►
From YouTube: Basingstoke Gov - Economic Planning Housing - 07/09/2023
Description
If there is buffering on the YouTube stream, the webcast can be viewed through the council's website https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/webcast
B
A
C
C
My
first
duty
is
to
read
the
fire
evacuation
procedure
for
the
evening.
There
are
no
fire
alarms
scheduled
for
this
evening.
Therefore,
the
fire
alarm
sounds:
please
evacuate
the
building
immediately
if
RX
is
located
at
the
side
of
this
room
exit
through
the
reception
and
meet
in
the
War,
Memorial,
Park
and
webcast
of
the
meeting.
This
meeting
has
been
webcast,
live
on
the
internet
and
will
be
available
to
view
on
YouTube
after
the
meeting,
and
please
switch
your
mobile
phones
off
to
silence.
C
C
G
C
C
C
I
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd,
like
to
begin
by
thanking
everyone
for
joining
us
this
evening.
As
we
all
know,
the
local
plan
is
a
vitally
important
document
for
our
Borough
and
having
such
a
strong
turnout,
both
from
councilors
and
members
of
the
public
here
in
this
room
and
also
outside
just
ahead
of
the
the
meeting
starting
shows
how
much
we
all
care
about
the
future
of
our
area
and
that's
really
heartening,
to
see
the
local
plan
is
effectively
made
up
of
three
parts:
the
housing
number,
the
main
set
of
policies
and
the
spatial
strategy
policies.
I
I
B
I
Little
control
over
the
setting
of
the
housing
number
for
their,
despite
the
noises
that
are
being
made
by
government,
the
legal
advice
we
get
keeps
telling
us
the
same
thing,
but
the
standard
method
continues
to
dictate
the
number
of
new
homes
that
we
have
to
build
and
that
we
don't
have
any
exceptional
circumstances
that
we
can
legitimately
defend
in
front
of
a
planning
inspector.
This
isn't
what
any
of
us
wanted
to
hear,
but
unless
there's
a
significant
change
to
the
draft
National
planning
framework,
it's.
J
I
Reality
that
we
all
face
the
standard
method
tells
us
that
we
need
to
be
building
850
new
homes
a
year
in
Basingstoke
and
Dean
as
an
Administration.
We
don't
agree
with
that
number
as
a
council.
We'd
agree
with
that
number,
but
a
planning
straight
jacket
prevents
us
from
doing
much
about
it.
However,
we
believe
that
there
is
some
scope
to
at
least
alter
the
timing
of
the
delivery
of
the
new
homes.
So
that's
why
we've
developed
this
step
trajectory
approach.
I
This
is
going
to
result
in
this
building
fewer
homes
in
the
first
five
years
of
the
new
plan
period,
to
give
infrastructure
a
chance
to
catch
up
before
increasing
house
building
in
subsequent
years
and
I'm
very
keen
to
hear
your
views
on
that
this
evening.
Next
to
spatial
strategy,
we're
presenting
tonight
the
spatial
strategy
that
was
proposed
by
the
previous
administration
last
year,
just
before
the
local
Plan
update
process
was
paused.
I
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
we
agree
as
a
cabinet
with
everything
that's
in
those
documents,
but
there
are
a
useful
starting
point
for
our
debate
and
it
will
enable
us
to
accelerate
the
timetable
for
the
local
Plan
update.
I.
Think
everyone
in
this
room
agrees
that
we
need
to
get
on
with
that
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
I'm
here
this
evening
very
much
in
listening
mode
and
I.
Look
forward
to
hearing
your
comments
over
what
I
suspect
will
be
the
next
few
hours.
So
thank
you
and
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you.
C
B
K
There
we
go
I
work
in
technology,
so
that's
embarrassing
good
evening,
so
I'm,
a
resident
of
all
Beijing
Village
in
the
in
the
Parish
of
all
Beijing
and
lichpit
I
believe
I
speak
on
behalf
of
a
significant
number
of
people
in
the
parish
and
objecting
strongly
to
the
1500
houses
proposed
for
SS
3.6
and
SS
3.7.
You
saw
a
lot
of
those
people
outside
this
evening,
east
of
Basingstoke
Lodge,
Farm
you're,
proposing
to
increase
our
Parish
by
a
whopping
55-0.
K
K
This
land
is
home
to
over
30
endangered
and
protected
Wildlife
species,
sightings
of
skylarks,
latwings,
lizards,
seven,
different
species
of
bats,
Kingfishers
and
even
snakes
all
about
to
be
displaced
and
impacted
by
your
development.
The
developers
have
described
in
their
Vision
document
that
the
1500
brick
houses
to
be
built
on
Greenfield
land
will
protect
and
enhance
the
natural
environment,
including
the
river
Lobby,
and
they
will
enhance
our
green
spaces.
K
How
will
bricks
and
mortar
do
that?
If
it
was
not
so
serious,
it
would
be
laughable.
The
developers
are
taking
the
parish
residence
for
fools.
Indeed,
a
recent
planning
application
was
turned
down
by
yourselves
next
to
these
developments
for
just
four
houses,
because
they
were
detracted
from
the
rural
feel
of
the
area
you're
planning
to
build
1500.,
so
I
welcome
you
to
come
to
our
beautiful
Village
of
Old,
basing
meet
the
residents
and
please
listen
to
them.
They'll
tell
you
they're
fed
up
with
too
many
cars
on
our
narrow
roads.
K
Already
a
rat
run
to
the
a30
too
few
places
too
few
places
in
our
schools
and
weeks
wait
for
appointments
at
the
Village
doctors.
The
solution
is
not
to
increase
the
population
by
three
thousand
I
appreciate
no
one
here,
including
everyone
sat
behind
me
once
1500
homes
or
anywhere
around
Basingstoke,
let
alone
in
their
Parish.
But
there
are
better
locations.
The
people
of
old,
basing
and
lichpit
want
to
live
in
villages,
not
a
town.
So
please
do
the
right
thing,
listen
to
the
residents
and
let
us
live
in
our
Villages.
Thank
you.
L
I'm
Alan
renick
I'm,
the
resident
of
old
Beijing.
The
local
plan
has
allocated
450
houses
on
land
east
of
Basingstoke
Hampshire
County
Council
wants
to
bring
forward
another
450
houses
now,
instead
of
after
2029,
which
is
the
next
local
plan
period.
Tonight's
consideration
by
yourselves
is
given
to
add
a
large
farm.
Another
600
houses,
as
Alistair
has
just
said,
a
total
of
1500
dwellings,
a
huge
development
about
half
the
size
of
old,
basing
and
Misfit
Parish
at
the
moment.
L
All
this
in
a
very
constrained
and
sensitive
environment
where
development
would
have
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
proposals
show
poor
and
inadequate
access
to
sites.
The
A3
is
all
33
is
already
a
capacity.
There
are
significant
adverse
landscape,
biodiversity
and
Heritage
impacts,
and
future
residents
would
suffer
from
motors
from
sewage
treatment
works
as
well
as.
L
C
C
N
K
L
L
C
L
L
We
submitted
our
comments
to
and
had
a
meeting
with,
Joe
Bromley
and
Council
of
condensco's
predecessor
to
discuss
some
of
them.
One
of
the
key
issues
we
identified
related
to
the
policies
of
significant
development,
regardless
of
South
many
times,
including
yes,
and
they
land
and
problems
and,
in
particular
requirements
for
infrastructure
planning.
L
Get
the
appropriate
strategy
body
commitment
in
advance
to
minimize
the
risks.
We
ask
eph
to
insist
that
the
infrastructure,
delivery
strategy
and
phasing
plan
for
these
sites
is
made
part
of
the
master
plan
process.
This
will
help
to
ensure
that
the
plan
is
deliverable
and
provides
what
is
required
to
support
the
needs
of
all
residents.
L
L
F
L
F
L
L
To
speak,
saying
that
the
constraints
from
the
deep
he
said
not
applicable
and
also
in
terms
of
the
environmental
impact
assessment,
was
a
company
called
woods
I've
never
heard
of
before,
but
they
said
that
there
was,
there
would
be
zero
effects
on
biodiversity
and
traffic
and
health,
which
is
absolutely
astounding.
Nobody
can
believe
it.
So
it
went
forward
to
the
draft
spatial
strategy.
L
So
Escape
time
was
on
the
draft
spatial
strategy
in
June
2022
in
November,
December
of
2022,
the
atomic
weapons
establishment
and
the
council
were
undertaking
their
three-year
strategy
strategy,
just
review
of
the
depz
location
and
they
discussed
at
length
with
the
four
or
five
houses
in
Hawker
should
be
within
the
zone
or
outside
the
zone.
They
didn't
talk
about
300
ounces
in
skates,
Lane
at
all,
which
is
just
astounding,
so
going
further
back
into
June
2023.
B
B
B
L
B
L
L
L
The
House
of
Commons
leveling
up
Select
Committee
in
its
report,
published
on
July
the
14th
2023,
concluded
in
a
quote
that
the
standard
method
formula
is
not
currently
fit
for
purpose.
Instead,
A
single
standard
method,
formula
that
accounts,
the
local
housing
need
and
capacity
should
apply
to
all
local
authorities.
L
L
The
projection
may
be
higher
or
lower
or
the
same
as
codestimates,
but
it
will
be
based
on
an
up-to-date
and
Survey
data,
which
will
give
you
the
most
accurate
projection.
As
far
as
can
be
achieved,
this
figure
could
be
used
in
the
phasing
of
strategic
sites
towards
the
end
of
the
local
Plan
update
period
to
allow
infrastructure
catch-up.
L
L
B
L
E
If
you
don't
know
me,
I'm
Teresa,
Woodruff,
chairman
of
whitchurch
Town
Council
I,
welcome
cancer
connections
invitation
to
raise
concerns
about
drafts
spatial
strategy,
as
set
out
in
paragraph
2.9
of
the
report
as
insufficient.
