan, and it is a good city plan. I propose members that we accept the recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Councillor Pitt, that was a formal second, wasn't it? Members, at this point, I think to facilitate this debate, otherwise we will have some problems, I will propose suspension of the following standing orders. I will need a seconder, but let me give you my reasons for doing so. Standing order 38, be suspended to dis supply a time limit for group leaders to speak, which mirrors the process of the budget meeting, which sets the council tax each year. Standing order 47B, this be suspended to remove the time limit on the proposer's right of reply, again mirroring the process of the budget meeting, which sets the council tax each year. And finally, standing order 29 be suspended to allow a question to be put to the cabinet member to be referred by them to one of the officers with a relevant technical expertise present to reply, if it is appropriate for them to do so. Now, we will need to take each of these separately, and of course I will need a seconder first, so on the basis that I am proposing each one of them purely to facilitate, can I ask, do I have someone that is prepared to second suspension of standing order 38, first of all? Don't leave me stranded here. Councillor Sanders, thank you very much. Standing order 47B. Thank you, Councillor Pitt. And finally, standing order 29. I will pick somebody else. Councillor Ashmore, thank you very much indeed. So on that basis, can I ask for a show of hands on each of those ones, standing order 38, all those agree that we suspend standing order 38, please show. The majority is unanimous, I think. Thank you very much. Standing order 47B be suspended, show of hands again. Thank you. Oh, it is not unanimous, but thank you. And it is a clear majority, and standing order 29, suspension for that. Show of hands again. Clear majority, thank you. Right. Now, are there any amendments I mentioned? First of all, there is one amendment I have received. This is from Councillor Bocher, seconded by Councillor Swan. Before I circulate this, which I am sure you are happy for me to do so, are there any other amendments? Nope. Okay, on that basis, just circulate this amongst me, because I will give you a minute or so to read it. Right, hopefully you have all got a copy by now, we are about to get one. So item 5, the amendment is now before members for debate, but we have the amendment to consider first of all, so can I call Councillor Bocher's amendment? Thank you. The suspension of standing orders beforehand, because then I would have spent the entire weekend writing a speech, but it is going to be quite short and straightforward. I think it is fair to say that we have had over the course of, I have lost count of the number of years, cross party involvement, regular meetings, Tipna West cross party working group seemed to be almost weekly, but it probably wasn't when we were going through it, and certainly there has been a full and public consultation. What I am proposing in this, and I hope that Councillor Mason will just subsume this, is that we have followed a cross party engagement all the way with the local plan, and what we now have under recommendation 3 is to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Growth in consultation with the portfolio holder to make any minor amendments. What I am proposing is to say let's include the portfolio spokesman in that as well, and let's keep this cross party goodwill, shall we say, moving forward, not go back to a situation where it is only going to be the cabinet member that is going to decide any amendments and move away from a situation where we have been in the past three or four years, shall we say. So I hope that is acceptable. I saw your look of trepidation when you thought that there was an amendment there, and I am thinking you have probably got nothing to worry about, Hugh, because I think that is probably something that knowing you as an individual you are probably happy to have that with anyway, and even if I hadn't moved an amendment I am sure if I had asked for it you probably would have accepted it as anyway, but I wanted to get it down on the order paper to make sure that we actually have that particular vehicle so that all the groups in this council chamber can actually be involved in that, and I would also include in that, if I can, obviously Councillor Caulkery who is a group of one, so I am sure he would like to be involved at that same table as everybody else, so that we are aware of any minor changes. I wasn't going to go into the local plan in quite as much detail as you did. I think you have spelled it out very carefully, but I think what we have here is a local plan that I think we actually need to move forward. Is it perfect? Arguably no, it's not. You ask 100 people their opinions you get 120 different answers I think, and I think that's probably where it's been from day one and going forward, but I think we are in a situation now where we have actually got to look at this and say we need to do something, we need to get this moved forward. I think the elephant in the room is and always will be Titner, I think that's always going to be the problem child that we have got with this when it comes to the housing assembly, but this is an aspiration with various land acquisitions and how we do it. It isn't something that is going to be this is what's going to be delivered, this is what's going to be built, because planning will change, different developers will bring forward different things. We certainly see it where I live in Drayton and Farlington where a lot of that land up there isn't or hasn't been previously but isn't developable now, it's all been developed as much as we possibly can, but we still see the likes of the Churchills and the McCarthy stones moving in and sweeping up, removing four or five significant houses perhaps in Havant and