Sustainable
sites
exist
in
whitchurch
in
paragraph
3.31,
the
local
Plan
update,
figure
of
310
dwellings
for
whipchurch
has
again
been
put
forward
in
the
light
of
past
and
current
events.
It
is
now
time
to
challenge
this
figure
head-on
since
the
Inception
of
local
plans.
Our.
B
E
E
B
P
E
And
the
existing
town
of
rural
conservation
areas
protecting
important
open
land.
Town
Council
has
identified
the
last
Greenfield
site
to
the
south
of
the
town,
which
is
the
subject
of
the
application
to
extend
the
existing
Mill
Springs
development
by
about
200
houses.
This
is
currently
with
your
Authority
and
which
will
contribute
to
your
five-year
land
Supply
shortage
along
with
the
yet
to
be
started.
60
houses
at
upper
Edinburgh
Road,
the
recent
Genco
application
at
Bear
Hill
to
the
northeast
of
the
town,
which
has
multiple
serious
constraints,
has
confirmed.
E
There
are
no
more
acceptable
Greenfield
sites
in
whip
Church,
whilst
Brownfield
sites
have
already
been
taken
into
account
in
the
current
neighborhood
plan.
Consequently,
whitchurch
Town
Council
will
strongly
resist
the
current
proposed
figure
of
310
dwellings
for
the
additional
local
Plan
update
period.
C
A
L
I
L
With
these
matters
and
to
help
push
the
the
local
plan
through,
as
recently
pointed
out
by
Council
cubit
in
the
meeting
a
little
while
ago,
the
member
of
understanding
was
never
effectively
implemented
as
far
as
I'm
aware
has
never
taken
into
accounting
development
decisions
and
despite
the
quality
of
the
water
modern
being
downgraded
during
this
periods,
has
never
been
been
used
and
the
mou.
Interestingly,
if
you
go
through
the
local
plan,
it's
not
even
mentioned
in
any
way.
No,
it's
not
tied
to
it.
L
What
measures
will
be,
including
the
plan
to
ensure
the
provisions
of
the
memorandum
of
understanding
or
implemented?
How
can
the
member
of
America
understanding
be
implemented?
Give
the
three-year
interval
of
environmental
agency
monitoring
results.
What
will
the
consequences
be
if
the
amendment
value
and
understanding
is
not
delivered?
L
Will
the
local
plan
be
informed
by
the
mou
and
I
understand
it's
going
to
be
a
water
cycle,
study
addendum
or
will
the
mobu
finalize
during
the
regulation
19.?
So
those
are
some
of
my
principal
concerns.
If
none
of
these
are
available
or
done
well,
what's
the
point
of
it,
you
know:
will
it
be
ignored
again,
that's
my
concerns.
You've
clearly
made
a
lot
of
progress
and
congratulate
the
team
in
Having.
L
The
courage
to
include
a
ramping,
Clause
I
think
is
now
there
in
env9,
but
no
this
applies
to
capacity
rather
than
need
to
detect
water
quality,
so
it
only
covers
capacity.
Unfortunately,
also
a
number
of
the
other
accessing
policies,
despite
looking
good
I,
also
have
a
very
limited
applicability
in
practice.
L
L
Am
I
ready
to
go
right?
Thank
you.
I
will
say:
I
had
my
thoughts
before
I
heard
the
cabinet
member
saying
we
were
talking
mainly
about
housing,
but
I
was
addressing
the
whole
report
as
it
appears
on
the
agenda,
so
I
Stray
a
little
beyond
that
and
I
certainly
haven't
read
all
the
230
odd
pages.
So
if
I
say
something
that's
already
in
the
report,
please
forgive
me
for
a
start.
L
And,
of
course,
now
we've
crept
much
closer
and
it
hardly
serves
what
was
intended
in
the
first
place.
The
only
positive
one
might
say
is
that
the
incinerator
could
offer
District
heating,
but
I
would
suggest
that
that
isn't
a
good
enough
reason
to
build
the
rest
of
the
houses
and
make
future
residents
suffer,
as
they
certainly
will
beside
the
suit
works
and.
B
L
Lane
gives
the
already
challenging
Road
Junction
an
even
greater
Challenge
and
is
asking
for
serious
trouble,
and
that
will
get
even
more
so
when
the
bus
gate,
which
will
I'm
sure,
be
widely
ignored
and
is
just
offered
as
a
a
cure
role
which
won't
do
the
job,
because
it
will
provide
a
lovely
short
cut
through
from
the
a33
into
Old,
amazing
and
Beyond.
So
I
have
no
faith
in
the
bus
gate.
Whilst
we're
talking
about
transport
issues.
L
The
excellent
basing
Stoke
and
being
transport
strategy
published
as
far
back
as
2019
and
offering
such
things
as
Rapid
Transit,
rapid
transit
systems,
and
so
on
is
only
mentioned
in
support
of
some
of
the
transport
documents
or
transports
Solutions.
It
isn't
a
base
document
on
which
the
whole
sighting
of
sites
should
be
considered
before
various
routes
are
precluded
because
of
housing
being
in
the
wrong
place.
L
So
that
should
be
much
more
evident
in
the
report
and
where
is
the
reference
to
the
chinum
railway
station
I
do
welcome
the
electrification
of
all
the
suggested
pressure
to
Electrify
various
Mainline
tracks.
That's
very
welcome,
and
whilst
the
draft
infrastructure
delivery
plan
contains
some
very
worthwhile
proposals,
why
is
there
not
a
section
specifically
on
climate
change,
mitigation
or
say
energy?
L
Why
does
the
section
on
water
not
include
a
stipulation
that
all
new
build
shall
include
rainwater
harvesting
something
easily
done
if
it's
not
done
retrospectively
and
generally
just
more
generally
on
climate
things,
I've
missed
it,
it
might
be
there,
but
I
don't
see
much
reference
to
solar
PV.
Thank
you.
Chairman.
B
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
to
all
of
the
speakers.
The
thicker
suggested
this
evening
that
perhaps
all
of
this
was
just
letters
and
numbers
on
the
planning
document
to
us
as
counselors
and
I'd
like
to
assure
him
and
everybody
else
in
this
room
and
watching
that.
That's
absolutely
not
the
case.
It's
not
the
case
for
me
and
I'm.
Sure
I'll
speak
on
behalf
of
everybody
else
on
both
sides
of
the
table
that
that
they.
B
I
Those
same
sentiments
and
the
messages
have
come
across
very
loud
and
clear:
Eastern
Basics,
Lodge,
Farm,
skates
Lane
whip
Church
got
those
thank
you.
South
Minnie
down
pop
and
garden
village
concerns
about
infrastructure
there
as
well
thematically.
Some
interesting
points
coming
around
around
biodiversity
infrastructure,
water
quality,
that
those
are
all
things
that
we
as
a
Cabinet
are
aware
of
and
are
working
on,
I'd
like
to
respond
to
a
couple
of
specific
points
as
well.
I
If
I
may
so
Gareth
your
point
about
the
running
the
Chalmer
model,
we've
got
Consultants
prepped
and
ready
to
go
so
as
soon
as
those
figures
are
released
by
The
ons,
we
will
look
at
them
as
you're
aware
we're
not
allowed
to
use
the
chairman
model.
We
have
to
use
the
standard
method.
Calculation,
however,
we'll
still
run
the
numbers
and
if
they
support
our
case
for
reducing
housing
numbers.
I
I
Timing,
wise
I,
can't
promise
you
that
they'll
be
done
in
time
for
regulation
18.
In
fact,
I
suspect
they
probably
won't
because
we
do
need
to
crack
on
with
the
regulation.
18
consultation
but
I'd
be
very
disappointed
if
they're
not
ready
in
time
for
regulation
19
for
by
the
time
they
go
to
the
inspector
and
with
the
grumpkin
claws
noted
what
you
said,
we'll
we'll
look
into
that,
because
I
think
it's
a
fair
point.
I
We
have
introduced
the
corrupting
Clause
into
into
the
latest
draft
of
our
policy
documents,
but
if
it
can
be
strengthened,
then
all
the
better
for
it
Martin.
Some.
Thank
you
for
your
comments
today
again
about
Easter
basing
historic,
Lodge
Farm.
You
spoke
about
children.
Railway
station.
You
spoke
about
climate
change.
You
spoke
about
wearing
water,
harvesting,
TV,
that's
all
that
with
elsewhere
in
the
local
plan.
It's
not
something
with.
I
You
know
we're
specifically
tonight
we're
looking
at
the
housing
numbers
and
the
spatial
strategy,
but
I
can
assure
you
all
of
those
issues
are
being
addressed
elsewhere
and
you'll
certainly
see
that
as
part
of
the
regulation,
18,
consultation
and
I
think
that's
all
of
the
major
points
covered.
So
thank
you
all
again
and
thank
you
chair.
L
Good
evening
evening,
members
officers
chair,
thank
you
I'm
here
tonight
in
my
Bramley
Ward
councilor,
okay,
see
I've
got
two
sites
that
I
want
to
discuss
with
you
or
put
something
to
you.
The
first
one
is
SS
3.9,
which
is
land
to
the
west
of
uppercut
for
the
farm.
So
going
straight
into
it.
This
allocation
generates
more
housing
to
the
growing
North
and
South
Bramley.
The
ability
of
family
divided
community
with
potential
issues
of
a
sense
of
place
where
people
perceive
they
actually
belong,
because
you've
got
a
polarized
settlement.
L
It's
not
really
helping
with
the
coalescence
between
the
settlements.
If
we're
going
up
the
side
of
it
in
terms
of
the
climate
emergency,
this
site
really
isn't
sustainable.
It's
totally
reliant
on
cars
as
a
means
of
Transport.
It's
cited
too
far
away
from
local
services
and
in
the
policy
box
on
page
37,
Little
subletter
D.