then all of a sudden you've got one of their monoliths built there for 40 or 50 rooms and apartments, probably of which most of them aren't usually filled. Certainly if you look at the McCarthy stones that we have in Drayton and Farlington, they're at 60% occupancy level but they still keep building them and you've got to ask those sorts of questions why. It isn't perfect, I heard what Paula Savage said about the port, the port is at the cutting edge I think in what we actually have as part of the city and it brings in a lot from an economic point of view of financing the City Council and I was a little bit couldn't really pick out what Paula was actually saying but it suggested to me she didn't want the port, is that really Labour's position, they don't want the port in Portsmouth because I think that that is something we actually do need in the city. We could all make things to improve it but that's probably for somebody else's literature to be written in a general election point I guess in that respect but from my point of view that's where my amendment is Hugh, hopefully that's acceptable to you. I think we're at the point now where we've consulted in depth, we've worked cross party and we will continue to work cross party going forward to deliver the local plan but I think now is the time to actually submit this and move this forward Lord Mayor, thank you. Thank you Councillor Bouscher, as eloquent as always. Councillor Swann, your formerly second dis-reserved the right to speak? Okay, thank you very much. Okay members, the matter is now open for debate. Can I have anyone that wishes to speak please to show? Councillor Simpson, first of all. I don't know if I'm going to be the only one, thank you Lord Mayor. Firstly I'd like to thank Lucy Howard and her team for listening to our concerns, arranging additional meetings to outline further changes, hopefully for the better. I like a majority of this plan, however my issue is the HMO policy. Apologies to all the members that have listened to this last week but I feel that 10% within a 50 metre radius is very safe. Which you would assume would be a good thing, however I don't believe we are looking at our situation as a city. I fully appreciate that Tempson is a well trodden path across the country, a national average but Portsmouth is different, it's unique. The only island city in the UK, most densely populated city in the south of England if not the UK. It's these two combinations that we should be focusing on. We haven't been brave enough to look at options for a unique city and its requirements. I believe, as do many residents, that this pre-submission on HMO policy isn't a true reflection or represents what is best for communities and community building. We are slowly losing our stock of three bedroom homes which may be in the future if the banks and governments get their act together could allow first time buyers to purchase these family homes but they are being snapped up on the cheap by developers changing them into seven to eight bedroom hotels which at £850 per month is hardly affordable, that's a mortgage. Let's be honest, the increase of HMOs over the last year has been targeting the north of the city. I believe one of the reasons is their location, their sizes and they are cheaper to buy. We all know the price of houses are based on where they are, transport, amenities, shops, schools et cetera. The north part of the city simply doesn't have the same infrastructure nor amenities to support this increase in people. I'm sure the Councillors of Nelson Ward would tell you the worries of their residents on the doorstep when it comes to the Tippaner East West project, lack of GPs, lack of dentists, lack of community safe spaces, in some cases lack of school places. It's not like many other parts of the city where it is all on the doorstep. There simply isn't enough balance across the whole city in my opinion to encourage and increase population density of the island. We are different. We have different imitations. We are surrounded by water. We should consider reduction in the 50 metre radius or further policy to protect family, to protect free bedroom family homes and the very limited amenities we have. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Simpson. Councillor Girarda. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Like Councillor Boccia, I'm going to keep this short and sweet as well. Members will be pleased to hear. Firstly, I just wanted to thank all of the Council officers for their hard work in making the draft Local Plan a reality. It has taken months across divisions and departments with an enormous undertaking to bring Councillors, key stakeholders and officers together to get us to this point. A plan of this scale requires a considerable amount of time, focus and resource from our Council staff and they have done an excellent job in presenting the document that we have before us today. So we'd like to place on record our thanks to them. Secondly, I wanted to thank the Leader and Councillor Mason for keeping to their word about being open and collaborative. As Councillor Boccia alluded to, there has been a number of member workshops that have truly been cross party for us to feed in our ideas in developing the Local Plan, with sessions held at times to really maximise participation. So this has meant that Councillors have had a lot of opportunities to share their views and their priorities before today. So that when we read this draft Local Plan in our hands, it wasn't too far beyond what we expected to be in there. And much of its content is in tune with the priorities that we have shared previously. So I'm very grateful for that. And I hope that this approach to developing a sort of critical roadmap for our Council and City is really welcome. Thirdly, I wanted to place on thanks our record to Councillor Smythe for all of her work in shaping and contributing to the Local Plan. Unfortunately, she was unable to be here today due to a prior commitment, but we just wanted to note our thanks to her for really playing a proactive and critical role in ensuring the Local Plan meets our current and future needs. So we're very grateful for that. Lastly, my Lord Mayor, just to say the Labour group will be voting in support of the recommendation to approve the draft pre-submission for the local plan. We believe it sets a firm foundation for future planning and developments that will ensure Portsmouth becomes greener, cleaner and safer. It also does a good job of responding to the climate crisis and ensuring we achieve our aims of net zero carbon emissions by 2030. So thank you, my Lord Mayor, we commend this draft Local Plan. Thank you, Councillor Drada. Now I know I'm getting on a bit of my eyes again, but I can't see any other speakers. Oh, I spoke too soon, didn't I? Okay. All right, Lord Mayor. It would be easy to just sit here and nod it through, really. It's very tempting to do that. But this is about the future of people in this city, particularly young people and younger people. This is a good plan for Portsmouth, a plan that embraces the future, a future increasingly monopolised by artificial intelligence, green technology, climate change, regeneration and jobs. Throughout every stage of preparation, we have consulted and consulted. And I gave Hugh a year off and did the role for him for a year during which a lot of the consultation took place. And Councillor Swan and then his former colleagues back then came to us concerned about Cosham. And thanks to Lucy and Ian, we listened and we reduced the density of housing in the centre of Cosham, whoever it was. I can't remember who it was. They've gone now. I'm sorry about that. And we listened. So we have to understand in this city that we have a council waiting list of 1500 people. That's people who haven't got a key to their own front door right now, who are sofa surfing and living in other forms of accommodation, which we see talked about so much for political reasons, in my opinion. These are people, mostly young people, but not exclusively desperate for their own front door, a place to call their home. And that is a basic human right. The trouble is the failure of successive governments since the war to build homes now sees the rest of us running to catch up. The government wanted 17,700 homes built here as part of their drive to build a million homes UK wide. And that's not going to change. We know that whoever comes in. We know that's not possible to do that here, and Councillor Mason has talked about it already. So it looks like about 14,400 or whatever. So that means we'll be submitting a plan to the inspector with about 3,300 homes fewer than we thought originally. During the plan, yes, indeed, HMOs came up. HMOs or shared housing are a symptom of a failed housing policy which has forced up the prices of homes and rents to such an extent that owning or renting a home is out of reach for many. For them, the option of sharing a house is the best way or indeed the only way to meet their accommodation needs. The demonizing of this form of accommodation is not the answer to our local housing issues. Working to give individuals a key to their own front door is the right way. And we see this Council doing that more and more. We see passive houses being done up in Tippner and Stampshaw. It was brilliant to see that when Richard and I went there recently. Just because a plan envisages 14,000 homes does not mean a single home would be built. And the public wonder, as Councillor Simpson said, where all the GPs and dentists and school places and roads are coming from. That is not something that this Council can answer, despite what people pretend in leaflets. It is a government issue to deliver more GPs, better roads and those sorts of infrastructure, including sewage and water. Lastly, from us in Nelson Ward, this plan is very important to enable new sea defences in the face of rising sea levels to safeguard homes across Tippner, North Stampshaw and Hillsea. I won't be swayed from that. This is vital for residents that we represent and those opposing the plan, and I don't think they are going to, at least in the vote today, although we may see abstentions, risks the homes and livelihoods of thousands of people across Tippner, Stampshaw and Hillsea. We need this plan, we need it to get on with dealing with those decaying sea defences that Councillor Mason talks about. I really hope that this very common sense plan is voted through unanimously, Lord Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hunt. Councillor Sanders. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. This plan is a balance. It's a balance between the need to protect our city's environment, the need to protect our city's green spaces, which was outlined in the deputations earlier, and some pretty stark facts which Councillor Hunt has kindly outlined but I just wish to expand on. We have at the moment in this city what is frankly a broken housing market. Private rents are rising by 12 per cent, rose by 12 per cent last year according to the ONS. That's £135 every single month that more people are paying on average in the private rented sector. Wages are lagging behind, making renting privately unaffordable for so many people. The waiting list that Councillor Hunt talks about doesn't have council tenants on it. Most of them are people currently renting privately who want a safe and secure home. And we have to balance the impact on our environment, the impact on our infrastructure with that very simple fact. I know I get most of the cases that come about these people, and a lot are coming from colleagues here, for which many thanks, but that's the impact that we have to deal with. That's why this is a balance. I can also say that more people are coming through our doors homeless here and in other councils run by other parties and our