Ensuring
development
will
not
have
severe
adverse
impact
on
the
local
Highway.
L
In
a
statement
when
the
upper
cuffle
Farm
site
was
given
the
outline
planning
permission,
HCC
said,
in
light
of
the
junction
Improvement
Works
already
completed,
HCC
highways
have
concluded
that
it
would
be
more
appropriate
to
provide
improvements
to
sustainable
transport
modes
in
order
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
development
traffic
from
the
Catholic
Farm
site.
This
includes
the
provision
of
a
new
bus
service
which
will
operate
and
a
contribution
towards
basing
soap
cycle
strategy
Etc.
L
Hcc
has
a
poor
delivery
on
such
Solutions.
The
bus
service
we
have
in
in
part
of
the
area
is
temporary
unless
it
can
be
subsidized
or
it
becomes
a
viable
commercial
operation,
but
it
just
doesn't
happen.
The
chinum
business
part,
which
is
where
the
traffic
will
head
it,
wasn't
designed
for
through
traffic.
It's
a
fast
developing
into
a
warehouse
part
of
frequent
hgv
traffic.
Alongside
business
traffic
then
cite
access
onto
cuffled
Lane
for
cyclists
to
go
to
the
National
cycle
route.
L
There
will
have
to
be
SAS
training
compulsory
due
to
the
poor
sight
lines,
twisty
and
busy
line,
and
in
favoriting
more
traffic
will
use
this
Lane
We
Touch
again
on
the
subject
of
a
lack
of
ongoing
infrastructure.
It's
a
long
walk
to
the
chinam
shopping
center
over
three
miles.
Doctors,
Bramley
and
China
are
at
capacity
it's
not
walkable
for
elderly
or
children.
Schooling.
We've
got
no
idea
whether
upper
cuff
or
Farm.
L
Gain
is
beyond
me
and
then
Sheffield
Hill
Farm,
which
is
SS
3.8.
This
is
again
going
to
coalesce
shirfield
loading
with
with
chin
and
Sheffield
Park
generates
a
north-south
sure
for
the
modern
Community
very
much
like
I
talked
about
earlier.
It
will
absorb
and
lose
the
identity
of
the
church.
End,
Settlement
and
it'll
have
an
impact
on
local
Highway
and
there
again
the
lack
of
infrastructure.
L
The
a33
is
a
major
trunk
route
between
the
M4,
the
M3
and
more
locally
the
reading
area
and
the
M3
towards
Southampton,
which
will
carriageway
through
Berkshire,
but
single
carriageway
through
Hampshire,
which
is
China.
It
carries
heavy
Goods
Vehicles
as
an
example
from
the
distribution
center
in
Reading,
there
is
a
Tesco's
HTV
Lorry
every
two.
L
Weekends,
it
will
cause
cues
and
many
roundabouts
through
children
or
modern.
Recent
developments
of
Redlands
and
Sheffield
Park
have
added
yet
more
local
traffic.
Whitmarsh
lane
takes
all
of
basingstoke's
waste
to
the
incinerator
for
burning
or
onwards
travel
to
the
recycling
center
in
Hampshire
and
water
sewage
traffic
they're
tankers.
It's
a
busy
road
accidents
are
frequent.
Total
road
closures
are
often
the
often
caused
an
issue.
L
It
causes
massive
rat
running
and
many
speed
limits
are
in
place
to
reflect
the
dangerous
volumes
of
vehicles,
so
our
air
quality
will
soon
become
a
serious
issue,
so
HCC
will
still
still
keep
on
allowing
us
to
use
more
traffic
on
this
road.
So
I
would
ask
you
to
consider
all
these
points
when
you
look
at
these
two
sites.
Thank
you
for
listening.
L
L
Firstly
in
2011
when,
when
this
local
plan,
when
our
local
plan
was
being
cooked
for
the
environment
agency,
recommended
strongly
that
this
site
should
not
go
forward
at
that
time,
that
recommendation
was
accepted
and
the
site
did
not
go
forward.
The
reasons
that
they
that
they
identify
for
performing
this
view,
which
and
was
justified
their
recommendations
still
exists
today.
Nothing
has
changed.
L
The
second
point
that
I'd
like
to
make
is-
and
this
has
already
been
partially
raised
by
Martin
Vienna,
when
the
Beijing
State
Development
Corporation
Drew
up
their
plans
for
payments
too.
They
deliberately
started
the
sewage
Farm
in
his
current
position,
as
they
stated,
it
would
need
to
be
as
far
away
as
possible
from
Human
habitation.
L
Regarding
odor
and
human
health,
it
says
3.7
is
downwind
and
right
next
door
to
the
Egypt
of
the
sewage
Farm.
How
many
of
you
would
like
to
live
right
next
to
a
city
strong?
My
third
point
is
this:
over
the
last
few
years
we
have
all
become
more
concerned
and
knowledgeable
on
masses
of
biodiversity,
environmental
matters
and
the
quality
of
our
many
and
those
various
streams
and
rivers.
We
have
many
rivers
in
our
bar,
all
of
which
are
very
important,
but.
A
L
L
Gold
three
in
one
of
the
arc
states
that
the
government
is
fully
committed
to
the
restoration
of
the
headwaters
of
chalk
streams.
If
I
may
finish
off
my
drawing
a
small
analogy
and
doctor
is
concerned
about
his
patients,
health
He
suggests
the
change
in
his
lifestyle.
The
recommendation
is
not
accepted.
The
inevitable
happens
in
this
example.
The
only
loser
is
the
patient
and
his
immediate
family,
and
the
case
before
you,
three
separate
bodies
have
given
their
opinions
and
provided
evidence
is
why
they
should
feel
that
Lodge
Farm
should
should
not
be
the
developed
first.
L
R
Thanks
yeah
right
I'm
speaking
tonight
as
World
counselor
for
tadley
north
of
Kingsley
and
bullcast
first
up
I
would
like
to
express
my
support
for
pressing
on
with
a
local
plan.
We
must
do
what
is
within
our
power
and
that,
then
that
is
hard.
That
is
work
hard
on
delivering
a
local
plan
with
the
strongest
possible
policies
to
build
the
right
homes
in
the
right
places
and
encouraging
the
building
of
energy
efficient
homes
to
keep
fuel
usage
down
in
may.
We
inherited
a
Poor's
local
plan
and
a
4.2
year
land
Supply.
R
This
has
left
the
borough
in
a
weep
position
as
a
planning
Authority,
and
it
leaves
us
open
to
speculative
development.
Ashford
here
is
a
small
village
of
around
100
houses.
It's
used
to
have
a
shop,
it
used
to
have
a
shop,
Pub
and
a
school.
It
now
has
35
new
houses
and
27
more
being
built.
However,
the
shopping
Pub
are
no
longer
there
and
there
is
no
bus
service
in
the
village.
R
Two
further
applications
are
going
to
appeal
for
36
and
47:
more
houses,
there's
no
main
sewage
in
the
village,
and
a
drainage
and
drainage
issues
are
major.
Environmental
concern,
a
strong
local
plan
and
strong
policies
are
essential
to
stop
unsustainable
developments
at
the
planning
stage
and
a
five-year
land
Supply
is
crucial
to
strengthen
our
case.
Sorry
at
appeal.
R
Moving
on
to
the
special
strategy,
where
I
must
speak
on
skates
Lane
due
to
the
proximity
of
the
AWA
and
the
evacuation
zone,
tadley
is
an
oddity
to
the
planning
process.
This
does
not
mean
we
can
lower
out
standards
for
site
selection
due
to
a
lack
of
options.
Skates
Lane
has
not
was
not
supported
in
the
2020.
Sheila
was
due
to
its
Countryside
location
and
its
proximity
to
all
the
master
in
awe
Escape
slain.
Isn't
your
normal
large
drab
Farmers
field?
It's
truly
old
Farmland.
R
It
is
a
collection
of
small
hedge-lined,
curved
Fields
used
to
grow
sheep
and
keep
pigs
over
the
years,
even
our
biodiversity,
our
first
sites,
the
grasslands,
the
least
biodiverse
area
is
important.
Habitat
habitat
corridors,
generations
of
old
tadlian,
pamber
families
have
walked
the
footpaths
and
enjoyed
the
untouched
and
unspoiled
environment
you
could
align.
You
could
align
Family
Photos
throughout
the
decades,
and
the
backgrounds
would
remain
the
same
for
a
small
plot
of
land.
Fitting
only
260
houses,
it's
sandwiched.
B
R
Two
conservation
areas,
two
triple
sis,
ordered
by
three
sinks:
two
listed
buildings,
a
Waterway
three
ponds
wrapped
in
ancient
Woodland
crossed
with
established
hedgerows
and
hides-
are
buried
at
Roman
Road.
Under
the
surface,
no
neighborhood
plan
would
select
this
site
as
a
place
for
a
Housing
Development.
This
game's
slain
is
more
suited
to
be
a
Biz.
A
biodiversity
include
them
improvements
owned
in
the
development.
My
final
point
is
that
the
plan
is
to
complete
the
first
homes
by
24,
25
and
the
last
in
seven
years
time,
which
takes
us
to
2031..
R
This
is
not
going
to
help
solve
our
five-year
sand.
The
land
Supply,
but
it
will
have
a
sustained
impact
on
the
environment
and
residents
will
lose
their
Leisure
immunity.
Skates
Lane
was
not
considered
viable
in
2020
I,
don't
believe
it
fits
with
our
local
plan.
Policies
in
2023
I
would
like
to
see
it
removed
so
that
the
site
can
be
preserved
and
the
long
and
important
Wildlife
Corridor
stretching
all
the
way
to
Ashford
Hill
protected.
R
On
top
of
that,
I
mean
some
of
the
things
you
see.
There's
a
mix
with
the
mixture
of
habitats.