independent colleagues across the country. So we have to have a balance. We also face again some very stark facts, which again Councillor Hunt and Councillor Simpson have outlined. We face land banking, too many developers sitting on places for too long. It's like Debenhams in Southsea. We gave planning permission to turn that empty building into something that would work for the people of the south of this city, and guess what it was sat on? Sat on until this administration said finally we will give you a compulsory purchase order and we will impose a compulsory purchase order unless you buck your ideas up, which they promptly did. So as a council we're doing our bit to try and make sure we can provide homes that are genuinely affordable. When we came back in 2018 there was no plan to build council homes. There is now. New homes in Paulsgrove, new homes in Summerstown, new homes in Hillsea, new homes on the Eastern Road, and there will be more, because we know we have to provide more homes people can afford so we can get people who are worried about renting privately into safe and secure accommodation. But we also know the constraints that David, Viola, Rod and Paula outlined earlier, which is why we've also been buying back council homes. The country's biggest single council programme has seen nearly 600 of them bought back, 600 right to buy homes, bought back under council control. And that's in addition to the 800 we just got from Clarion Housing Association. People may dither. We want to act because we know the constraints that exist. And that's why the HMO aspect of this is really contentious. I know people hate them. People hate them in my ward. They hate them across the city. They hate them across the country, frankly. But as Councillor Hunt has outlined and the reality tells us, for so many in this city they are the only available and affordable option. And that's why this plan, along with everything we do, is a balance. As I said, too many people on our waiting list do not believe that renting privately is safe and secure. So that's why we have been doing our best to try and deal with this situation, the most generous space standards in the country, licensing all HMOs to drive up bad landlords and make every place as good as the best. Now landlords say that these Lib Dem policies will remove 1,000 HMO rooms and so should be stopped. But without them, potential tenants and neighbours will never, ever have the confidence that things can change. So the local plan covers two issues around HMOs. The first is saturation, a key issue for our friends and colleagues in the south of the city. I first called for action on this more than a decade ago. I was told it couldn't be done. What's being done now in this plan, the exceptional circumstances clause, means that we can finally have some form of mixed and balanced communities, especially in the so-called ladder around Thomas Town and in the heart of Southsea. The issue facing Councillor Simpson and I, as a fellow Portsmouth North Councillor, up there is people just don't want any HMOs at all. Now, we know many here want tighter restrictions, including me. Indeed, I backed them at the relevant briefing session. But two things have happened to make me change my mind. The first is the impact on my water. Seeing both Mr Maguire and Ms Howard outline a plan which shows that if we do have the sort of tight restrictions I'd like to see, there will be more HMOs in my ward more quickly. Now, that is not something I am prepared to accept because it doesn't provide the balance that we need. I will not be voting for that. I'd love to know who will. But I will not be voting for that. And the second one, and this is where I really disagree with Councillor Simpson. He and I have had chats previously about this, was how hard it was last time to get the unelected government planning inspector to agree to any restriction at all. And we fear that will happen again. Those of us, and that includes Councillor Simpson on the planning committee, who were told by the unelected government planning inspector last year that we didn't know planning law for refusing a changed HMO, have a rough idea of what's coming. We've looked at things like Thanet, whose existing policy, the one we want, many of us want, was downgraded to guidance when they tried to put it in their plan. Therefore, they've got a HMO free for all. The complete opposite of what we want. Given a choice between half a loaf and no loaf, I know what I'd prefer. And that's why I'm not happy, but I'm content to stick to the 10 per cent rule. As I said, my Lord Mayor, this plan is a balance. We have so many constraints in our city. We have national parties, except for mine, that don't want local housing targets, which is what we should have the freedom to decide the number of homes we have. Because we don't have that. It's a balance. And this is the best one we've got. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Sanders. I said this once before, I opened the floodgates. I did it again. OK, Councillor Pitt. Thank you, Lord Mayor. I'm not going to bore everybody by going over ground that's already been well trodden by colleagues this afternoon, and rightly so and very effectively. I did want, however, as Leader of the Council to echo the comments of other group leaders here today in thanking Ian and Lucy and their team who are sat up there in the gallery today watching us for the huge amount of work that's gone into this. I'd like to thank colleagues for the cross-party collaborative discussions that have been challenging at times, but actually not in a party political way, in an individually interested way, which is the way it should be. And I know we don't play all of that out in the public domain, but there's been a lot of it. There's been numerous, even members of the public watching today might think there's brand new Councillors on the Council, they haven't been part of this