We
get
kites,
Linux,
wipe
fruit,
chiff
black
cap
gold,
Fringe,
swallows
Cuckoos,
heart
door,
Mouse
and
I've
forgotten
the
species
of
Dormouse.
You
said
almost
that's
the
one
which
is
is
special
because
they
need
groups
to
get
up
to
the
trees
and
yeah
and
there's
a
and
also
there's
two
habitats.
B
S
B
S
10,
which
would
bring
our
already
struggling
Community
to
a
standstill
following
the
screening
request,
expert
opinion
objecting
to
the
development
of
this
site
can
be
already
found
on
the
planning
portal.
The
2022
Sheila
States
the
site
currently
does
not
meet
the
council's
own
current
planning
framework,
as
it.
S
Once
this
landscape
has
been
destroyed,
the
borough
will
lose
one
of
the
last
pieces
of
Natural
England,
forming
a
wildlife
Corridor
linking
Pampa
Forest
to
ancient
Woodland,
directly
adjacent
to
the
development
site.
Others
smooth
snakes,
bats,
mutes,
I
can
go
on
and
on
live
side
by
side
on
this
site.
This
is
because
the
land
has
been
left
in
peace
over
the
centuries,
with
no
heavy
plowing
or
intensive
farming.
S
A
heritage
I
hold
postgraduate
qualifications
in
history
and
Archeology,
including
a
PhD
I,
say
this
to
endorse
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
with
me
by
my
residence.
The
site
is
not
of
low
archaeological
potential,
as
we
are
perhaps
being
led
to
believe.
Neither
is
it
of
high
archaeological
potential.
S
S
There
have
been
two
recent
reports
of
residents
adjacent
to
the
site.
Identifying
possible
Roman
remains
on
their
properties.
They
may
be
wrong,
however.
This
land
should
not
be
entered
into
the
local
plan
without
an
independent
analysis,
preferably
from
the
University
Pruitt
development
sets
a
precedent
where
the
Roman
Road
was
left
intact
throughout
the
Housing
Development
as
a
green
ribbon
in
the
case
of
skates
Lane.
S
This
might
affect
the
viability
of
the
site,
but
without
such
protection,
the
Roman
Road
and
any
other
contextual
archeology
will
be
destroyed
in
1997,
the
County
Council
ruled
that
the
skates
Lane
Farm
track
could
not
become
a
road
and
was
to
remain
an
access
route.
Only
this
County
decision
was
not
powered
on
appeal
and,
if
upheld
into
the
future,
this
could
make
the
site
impractical
escapes.
S
S
Road
usage
would
also
be
exacerbated,
as
the
site
is
too
distant
from
bus
stops
or
facilities
for
the
residents
to
access
them
on
foot
and
the
last
roads
are
of
particular
importance
to
the
depz
and
the
emergency
evacuation
plans
out
of
tadley.
An
addition
of
10
to
the
population
would
need
analysis.
It
would
be
disingenuous
to
say
deep.
Epz
isn't
relevant,
because
only
a
small
part
of
the
site
is
in
the
current
Zone.
S
S
T
Thank
you
chair,
so
eph
are
being
asked
this
evening
to
note
this
report
on
the
local
Plan
update.
Next
steps
and
spatial
strategy
critical
to
the
whole
lpu
is
the
overall
housing
number
for
the
term
of
the
plan.
This
paper
is
completely
silent
on
this.
It
is
expecting
eph
to
note,
which
means
effectively
to
endorse
that
the
total
number
of
homes
will
be
calculated
by
the
standard
method
with
no
reductions.
This
is
not
acceptable.
The
full
Council
voted
not
to
accept
this
approach
that
the
number
has
to
be
reduced.
T
In
addition,
the
paper
proposes
a
target
of
700
homes
to
be
built
per
annum
for
the
first
five
years
with
high
numbers
in
future
years
to
balance
what
is
required,
while
this
may
seem
attractive
at
first
sight
as
700
per
annum
is
much
nearer
to
the
number
of
new
homes
we
need
in
the
borough.
We
are
actually
being
sold
a
pop
here
to
get
us
back
on
track
to
the
correct
number
of
homes
per
year
over
the
life
of
the
plan,
we
would
need
to
deliver
around
1
000
new
homes
every
year
for
years.
T
Five
to
ten.
This
is
simply
pushing
something
we
need
to
deal
with
today,
down
the
track
for
a
different
group
of
counselors
and
I,
dare
say
a
different
Administration
to
deal
with
I
urge
members
of
this
committee
to
do
the
responsible
thing
remind
the
cabinet
that
they
answer
to
the
full
Council
and
to
reduce
the
total
housing
number
for
the
full
period
of
the
plan.
T
T
B
T
Which
also
takes
sewage
cake
to
process
from
other
sewage
works.
These
facilities
were
located
deliberately
away
from
housing,
as
they
are
unsightly,
arguably
pollutant
and
definitely
frequently
very
smelly
and
that's
without
factoring
in
all
the
waste
trucks
delivering
to
both
of
these
facilities,
which
would
share
the
entrance
road
to
the
proposed
development.
T
900
new
homes,
together
with
the
proposed
Lodge
Farm
and
Sheffield
Hill
Farm
in
this
draft
spatial
strategy,
would
mean
1800
more
homes
accessing
the
a33,
mostly
people
commuting
to
reading,
which
is
already
the
most
economically
damaged
road
that
we
have
in
the
borough.
These
developments
all
take
Farmland
out
of
production.
They
damage
are
already
threatened.
Biodiversity
continue
to
overwhelm
our
local
doctors
and
dentists
and
mean
even
more
children
being
bussed
to
Alton
and
Newbury
for
their
secondary
school
education.
T
Any
single
development
of
4
200
homes
would
have
required
proper
Master
planning,
with
all
the
infrastructure
factored
in,
whereas
around
chinum
we
have
developers
building
this
number
of
homes
in
a
piecemeal
way.
None
taking
responsibility
for
the
dire
impact
it
is
having
on
local
communities
and
residents.
Members.
Please
recommend
that
Easter
Basingstoke,
Lodge
Farm
and
surefield
Hill
Farm
are
removed
from
this
draft
spatial
strategy.
Thank
you.
N
N
B
N
L
N
B
N
Tired
I'm,
tired
of
constantly
seeing
members
of
this
Council
and
other
people
pitching
communities
against
each
other
comments,
such
as
I'm,
not
against
house
building
that
are
Then,
followed
up,
but
we
don't
need
X
number
of
houses
in
my
ward.
Why
not
build
them
south
of
the
M3
or
somewhere
else
in
the
borough
reek
of
nimbyism?
N
Some
members
may
not
like
to
hear
this
and
I'm
sure
members
who
sat
on
the
council
when
places
such
as
Rooks
down,
hatch,
Warren
or
even
winklebury
were
built
said
exactly
the
same.
We
have
nearly
5
000
people
on
the
housing
register.
Nobody
seems
to
be
thinking
of
their
needs
when
blocking
the
local
plan
or
arguing
that
the
standard
method
is
not
fair.
N
My
only
concern
is
that
allowing
developers
to
build
so
many
houses
will
not
solve
the
problems
that
many
of
our
residents,
especially
those
in
my
world
of
winter
money
down
face
when
trying
to
get
a
home.
We
need
to
get
back
to
basics
and
provide
truly
affordable
housing
and
bring
Council
housing
back
into
the
fold.
Couldn't
come
soon
enough.
In
my
opinion,
moving
on
I
want
to
say
that
I
welcome
this
report
from
officers
and
would
like
to
thank
them
for
their
timely
work
on
it.
N
Land,
Supply
and
whilst
I
agree,
that
debate
needs
to
be
had
over
the
how,
when
and
what
is
being
built
and
also
where
we
build.
It
is
important
that
we
put
any
Showboat
into
one
side
and
get
this
all
agreed
so
that
we
as
a
council
can
be
responsible
for
those
for
those
decisions
rather
than
being
at
the
best
of
the
Developers.
N
N
The
standard
method
of
calculating
homes
is
clearly
not
feasible
in
our
Borough,
when
we
have
consistently
built
more
than
required.
However,
at
this
time
we
have
no
other
alternative.
The
current
conservative
government,
despite
all
efforts,
show
no
signs
of
changing
it.
Yet
we
therefore
have
to
provide
a
solution
to
responsibly
build
homes
that
many
people
need,
whilst
also
allowing
infrastructure
that
is
desperately
needed
to
catch
up.
N
Officers
have,
from
all
accounts,
diligently
tried
to
establish
how
we
could
avoid
meeting
the
standard
method,
and
what
is
being
put
forward
here
tonight
seems
to
mitigate
that
in
some
way,
whilst
not
falling
foul
of
the
law.
Now,
after
all
of
that,
what
is
the
alternative
being
put
forward
by
those
in
opposition
to
the
plan?
Reading
between
the
lines,
it
would
seem
that
some
members
of
the
council
would
like
us
to
break
the
law.
By
ignoring
the
standard
method.
Officers
have
consulted
on
this,
and
this
is
clearly
not
a
viable
option.
B
B
N
Reiterating
this
point,
officers
have
tried
to
establish
any
means
to
not
stick
to
the
standard
method
and,
as
the
report
States
and
I
quote,
have
concluded
that
no
exceptional
circumstances
can
be
alike
or
could
be
identified
in
the
borough
and
that
to
do
so.
However,
in
light
of
the
current
advice
and
the
national
policy
framework
is
considered
too
high
risk
and
is
unlikely
to
lead
to
a
sound
plan
at
examination,
members.
N
C
M
Thank
you
very
much,
I,
don't
know
what
you
all
think
when
you
look
at
the
site
allocation
map
proposed
of
proposed
developments
around
the
borough.
Here
it
is,
if
you
had
my
ward,
you
may
well
have
had
a
nervous
breakdown
by
now,
as
you
can
clearly
see,
the
Lion's
Share
is,
of
course,
coming
to
the
Southwest
area,
but
that's
not
a
surprise
and
councilor
Lee
will
be
pleased
to
know
I'm
not
going
to
argue
with
it.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
make
a
positive
comment.