process. We got straight in there, got briefings out for new members to bring them up to speed and explain to them what all this was all about. So a massive amount of work, and I know sometimes late into the night, I have had emails from both Ian and Lucy about midnight, so I know the amount of work that's gone into it, and the crucial thing is to make sure that we meet this deadline. Because if we miss it and the legislation changes and we know that's imminent, we have to start all over again. Now the consequences of doing that are in excess of £1 million of public money. Now when we have a plan that, yes, is not perfect, no local plan is perfect, but is a well interrogated and collegiately drawn document that enables us to do the best we can for the people of the city, it's not an ideological document, it's not a wish list, it's not all the things that we would like to see. Other colleagues have talked about the HMO policy, the affordable housing policy, the issues we've got to deal with at TIPNA, et cetera. These are all things that need compromise. But what we do have here in relation in comparison to some of the local plans we've seen from other local authorities such as Havant for example, who under their previous administration saw their plans thrown out as crackers, we have a sound plan that we believe is capable of being supported by an inspector and becoming council policy. And it's so important that we have a valid plan. And that we have an adopted plan that we can use to put our flavour on the MPPF and make sure that we're doing the best we can for the city. Because without it all we have is the MPPF. And if we are falling back on the national planning policy framework for the answer to everything, then lots of the stuff that is in here that does change that and alter that in order to make it relevant to Portsmouth and benefit Portsmouth isn't heard. And that will be a tragedy. If we had to start this process all over again, we're looking at multiple years of review and consultation and a huge expense. We've got to where we've got to by compromising and proving that on one of the biggest issues this council ever has to deal with, in fact any council ever has to deal with, and that is the development of its local plan, that we've been able to behave like adults across the chamber, work together and come up with officers with a document that we should be able to support. And I'm very happy to second Councillor Mason's proposal. Thank you, Councillor Pitt. Now, Councillor Corcoran, I'm sure you've got a dodgy bulb. Three times you've come on and three times you've gone off. We should speak. Okay, you're next then, Councillor George Magwick. Thank you, Lord Mayor. Yeah, I just want to start off, I guess, by echoing the sentiments that many of us have made. Thank you and everyone that's been involved in this process. It has been a long process, it's been a very detailed process, and I know that I and lots of other people across the room have sat through many hours of those meetings, and as the leader said, I think sometimes they probably were challenging, but in a good way, because that was, for me, the benefit of seeing local democracy and democratic accountability play out. There was lots of discussion, there was lots of challenge, there was lots of scrutiny, and that's exactly, I think, how these processes should be played out, and for me, one of the big benefits of local government, really, giving local people a voice in how these policies are being developed, as opposed to them being developed on a national or kind of large scale which are way above people's heads. Also, I want to thank the deputies that have come in to speak today for their perspectives and their opinions on these matters. I think it's always important that we recognise the importance of local people coming in and getting directly involved in these decisions to help us come to the best decisions that we possibly can. I know that housing targets is still, and always will be, a major issue for lots of people, but I think it's worth recognising that they have come down, and yes, Portsmouth is a very densely populated place, particularly areas like Charles Dickens, where we represent one of the most, well, the most highly densely populated areas of the city, which is a highly densely populated place in itself, but I think even from our perspective, we recognise that, well I at least recognise, that densely, dense population can work. It does work in other places around the world. It is possible to have high quality, highly dense, green housing, and it can be done, and I think as a city we should be ambitious to say that we want to be at the forefront of showing how it's going to work, particularly on the climate issue. As years go on and parts of the world become uninhabitable, places like Portsmouth and the UK and Europe are inevitably going to become much more dense, and we need to be innovative and forward thinking in what that's going to look like, and Portsmouth has a really good opportunity to be at the forefront of trying to make that happen. In terms of affordable housing, I think going for the more ambitious and hopefully achievable target 30% is exactly the right thing to do. I think we do need to be pushing back against developers wherever possible and try and get as much out of them in terms of those concessions around affordable housing and sustainability and the other kind of high standards that we want to see construction happen to. One thing I also just want to mention because it's something I think is important, and it's contained within the report but it's also worth playing at just publicly, and that's the distinction between affordable rent and social rent in terms of provision of housing. Council Sanders is smiling because he knows we've had discussion many times in housing portfolio meetings and briefings, and I just want to flesh out a little bit of the detail of that because I appreciate they can sometimes see in quite technical abstract terms in terms of what that looks like for a person on the waiting list or in a socially housing property waiting to move. If you're looking at a free bed property in Portsmouth, the traditional council rent, social rent, what they all were until fairly recently, for a free bed property you're probably looking at about £450 a month, genuinely affordable for lots of people and low incomes, and probably generally kind of enviable for lots of people that don't enjoy that kind of affordability. When we're talking about affordable rent, those rents are quite often £1000, some in the housing associations actually a lot more. That's a massive difference obviously in terms of affordability to the people who are able to live there and still sustain a reasonable standard of living, but there are other aspects to it as well. It can create a really large barrier to work because then all of a sudden you're losing a lot more of your benefits potentially if you move into work or if you take up more hours. And also the flexibility to move. Very few people within existing social housing want to exchange to a property where there's an affordable rent tenancy because obviously the rents are a lot higher, so it means that quite often people are perhaps trapped in a block or an area or part of the city that they might like to move from and might otherwise have the opportunity to move from through mutual exchange, but they're unable to do so because of the type of tenancy that they've been allocated. Now I know these are larger issues, they're larger issues of policy and kind of national frameworks, but I just wanted to mention it in terms of the local plan, because there were opportunities within that to have a specific requirement as I understand it to say that the affordable housing that are provided by developers on their sites, the next amount of it should be social rent versus affordable rent and obviously you could try and buy a certain favour of social rent so that you get more social rent properties delivered. And I know this discussion has been had and the pushback has been provided that well you might then end up with less social housing, overall less affordable housing if you require only the cheaper types to be bought. But I just wanted to mention it because it is an important issue, it's something that we need to be aware of and I'm happy to approve this plan as it's drafted today, but I hope going forward whenever policies are being developed that we can always keep that in the back of our minds and ensure that wherever possible we're obviously trying to drive down people's rents and give them the most affordable places to live that they possibly can. And just lastly, in terms of TIP now, obviously another major issue for us today and plays quite a role in kind of trying to challenge that policy in years gone by. I do think that the compromise position that has been delivered, and it is a compromise position, no one side has won that argument in terms of what has been provided in terms of the final plan, I think the compromise position is a good one. It protects a lot of the shoreline, which is what the big debate was around. In fact from my understanding this is the only shoreline that's going to change is around the existing kind of light industrial use around the employment zone, which hopefully will be another really good opportunity for again Portsmouth to be ambitious and be at the forefront of showing the world that we want to bring people here to work and live really good quality lives. So I will be supporting the plan and again thank you everyone that's been involved. Thank you Councillor Caulkery. Councillor George Madwick. Thank you Lord Mayor. I've just got two questions really and just points of clarification. Firstly, on the, oh my phone, there you go, partly on the recommendation 3 it says minor changes just for the legal buffs in the room like myself, Spencer Gardner, George Fielding and Peter Balfe. I'd like to know what minor means and what the definition of that is just because I don't want things being changed without, you know, that are important without our say so. So I'd like just clarification on that. The other thing I'd like to bring up is obviously what Councillor Hunt said in relation to the we don't as a local Councillor have any say in local GP and pharmacy provisions. So my question is, is when we were originally going through the four different possibilities we could have, one of them was obviously a lot of housing on Tipna West as you remember and as part of that it did include GP's, doctors, schools, things like that. So I was just a bit confused of why one plan included the possibility of all GP's and now we're being told that we don't have any say in it. Um, and that's what I'm basically wondering because obviously, you know, Councillor Lee Hunt and Councillor O'Dara spent a lot of time getting petitions signed up in High Street saying that we're going to, you know, sort out local GP and pharmacy surgeries. Only Richard, cause we've seen each other a lot of times and you know, the cynic in me might think they were just data collecting rather than caring about, you know, getting results. Thank you Councillor Maggert. There are two questions there. Ian, can I pass over to you? Thank you Lord Mayor. Minor amendments don't know specific definition, but in effect it's typos and minor clarifications. Fundamentally, nothing that goes to the test of soundness, which is obviously the key question for Regulation 19. We do actually have a table of typos that have been identified already since publication. So that's effectively what we're covering off there. GPs, um, the previous consultations, uh, obviously did occur at a time when the use classes order, uh, was different. Now GP surgeries, a land use destination is in the same use class as retail office and other services. So, uh, we, we