M
Oakley
has
delivered
well
over
double
its
allocation
in
the
current
plan
and
in
addition
to
having
North
many
down
almost
up
on
its
border,
it's
due
to
have
the
massive
south
of
any
dirt
and
creeping
up
all
around
the
South
and
the
West
I'm
very
pleased
that
it
is
not
being
given
a
housing
allocation
in
this
revised
plan
and
there's
not
much
more
than
I
can
say,
except
that
I
do
feel
listened
to.
Having
asked
for
this
over
a
long
period
of
time,
all
right
so
I
want
to
say
thank.
M
You
is
some
compensation
for
this
horrendous
map.
South
many
down
I
need
to
confirm
more
widely
before
I.
Give
a
definitive
view
of
this
I'm
encouraged
to
see
that
there
seems
to
be
some
intention
to
identify
more
effective
strategic
Gap
than
the
pathetic
one
that
we've
got
coming
up
at
the
North,
which
is
just
about
one
field.
M
However,
I'm
not
too
happy
to
see
that
there
has
been
shrinkage
since
the
original
vision.
Why
would
you
do
that?
I
honestly?
Think
Oakley's
got
enough
to
contend
without
losing
a
bit
of
strategic
Gap
if
I'm
honest,
but,
as
I
said,
I
need
to
confer
with
the
parish
council
and
with
other
people
before
I
come
back
and
because
it's
quite
difficult
to
compare
the
two
maps
to
see.
Actually
what
the
difference
really
is
so
I
would
say:
ditto,
Dharma,
North,
Waltham
and
Popham.
M
Yes,
papa
is
also
my
board
to
be
pleased
to
know
they
all
are
I
would
need
to
talk
to
some
of
the
local
people.
Who'll
know
a
bit
more
about
me
a
bit
more
about
their
own
area
before
I.
Come
back
with
a
more
definitive
comment,
however:
policy
s,
SS,
3.19,
oakdown
Farm.
Also
in
my
walls
when
I
read
this
when
I
read
this
policy,
I
had
to
look
twice
to
believe
what
I
was
seeing
quote
to
make
provision
for
the
delivery
of
warehousing.
M
M
It's
a
key
Gateway
site
and
it
culminated
in
getting
the
developers
appeal
dismissed
at
Great
cost
and,
despite
the
recommendation
of
officers
and
I,
appreciate
that
the
many
paragraphs
contained
in
the
policy
attempt
to
cover
the
concerns
expressed
over
a
long
period
of
time.
But
that's
simply
not
good
enough.
If
we
accept
this.
B
M
We
hand
Free
Victory
to
developers
who
are
constrained
only
by
their
own
profit,
not
as
we
are
by
the
well-being
and
good
design
of
the
whole
area.
That's
what
we're
constrained
by
and
that's
what
we
should
stand
by
and
with
the
forthcoming
new
hospital
likely
to
be
opposite.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
present
what
we
want
for
this
area
of
the
borough
and
not
what
developers
want.
M
It's
been
pointed
out
by
many
that
Basingstoke
does
not
have
an
employment
need
for
distribution
centers
and
the
subtext
admits
that
there
will
be
oversupply
and
we
will
contribute
to
the
wider
Regional
need
well.
No
thank
you,
I'm
elected,
to
represent
the
needs
and
well-being
of
this
Borough,
and
this
policy
does
not
do
that.
In
fact,
it
does
exactly
the
opposite.
M
This
policy
is
nothing
for
me,
short
of
outrageous
that
we
should
be
considering
warehousing
when
we
have
fought
so
long
and
hard
not
to
get
warehousing
on
that
site
and,
in
fact,
South
mini
Dan
also
talks
of
incorporating
land
for
storage
and
distribution.
How
many
warehouses
do
we
need
in
basing
so?
Actually
we
don't
need
any
more
I.
Don't
think
that
phrase
was
slipped
in
at
paragraph
five
and
it's
included
in
the
development
principles.
M
U
Good
evening,
chairman
I'm
just
I'm
quickly
before
I
start,
our
members
allowed
to
ask
me
questions
no
okay
right,
because
that's
why
I
brought
all
this
stuff
here
with
so
good
evening.
Members
I
request
that
SS,
3.6
and
SS
3.7
be
removed
at
this
stage
for
the
following
reasons
and
I
believe
that
there
is
compelling
evidence
that
they
are
unsuitable.
U
Now,
facts
are
facts:
the
land
hasn't
changed,
the
river
hasn't
changed,
the
floodplains
haven't
changed
and
the
catchment
area
hasn't
changed.
So
the
environment
agency
can't
have
been
correct
in
2008,
yet
diametrically
changed
their
position
in
2023
when
environmental
issues
are
afforded
even
more
important
in
2023,
subsequent
to
the
environment,
Act
and
the
environment.
Improvement
plan
2023
in
Carver,
the
environment
agency,
didn't
think
that
mitigation
could
work
in
2008
and
so
I
I
really
can't
understand
how
we
think
that
mitigations
can
now
in
relation
to
SS
3.6,
which
was
then
known
as
one
two
one.
U
They
stated
the
river
is
a
priority
back
habitat
chalk
stream
near
the
stretch
and
therefore
we
would
object
to
the
development
of
this
area.
However,
other
parts
of
this
site
may
be
suitable,
but
these
constraints
mean
the
site
is
unlikely
to
produce
the
yield
expected
and
as
such
should
be
reconsidered.
And,
of
course
originally
it
was
for
900
000
that
was
reduced
to
450..
U
Couldn't
have
been
more
explicit,
they
strongly
object
to
the
development
of
this
area.
This
is
their
language
and
I
can
show
you
the
evidence
which
I
have
here.
It's
not
me
paraphrasing
them.
As
such,
we
recommend
not
taking
this
site
forward
to
the
local
development
framework
stage
this
this
side,
and
this
is
their
words
again
Falls
within
the
loading
base,
insect
a
Riverside
Confluence
and
the
water
framework
directive,
water
body
catchment,
which
is
a
priority
catchment
for
the
environment
agency,
based
on
the
ecological
evidence
for
the
failure
of
the
water
body.
U
Basically,
there
was
a
Southampton
archeology
unit
and
a
Dr
Russell
in
2019,
who,
together
with
the
Hampshire
County
Council
in
2017,
have
determined
that
the
park
pale,
which
they
believed
for
the
last
60
years,
was
a
medieval
Beijing.
Deer
Park
from
the
1300s
is
in
fact
it
is
in
fact
was
built
for
defensive
purposes,
post
the
Roman
period
and
the
earthwork
runs
between
two
river
valleys
and
a
ditch
lies
on
the
North
West
anyway.
U
I've
got
all
the
details,
but
basically
it
says
it
is
considered
that
this
should
be
a
much
greater
interest
in
the
reinterpretation
and,
whilst
it's
already
an
incredibly
important
archaeological
monument,
and
they
believe
that
the
reinterpretation
and
the
link
to
King
Alfred
will
increase
the
communal
value
significantly.
The
landscape
capacity
study
in
2008
said
that
this
land
was
low.
That
was,
for
both
the
sequential
test
could
not
have
been
more
explicit
for
the
scoring
and
the
obligations
under
mppf.
We
have
to
allocate
land
that
is
not
in
the
sequential
test.
U
First
and
sequential
test
land
must
only
be
allocated
in
the
event
that
it's
proven
explicitly
that
there
are
no
Alternatives
and
both
these
sites
score
the
worst
on
a
sequential
test,
their
aid
and,
in
fact,
even
on
the
sequential
test
that
we've
done
for
our
local
plan.
It
explicitly
stated
this
site
is
not
recommended
for
allocation,
given
High
flood
risk
implications,
biodiversity
constraints
and
in
light
of
public
consultation,
comets,
and
especially
for
the
combined
side,
SS
3.6
and
SS
3.7,
which
were
originally
called
one
two
one
and
102.
so
in.
I
I
In
terms
of
some
of
the
themes
and
challenges
that
we
face,
so
we've
made
made
a
note
of
all
of
those
Jenny.
Thank
you
for
your
comments
about
the
housing.
Number
I
was
just
drafting
a
response
when
Alex
absolutely
beat
me
to
it.
So
I
I
will
just
say
very
much.
In
summary.
To
to
your
point,
we
don't
agree
with
the
the
number
that's
coming
out
of
the
standard
method
as
a
as
a
Cabinet.
I
We
don't
agree
with
the
number
that's
coming
out
of
the
standard
method
as
a
as
a
council,
but
until
the
government
changes
the
rules,
we
can't
do
anything
about
it.
We
have
to
stick
to
the
planning
regulations
and
we're
not
going
to
put
forward
a
local
Plan
update
that
is
going
to
fall
of
national
planning
policy.
It's
a
waste
of
our
time,
it's
a
waste
of
our
resources
and
it's
disingenuous
to
the
public.
So
we
won't
be
doing
that.
I
The
the
method
we've
proposed
is
I,
I
believe
is,
is
the
only
solution
that
we've
got.
If
we
don't
want
to
build
850
homes
a
year,
we
can
debate
that
further.
Of
course,
if
you
want
to
later
on
Alex,
thank
you
for
your
comments
wholeheartedly.
Agree
with
those,
and
only
thank
you
also
for
your
forensic
analysis.
I
love
the
fact
that
you've
come
in
with
a
huge
folder
full
of
information
on
I'm.
I
C
Way
going
forward
I'm
suggesting
we
split
this
into
like
five
sections,
so
the
first
section
will
be
the
proposed
stag
staggeration
of
the
housing
numbers.
That's
in
the
executive
summary,
so
in
paragraph
2.5
to
2.23
and
then
we
then
we
debate
the
spatial
strategy.
That's
in
in
executive,
summary,
3.1
through
3.13,
but
also
independix
one
so
primarily
I
would
go
to
appendix
one
and
go
through
the
items
there.
C
But
if
people,
if
members
want
to
go
back
to
the
executive
summary
and
make
comments,
that's
fine,
the
same
approach
being
the
draft
housing
allocations
so
again
in
executive
summary,
3.14
to
3.26
again
that
primary
is
going
to
be
in
the
appendix
too
again.
You
can
make
references
to
to
the
executive
summary
also
approach
to
rural
areas.
That's
in
the
appendix
to
and
paragraph
3.27
to
3.3
in
the
executive
summary
and
the
last
one
would
be
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan
and.
C
So
I
want
to
split
that
up
to
questions
to
officers
and
and
debate.
So
the
first
section
I'd
like
to
start
with
is
the
housing
numbers
on
the
executive
summary
from
2.5
to
2.23
I,
don't
know
if
any
one
members
want
to
to
kick
off
on
the
cabinet's
proposal
to
have
a
lower
number
at
the
beginning
of
the
plan.
I
know.
L
G
G
Examining
won't
be
found
sound,
so
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
having
a
plan
in
place
and
going
through
that
process
and
having
SoundCloud
will
show
that
at
that
point,
you'll
have
a
land
Supply,
so
it'll
be
restored
at
the
moment.
We're
looking
at
adoption
in
2025,
so
you're
looking
up
for
two
years
time.
I
B
I
I
Out
there
quickly
enough
that's
what
we're
all
trying
to
do.
I
think
we
all
agree.
We
want
to
do
this
as
quickly
as
possible,
assuming
that
version
of
the
mppf
makes
it
into
the
final
Levering
up,
Bill
and
becomes
law.
Then,
as
things
stand
with
our
4.2,
we
will
be
okay
in
that
tilted.
Balance
would
disappear,
but
that
is
obviously
subject
to
change.
L
L
Rising
and
therefore
that
is
not
great
and
developers
are
not
likely
to
develop
where
they
see
no
opportunity
to
sell
those
homes.
So
I
mean
there
are
boroughs
whose
housing
land
supplies
at
two
years
now
the
reality
of
us
getting.
There
means
that,
through
the
examination
period,
we
are
likely
to
be
up
against
a
a
firing
squad
for
developers,
because
they'll
just
keep
saying
the
Tilted
balance
is
in
our
favor.
You
can't,
you
can't
prove
it
so
have
you
got
projections
to
where
we're
going
to
be.
G
L
Just
in
the
last
six
months,
we've
reduced
from
4.8
percent
to
years
to
4.2.
Another
reduction
on
that
scale
will
get
us
below
four
and
we'll
really
be
in
trouble,
because
I
just
I'm
just
making
the
point
that
our
discussions
tonight
are
so
vital
that
that
we
we
deliver
a
local
Plan
update,
but
also
that
we
are
mindful
that
if
we
don't
get.
B
O
If
there
is
a
strong
evidence,
we
can
argue
about
the
numbers
and
that
basically
a
good
exercise
for
us
to
to
see
whether
actually
the
sites
available
here
are
not
gonna.
We
don't
have
enough
sites
or
sufficient
sites.
That
would
be
enable
us
to
meet
the
targets.
I've,
just
I,
don't
know
whether
my
question
here
is
whether
you've
considered
a
competition
of
those
two
options
and,
and
also
in
relation
to
that
was
it.
What
is
what
is
that,
as
we
speak
today?
What's
your
timeline
as
in
getting
that
strategy
updated.
G
Line
there's
a
timetable
included
in
the
report,
so
that's
in
section
five
5.1,
which
sets
out
the
future
timetable
for
it.
The
local
plan
process
is
quite
a
long
one
and
it
always
takes
a
number
of
years.
So
we're
looking
to
move
quite
quickly
to
get
that
adopted
in
two
years
time.
If
we
did
delay
further
in
terms
of
waiting
for
statistics
to
come
out,
as
it
said,
they're
in
the
legal
advice
we're
not
really
going
to
get
the
information
we
need
and
attention
to
the
household
projections
until
2024..
G
There's
a
government
deadline
in
place
that
you
need
to
move
forward
and
submit
your
plan
by
June
2025.
If
you
don't
do
that,
you
can't
take
your
plan
forward
under
the
current
system.
It
will
be
under
the
new
system
and
we
don't
quite
know
what
that
means
yet.
But
it
might,
for
example,
mean
that
we
have
National
planning
policies
rather
than
local
planning
policies.
That's
what
national
government
is
looking
at.
G
So
those
are
all
the
things
that
we
need
to
take
into
account
and
the
timetable
that
we've
got
here
would
enable
us
to
submit
within
that
time
scale
so
that
we
can
do
it
under
the
existing
plan
system.
So
that's
a
main
reason
for
doing
it
in
terms
of
the
constraints,
that's
also
kind
of
addressed
under
Section
2.14
onwards.
So
we
did
look
at
that
in
addition
to
the
legal
advice
and
went
through
all
of
the
constraints.
G
This
committee
and
others
have
raised
a
vast
number
of
individual
and
cumulative
impacts
that
we've
looked
at
and
that
work
has
basically
concluded
that
none
of
those
while
they
will
influence
the
spatial
strategy
on
where
development
should
go.
They're,
not
in
themselves
a
reason,
but
it
doesn't
give
us
the
circumstances,
exceptional
reasons
to
not
go
with
the
standard
method.
O
Out
there
extremely
expressing
their
concerns,
and-
and
if
we
want
to
do
that,
probably
and
want
to
make
sure
residents
are
the
center
of
what
we're
doing
then
that's
where
we've
got
to
listen
to
them.
That's
where
we
can
look
into
other
options
and
not
rushing
into
updating
the
plan,
so
so
it's
kind
of
done
and
dusted
and
that
that's
that's
just
my
point
around
overall
approach.
C
I
B
I
This
will
go
before
the
public,
we're
going
to
start
having
conversations
with
town
and
Parish
councils
within
the
next
few
weeks,
we're
meeting
with
the
local
mp
on
on
her
public
forum
later
on
this
month
and
then
we'll
go
to
full
public
consultations
as
soon
as
we
can,
which
realistically
means
that
at
the
start
of
2024,
so
we
want
to
consult.
We
want
to
get
the
the
public
out
there
and.
I
In
this
process,
as
they
have
been
over
the
last
few
years,
but
the
the
risk
of
us
potentially
losing
our
ability
to
to
set
our
own
policies,
I
think
is
too
great
for
us
to
delay
any
further
and
there's
others
such
as
Kenneth
said
this
evening.
We
need
to
get
this
five-year
housing
Advantage
by
or
potentially
four-year
housing
land
Supply
sorted
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
we're
back
in
sold
with
our
own
planning
regime.
H
L
H
L
L
G
I'm
just
going
to
say
in
terms
of
kind
of
what's
changed
since
we
paused
I
mean
one
of
the
reasons
for
pausing
last
year
was
to
do
the
additional
work
and
to
get
the
legal
advice
and
look
at
the
constraints,
so
that
work
has
already
been
completed
and
the
housing
modeling
things.
So
that's
what
we've
looked
at
in
that's
what's
changed
in
the
way
that
we've
done
all
that
work,
and
now
we
come
to
the
conclusion
that
we
have.
G
So
that's
how
we've
moved
on
in
terms
of
what
other
authorities
are
doing,
it's
difficult
for
me
to
say
what
every
Authority
is
doing,
because
they're
all
in
different
positions.
There
are
a
large
number
who
are
proceeding
and
they're
proceeding
with
a
standard
method.
They
were
quite
a
number
of
authorities
who
were
also
pausing,
I'm,
not
sure
at
the
moment
whether
they're
going
to
continue
to
pause
or
move
forward.
I
mean
that's,
that's
a
decision-making
process
they're
all
going
through
with
a
quite
a
large
number
of
those
and
they're
in
different
positions.
G
There
are
other
authorities
that
have
adopted
the
stepped
approach.
Fareham
was
one
that
was
actually
found
sound.
Just
this
year
in
April
this
year,
so
it
is
an
approach
that
is
accepted
by
inspectors
and
it
is
a
way
of
moving
forward,
so
that's
kind
of
where
other
authorities
are
in
terms
of
legal
advice.
We
haven't
got
legal
advice
as
yet
on
the
stepped
approach,
but
it's
something
that
we
will
do
as
we
move
forward,
and
we
will
consider
that
in
more
detail.
G
The
fact
that
it's
the
plan
is
still
meeting
the
standard
method
in
terms
of
850
year.
Currently
that
helps
very
much
in
terms
of
meeting
sort
of
the
legal
tests
and
statements
that
will
be
sort
of
a
key
test
on
this.
Other
steps
approach
is
quite
an
accepted
approach.
The
number
of
final
plans
across
the
country.
L
L
On
how
what
the
total
number
of
houses
under
the
standard
methodology
would
be,
if
we
weren't
doing
stepped
approach,
because
there
is,
there
is
reference
to
700
for
the
next
five
years
that
it's
not
clear
to
me.
What
what?
What
what
we
think
if
we
were
applying
the
standard
method
of
methodology
cold,
as
it
were,
whether
it's
currently
8
15?
What.
G
There
was
a
number
of
F's
with
the
standard
method
because,
as
you
know,
it
changes
a
couple
of
times
a
year,
so
it
does
depend.
It
also
depends
what
our
plan
period
ultimately
is.
So
those
are
kind
of
things
that
could
change.
But
if
you
take
the
basic
approach
of
850,
which
is
what
it
is
now,
if
that
was
to
continue
over
to
the
plan
period
of
15
and
18
years,
is
you
have
to
have
15
years
post
adoption
that
will
give
you
a
figure
of
fifteen
thousand
three
hundred?