don't need to, we cannot effectively allocate land, uh, for, um, those sorts of community facilities with the degree of specificity that we used to be able to. In any case, all we can do is allocate land. We cannot make GPs come to it. If we build it, we hope they come, but there is no ability for us to do so. That is for the NHS and quite often the issue is not the additional space. As I say, under current legislation, any shop or office can become a GP's, uh, surgery under use class E. However, it does require the NHS to provide the relevant revenue funding to bring those GPs to populate the spaces that may or may not be created. So the law has changed and in any case it is associated with NHS funding for the actual delivery of medical services. Thank you, Mr McGuire. Okay. I now have no other speakers. So in the absence of such, can I ask Councillor Mason to sum up and also confirm whether he's prepared to assume the amendment? On being the proposal, I can do it without time. So, um, you can all go to sleep. This has been instructive. It has been interesting. And the first thing which I need to say is that I am very happy to accept the amendment and I'm very happy to work with colleagues from all parties and the fact that we have done so can be found in the detail of the plan which is before you today. This wouldn't be as it is had we not had the input from members of all parties. They have, they have, we have made it. It is us, not just the administration. This is all of us. So I'm happy to accept. If I can turn to some of the points which have been raised. Mr Bailey in his deputation talked about the density of housing. I think it is a general opinion amongst all of us that the last thing we want to see is the surrounds of Portsmouth look like the surrounds of Los Angeles. We have to build dense cities and build them well. Councillor Corcoran was very right on this. We can do better and we can build dense cities. And it is right that we should do so in order to preserve our countryside. The savage talked about the port and I think it is important to remember that under the current administration of the port, with our current port manager, we are looking to become a carbon neutral port. We are looking to become the most, as it were, green in inverted commas port in the whole of the country, if not in Europe. We are working on that. Ports are important. It is important to our economy but it is also important we recognise that the port should be environmentally advantageous to the city. Mr Langley talked about flooding and land lowering below sea level. Is that okay with problems? Yes, of course it will. But we just have to look across the channel to the Netherlands to see cities which are lying something like six metres below mean sea level and they work. And we know how they work and we can get advice on how they work and given our sea defences and given our ingenuity, I do not see that that is going to be a problem which is insoluble. Councillors raised a number of very important points. The land demand and McCarthy and Stone, Councillor Boscia, within the framework of the national planning policy framework, we could not do anything. We are limited in what we can do in a plan but I think it is important that we have a vision for our city which does not mean that any particular area will be overwhelmed with any particular type of development. It goes back to what we have been saying about HMOs, that we want a mixed development across the city. That is what makes the city an interesting place to be, that you have old people, young people, rich people, poor people, all living in juxtaposition with each other. And certainly in so far as we can do that by planning, that is what I think we should be doing. Councillor Simpson told us we are unique. Yes, we are, but probably every other city in the country will say it is unique. He also raised this problem of the 10 per cent threshold which we have. The advice from landmark chambers, which is the foremost chambers dealing with planning policy in this country, by far the foremost is, there is therefore a risk in trying to introduce a 5 per cent rule now. It will put the council in a worse position than it is now in terms of its ability to control HMOs, i.e. throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There was reference made to Thanet who the landmark chambers believed actually did throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think we have to take the best advice we can get and work on that. And the best advice we can get is it would be exceedingly risky to depart from the 10 per cent rule. I would suggest that we do not do so. Councillor Hunt talked about, as did Councillor Magwick, GP's dental surgery school. As has been pointed out by Mr Maguire, the use classes have changed and we cannot encourage this by use classes any more. There are, however, a number of things which, as a council, I am sure that we can do to encourage doctors, dentists to come to this city. And I think the university, with its expansion of its medical schools, is doing the best it can to assist us in that as well. If people have trained here, they are likely to stay here. We know that. Yes, I agree with Councillor Sanders that planning is very much a balancing of risks and opportunities and balancing the good against other goods. There is no simple dichotomy in planning between this is good and this is bad. We have to weigh up things which are both good and bad in themselves against good things which are good and bad in themselves. It is the nature of planning. I would like to agree with Councillor Caulkery that dense populations will work. We have seen it around the world. We see it in some of the European cities especially, that they have managed to produce good living environments with quite a dense population. And that is what I think we will have to do in this city. The other area which I would agree with him is the importance of employment and that in this city, a manufacturing city which it has always been, we must look to advanced manufacturing and that is why on the Tippner West Peninsula we are looking to advanced marine manufacturing of a world class standard which will produce exports and will produce money for this country which will enable us to do many of the things which we wish to do. Summing up, I would say that I thank members for their input. It has been useful. I have been taking notes on this. I look forward to working with them when material comes back from the regulation 19 inspection by Her Majesty's government. I would commend the minute to members for their approval. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Mason. Members, we now go to the vote bearing in mind. Councillor Pitt. Call for a recorded vote. We have had a call for a recorded vote. I see those members. We need eight members to stand to get a recorded vote. We have more than eight. It will be a recorded vote. Just to remind you all, the amendment from Councillor Bota and Councillor Swan was accepted. With that incorporated and bearing in mind it is a recorded vote, can I ask all those in favour to please stand. Thank you, Councillors. Once I call your name, if you would like to resume your seat, please. Councillor Addaniran. Councillor Caulkery. Councillor Ghosh. Councillor Shah. Councillor Fielding. Councillor Ballinie. Councillor Girarda. Councillor Heaney. Councillor Jeffery. Councillor Holder. Councillor Dorrington. Councillor Oliver, Councillor Cadeer, Councillor Brown, Councillor Vernon Jackson, Councillor Atwell, Councillor Barrett, Councillor Ashmore, Councillor Candlish, Councillor Adair, Councillor Mason, Councillor Winnington, Councillor Hunt, Councillor Sanders, Councillor Gardiner, Councillor Pitt, Councillor Horton, Councillor Boesha, Councillor Dyke, Councillor Brian Madwick, and Councillor George Madwick.

• I thank you, members. All those against, please stand.
• Councillor Swan.
• Thank you, and those wishing to abstain, please stand. Thank you. (audience laughs)
• Well, I've missed the other two. Well, being neutral, I'll abstain for the purposes of this one since I left it at the end. Note to self, remember to vote in future.
• Councillor Hunt, who's pressed, do you wish to speak?
• Oh, his light wasn't on when he was speaking, so I don't know if it's recorded.
• What are you saying?
• Your class light wasn't on when he was speaking, so I don't know if it's recorded or not.
• James, can you confirm? I didn't notice your light was on or off.
• Yes, we have the recorded vote. We have the numbers here.
• Okay, right. Right, just for clarification, the numbers are those in favor, 31, those against, one, and abstentions, seven. So thank you, members. The recommendation is approved. Don't rush off just yet, 'cause I have to formally read through this. So to clarify, the council therefore resolves two. Number one, approve the draft pre-submission Portsmouth local plan and its policies map for public consultation under regulation 19 of the town and country planning, brackets, local planning, closed brackets, open brackets, England closed bracket regulations. 2012, subject to any minor changes that are deemed necessary prior to the start of the consultation being agreed by the assistant director of planning and economic growth in consultation and the portfolio holder for planning, policy, and city development. Two, that the approve the draft sustainability appraisal and habitats regulations assessment, including derogations supporting, derogations, supporting the draft pre-submission local plan for public consultation under regulation 19 of the town and country planning, open brackets, local planning, closed brackets, open brackets, England closed brackets regulation 2012, subject to any minor changes that are deemed necessary prior to the start of the consultation being agreed. But look, I have to read this, by the assistant director of planning and economic growth in consultation with the portfolio holder for planning, policy, and city development. Three, delegate authority to the assistant director of planning and economic growth in consultation with the portfolio holder for planning, policy, and city development and opposition spokespersons to make any minor changes arising from the consultation and submit the pre-submission local plan to the secretary of state for leveling up housing and communities under regulation 22 of the town and country planning. Guess what's coming? Local planning, closed brackets, open brackets, England closed brackets regulation 2012 for examination along with a pre-submission representations and the core document library. And finally, thank goodness that note that if major changes are required to the pre-submission local plan, that a further public consultation and decision by the city council be required. And, gosh five, note that the final local plan will be brought back to full council prior to formal adoption following the independent examination undertaken by an inspector appointed by the secretary of state. Okay, so thank you members. That concludes with a note to oneself that don't wear a heavy robe and a ruffle unless you wanna look like a tomato for future meetings. I now close this meeting at precisely, ah, gosh. Councillor Pitt.
• I think it's something that members will not object to me raising at the end of the meeting. Various members in the chamber thanked Ian, Lucy and the planning policy team for their work on this. I'd like to formally propose if it's okay that we record a vote of thanks to them. And I'm happy if the other group leaders would like to collectively second a member's support.
• Members, you've heard that request from Councillor Pitt. Are you happy to do so? Okay, that's it. So members, are you happy to record a vote of thanks? All those in favor, please show. I think that is unanimous, so well done, thanks recorded.