G
C
J
We're
right
to
say
that
if
we
follow
the
steps
approach,
we
won't
actually
reduce
the
overall
Quantum
of
housing
delivered
over
a
15-year
period.
So
actually,
what
what's
being
proposed
here
is
not
actually
a
reduction
in
housing
pressure.
It's
just
a
bit
of
statistical
Wizardry,
I.
Think
that's
probably
worth
confirming
I
think
this.
The
main
question
I
have
is
about
delivery,
so
we're.
B
J
I
I
think
I'll
take
that
question,
because
it
is
obviously
politically
loaded.
The
the
the
Wizardry
comment
is
is
not
there,
we've
been
quite
clear
at
the
start,
but
this
is
about
slowing
down
house
buildings.
It's
about
shifting
it
from
the
first
five
years
into
the
next
ten
we've
not
claimed
to
reduce
the
number
of
houses.
We've
played
to
slow
them
down
to
give
infrastructure
a
chance
to
catch
up
and
we've
been
absolutely
transparent.
Joe's
just
told
you
what
the
numbers
are
so
I
I
do
refute
the
claim
of
of
Wizardry
there.
I
I
The
previous
administration
as
ask
the
government
to
change
it,
we've
written
to
Michael
Gove
since
we
got
into
power
in
May,
he's
refused
to
meet
with
us
to
discuss
this
any
further.
So
we
are
where
we
are
with
the
standard
method.
The
overall
Quantum
needs
to
remain
the
same.
We
can't
change
it,
otherwise,
we'll
be
in
region
planning
policy.
I
So
so
that's
there
and
the
work
has
been
done.
If
there
are
sections
in
the
report
that
that
haven't
been
finalized,
yet
we
will
obviously
go
through
them
and
make
sure
that
they
are
tightened
up
and
and
ready
to
go
in
time
for
for
regulation,
18
and
and
I
think,
as
I've
said
before,
and
as
I've
seen
on
the
conservative
party
of
social
media
accounts.
We
all
want
this
to
go
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
that's
why
we've
done
this
today!
J
L
L
B
O
L
Said
this
is
on
hand,
so
you
can
go
check
it
yourself,
public
record
and
setting
the
principles
for
a
local
plan.
We
intend
to
retain
a
method
for
calculating
local
housing
need
figures,
but
these
will
be
an
advisory
starting
point.
We
propose
that
we'll
be
up
to
local
authorities
as
us,
working
with
our
communities
to
determine
how
many
homes
can
actually
be
built.
I'm
quite
happy
to
read
that
again.
L
N
L
A
L
L
Voted
unanimously
to
reject
the
proposed
housing
number
figure
of
15
000..
However,
this
new
Administration
aren't
listening
and
our
continuing
regardless
of
that
number.
However,
I
can't
accuse
them
of
not
listening
and
do
the
same
myself
and
I
then
asked
a
lot
of
questions
of
my
residence.
What's
your
opinion,
are
we
building
too
much?
Are
we
not
building
enough
affordable
homes?
Should
we
have
more
social
housing?
L
Should
we
prioritize
bungalows?
Should
we
build
more
homes
and
flats
in
the
center
of
Business
book,
rather
than
continue
to
encroach
towards
rural
villages?
Should
we
start
looking
more
towards
south
of
the
M3?
What
do
you
think
and
I
finished
that
by
saying
I'm
here
to
represent
you
so
I
want
to
know
your
thoughts
is
feel
free
to
email
me
confidence.
If
you
need
doctors
publicly
now,
that's
not
nimbyism!
That
is
engaging
with
my
residents,
the
people
who
voted
for
me
as
listening
to
them.
L
I'm,
not
their
conservative
counselor
I'm,
the
councilor
for
Sherwood,
St,
John
and
rootstone,
there's
no
political
involved
when
it
comes
to
speaking
to
my
residence
and
sitting
here
for
my
residence,
so
there
was
there
was
there
was
absolutely
there
was.
There
was
a
case
for
more
affordable
housing
and
there's
a
case
for
more
social
housing.
People
were
complaining
about
the
the
prices.
L
Being
too
much,
however,
the
the
the
the
the
the
continual
message
that
I
was
receiving
was
rebuilding
too
much
and
we're
building
too
fast.
The
housing
number
is
too
high.
This
Council
voted
back
in
October
I
voted
against
my
own
Administration
to
pause
the
the
local
plan
process
and
to
reject
the
number
and
I
still
don't
think.
We've
done
that
work
efficiently
stage
that
we're.
A
B
L
I'm
I'm
not
happy
with
the
number
and
that's
my
comment
on
that:
it's
not
political!
If
it
was
a
conservative,
Administration,
Center
I
would
still
be
sorry.
You're
saying
the
same
thing
I
met
some,
so
some
some
quite
lovely
resonance
from
amazing
who
were
outside
and
to
get
that
engagement
with
a
council
meeting.
Just
shows
you
that
the
power,
the
the
emotion
that's
involved
there.
We
can
still
do
a
lot
more.
N
L
That's
also
weighted
as
well,
because
the
rest
of
the
southeast
builds
a
lot
of
of
housing.
Please
don't
kid
residents,
okay,
this!
This
isn't
going
to
be
a
the
nasty
Tories
where
they're
planning
straight
jacket
are
forcing
us
to
build
houses.
Okay,
fortune
favors,
the
Bold,
the
leveling
up
and
regeneration
bill
is
going
through
Parliament
right
now
we
had
a
very
esteemed
Gentleman
by
its
own
planner
that
came
in
and
sat
and
told
you
about
the
the
the
housing
committee's
opinion
on
the
standard
method
and
how
it's
changing.
L
C
B
I
You
Jen
I'll
I'll,
be
very
brief.
I
I
also
read
Michael
ghost
letter,
but
I
then
also
read
the
advice
that
we
had
from
two
cases
who
looked
at
the
detail
behind
Michael
goe's
letter
and
tell
us
that
the
standard
method
Remains
the
default
for
us
and
for
other
local
authorities
unless
they
can
demonstrate
exceptional
circumstances,
we've
written
to
Michael
Gove
to
try
and
get
clarity
on
that
we've
after
a
meeting
with
him,
he's
refused
to
do
that.
I
You
mentioned
in
your
your
post
that
this
Administration
is
not
listening
at
the
risk
of
being
political.
It's
not
this
Administration!
That's
not
listening!
It's
a
government!
It's
not
this
thing.
We
want
to
look
again
at
the
housing
number
we're
not
able
to.
If
that
situation,
changes
with
the
Levering
up
Bill,
we
will
look
again
and
see
what
implications
that
has
to
this
Borough,
but.
L
B
G
These
committees-
that's
always
an
iterative
process,
we're
not
looking
ourselves
into
anything
we're
just
moving
forward
with
the
conversation.
I
think.
The
report
is
quite
clear
that
if
things
change,
we
will
look
to
change
with
them,
and
we've
already
said
that
we've
got
Consultants
lined
up
to
re-look
at
the
figures
as
soon
as
they
come
out,
so
that
we
will
be
ready.
If
that
organ
is
going
to
change
that
we'll
know
what
the
position
is
and
therefore
how
we
should
move
forward.
I
P
P
if,
after
the
the
plan
has
gone
out
to
regulation,
if
Government
legislation
changes
legal
opinion
changes,
we
get
this
memorandum
of
understanding
of
water
companies
or
indeed
a
wonderful
browfield
site
magically
appears.
Do
we
have
to
go
back
out
to
consultation
or
do
we
take
those
changes
and
put
them
into
reg19?
At
what
point
does
it
change,
materially
that
we
have
to
go
back
again
on
consultation.
G
So
as
we
go
through
the
process,
the
plan
will
always
need
to
be
up
to
date,
so
we'll
always
reflect
whatever
the
current
position
is
and
in
terms
of
national
guidance,
for
example.
So
after
reg
18
happens,
we
obviously
have
a
large
number
of
comments
that
come
in.
We
will
have
a
look
at
those
respond
to
those
and
update
the
plan
accordingly
and
take
that
into
account.
We
will
also,
through
that
sort
of
time
period
between
reg,
18
and
19.
Take
anything
that
happens
nationally,
as
you
suggested.
G
If
any
other
sites
come
in,
we
can
have
a
look
at
that.
It
will
then
be
a
decision
for
the
council.
You
can
theoretically
go
back
and
do
reg
18
again,
if
you
feel
that
that's
necessary,
because
your
plan
is
so
different,
you
can
theoretically
do
it
or
you
can
move
forward
with
a
different
reg19,
it's
quite
different
from
the
regating,
so
the
regulars
are
quite
flexible
in
that
way,
but
once
you
get
to
the
reg19,
that's
your
submitted
planting
inspectorate.
So
you
need
to
be
happy
at
that
point.
When
you
actually
submit.
I
R
L
C
I
L
Thank
you,
chair
for
your
Indulgence
I
always
got
a
number
of
questions
tonight.
Firstly,
Andy
and
you've
promised
that
infrastructure
will
be
improved
during
the
five-year
period.
So
can
I
have
your
commitment
that
we'll
see
a
sewage
upgrade
electricity
capacity
upgrade
or
a
road
improvements,
because
without
without
you
doing
that,
actually
you're
selling
us
a
pop
and
and
frankly,
it's
just
a
delay
for
for
a
number
into
the
future.
So
can
you
tell
me
what
your
infrastructure
upgrades
are
going
to
be.
B
I
Such
as
Hampshire
County
Council
and
the
water
companies
to
deliver
that
one
of
the
one
of
the
speakers
spoke
about
their
their
lack
of
confidence
in
the
ability
of
water
companies
to
deliver
I.
Think
probably
most
of
us
around
this
table
would
share
that
lack
of
confidence.
What
that
additional
time
buys
us
and
what
the
policies
that
we're
strengthening
elsewhere
in
the
in
within
the
broader
local
plan
allow
us
to
do
is
to
be
tougher.
So
we
are
developing
memorandums
of
understanding,
Miranda
of
understanding
with
water
companies.
I
We
are
talking
to
the
environment
agency.
We
are
strengthening
our
policies
around
climate
change
and
we're
talking
to
Hampshire
County
Council,
about
infrastructure,
Provisions
about
Road
and
transport,
so
the
additional
time
increased
our
chances
of
being
to
being
able
to
deliver
that,
and-
and
that's
exactly
why
we're
pushing
ahead
with
that.
L
So
I
take
it
from
that
Andy.
You
can't
promise
us
anything
substantial
at
this
time.
You're
just
gonna
see
how
it
goes.
I
mean
I,
look
I,
accept
that
your
your
best
intentions
are
there,
but
the
reality
is.
A
number
of
people
who
spoke
tonight
have
highlighted
issues
that
they
feel
additional
development
will
impact
on
the
services
and
the
infrastructure
that
they
that
they.
L
I
L
It's
just
you're
having
ripped
down.
No,
obviously
we're
gonna
have
a
reduction
of
150
houses
to
the
first,
the
first
five
years.
That
means
that
and
in
support
of
council
Alex
threes
point
that
means
that
60
families
every
year
are
not
going
to
get
off
our
social
housing.
Now,
how
are
you
going
to
convey
that
to
them
and
going
forward?
B
I
B
B
I
We're
looking
at
we've
been
working
with
officers
on
that
since,
since
we
we
came
into
power
in
May
and
we
hope
to
make
further
announcements
over
the
coming
weeks
and
months
and
I
hope
that
will
that
will
help
allay
some
of
your
concerns
and
some
of
the
concerns
that
the
residents
face,
because
they
are
joking
aside,
the
the
issue
moment.
It's
not
that
you
you
raised
mentioned
earlier
that
we
we.
H
B
V
Thank
you.
In
fact,
I
was
going
to
mention.
Council
has
a
surprise.
You'll
talk
about
deliverability.
Obviously,
if
we
are
in
control
of
land-
and
we
are
the
council
Deliver
us-
whether
we're
going
to
deliver
directly
or
indirectly,
who
knows
at
least
we
have
control
of
the
type
of
houses
are
built
because
those
700
houses
are
currently
planned
are
not
all
going
to
be
social
housing,
in
fact,
they're,
probably
more
likely
going
to
be
four
and
five
bedroomed
houses.
V
V
We
have
to
change
our
views
because
it's
going
to
have
to
be
that
people
have
to
afford
what
they
can
live
in.
They
need
to
have
sustainable
homes.
We
need
to
build
them
in
the
right
place.
We
need
to
not
destroy
our
Countryside
in
the
process.
It
may
be
that
our
four
and
a
half
thousand
people
on
the
waiting
list
in
December
most
of
those
wanted
one
bedrooms-
properties
Flats
we're
talking
about
developing
in
the
center
of
town.
Maybe
that
is
the
way
forward.
V
V
They
are
talking
about
genuine
reasons
why
things
in
that
particular
site
shouldn't
be,
and
this
700
will
help
us
reduce
the
numbers
that
we
can
currently
look
at.
Okay
sites
may
come
forward.
Other
sites
may
come
forward
when
the
people
who
build
these
houses
have
got
all
the
money
suddenly
decide
that
people
are
going
to
buy
them.
They'll
probably
come
forward
with
lots
of
other
places
they
might
want
to
do.
Why
aren't
they
doing
ever
been
the
ones?
How
many
is
it?
Seven
thousand
houses
we've
actually
given
full
information
too
they're
not
being
built.
V
I
wonder
why?
Because
nobody
can
buy
them
and
they're
not
going
to
waste
their
money,
but
they'd
rather
keep
the
money
in
their
pocket.
So
I
think
that
my
question
is
Council.
Houses
must
be
part
of
the
equation.
We
must
move
forward
as
soon
as
possible
with
our
decisions
and
obviously
that
can
help
us
take
control
of
delivering
the
sites
so
that
we
can
actually
deliver
it
and
we
can
guarantee
that
we
deliver
it
because,
when
we're
in
charge,
we
can
guarantee
anything.
C
Thank
you,
Joe
I
know,
there's
a
paper
coming
forward.
I
can't
remember
it
to
what
committee
what
we're
going
to
do?
Cep
no
I,
don't
think
it's
on
the
agenda
for
this
one,
but
various
options
well,
I've
been
adopted
around
the
country
and
what
we
can
do
as
landowners
yeah
I
want
to
move
on.
Thank
you.
I
think.
C
There's
concern
over
the
housing
numbers,
the
administration's
approach
to
reducing
the
numbers
in
the
first
five
years,
I
mean
that's
been
logged
ashore,
Andy's
you've
got
full
scope
of
of
what
what
where
the
committee
is
coming
from,
I
like
to
move
on
to
spatial
strategy,
I
would
like
to
look
at
sort
of
ss1,
the
new
policy
and
the
text
behind
that.
If
any
members
has
got
that
that's
on
page
39
of
appendix
one.
C
L
That's,
okay,
yeah!
It's
it's
points
on
just
above
the
clean
policy
where
it
talks
about
the
housing
number
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
that,
but
the
the
last
sentences.
This
is
explained
in
Greater,
detail
and
appendix,
and
obviously
that's
blank
I'd
just
like
to
know
what
that
document
is
going
to
be,
because
that's
the
exception
of
circumstances
and
and
when
this
committee
will
get
a
copy
of
them.
G
When
we
go
out
for
consultation
at
reg
18,
we
will
produce
more
material
and
paper
to
explain
the
position
that
Council
Carl
talked
about
in
terms
of
confusing
and
delivery
rates,
and
things
like
that,
so
that
will
all
be
published
in
due
course.
Some
of
that
will
be
in
appendix
some
white.
So
that's
just
shows
you
there'll
be
more
information.
Basically.
L
G
B
G
So
that
was
the
position.
Then
they've
not
been
updated.
So
yes,
these
will
change.
This
offers
this
committee
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
things
that
we
didn't
talk
about
last
June
and
the
time
before
that.
So
it
doesn't
reflect
the
approach.
Currently,
it
will
do
if
we
decide
to
move
forward
with
that,
because
obviously
we'll
need
to.
There
are
other
things
that
will
change
it's
a
plan
period
here
and
it
goes
up
to
2039
it'll
be
2040,
so
there
will
be
changes.
You
know
to
reflect
whatever
approach
the
administration,
okay
and
and
will.
C
I
At
the
side
of
Regulation
18
because
we
need
to,
we
need
to
get
cracking
with
it,
but
I
take
Point.
Yes,
things
like
the
memorandum,
understanding
that
realistically
they're
not
going
to
be
ready
this
side
of
Regulation
18
anyway,
but
when
they
are
ready
post
the
actual
regulation,
18
I,
would
suspect
I'm
looking
at
planning
officers
who
have
been
through
this
process
before.
But
what's
the
comments
from
regulation,
18
I've,
taken
into
account,
the
policies
will
come
back
to
eph
for
further
scrutiny.
I
B
I
I
I
I
The
the
changes
in
the
calculation
of
the
standard
method,
so
disaster
risks
are
there
because
they
will
need
to
be.
The
number
will
need
to
be
put
in
nearer
the
nearer
the
time,
but
at
the
moment,
as
Joe
indicated,
that
number
is
15
300.
So
that
would
be
the
number
that
will
currently
sit
in
that
box.
If
we
were
to
go
live
today,.
S
L
L
L
Just
so
as
you're
aware,
Asheville
and
heavily
Parish
actually
delivered,
a
neighborhood
plan
obviously
was
going
to
protect
him
because
he
didn't
have
a
site
of
of
10,
but
it
did
reiterate
the
settlement
boundaries
and
yet
we've
still
got
appeals
coming
through
on
things
that
were
outside
that
original
settlement.
So
is
there
anything
in
these
formulated
documents
that
will
give
any
hope
to
Residents
who
are
going
to
appeal
or
will
be
at
the
appeal
to
oppose
the
the
new
development.
H
N
C
Thank
you
there's
any
more
on
boundaries
for
rural
areas,
so
I
would
like
to
go
on
to
ss3
site
allocations
for
residential
mix
and
Youth
Development
on
page
29,
and
it
lifts
the
number
of
houses
for
those
particular
sites.
If
any
comments
want
to
be
on
that
and
the
clean
policy
in
the
text
surrounding
that
all
I'm
going
to
go
more
into
this
substantial
issues
when
they
get
to
the
areas.
L
L
G
So
the
50
M
that
you're
talking
about
in
Kingsley
they
count
as
a
committed
development
already
because
they're
within
a
neighborhood
plan,
so
175
kind
of
takes
that
into
account
as
if
they're
coming
forward.
That
will
continue
to
be
monitored
every
year.
So
if
they
don't
come
forward,
that
number
would
have
to
be
reprovided.
So
that
would
be
on
top
of
the
number
you've
got
here.
I
mean
this
is
a
point.
That's
been
raised,
I
think
a
valid
one
and
I
think
in
the
new
version
of
any
policy.
G
We
need
to
make
that
clear,
but
anything
would
need
to
be
provided
if
it
wasn't,
if
things
weren't
being
delivered.
So
what
we,
what
we
do
now
and
what
we
will
continue
to
do
is
provide
a
statement
to
every
settlement
every
Parish
every
year
through
the
annual
monitoring,
because
this
gets
updated
through
the
annual
monitoring
process
every
year.
So
they
will
be
able
to
see
exactly
what
the
situation
is
and
what
they
need
to
be
providing.
B
B
G
Land
you'll
know
benefits
from
outline
permission,
which
is
about
three
and
a
half
thousand
is
part
of
the
allocation
which
aren't
included
within
that
outline
commission
which
account
for
about
another
500
units.
So
that's
that's
the
reason
yeah
Worton
Parker
and
also
the
landlord
known
as
parcel
6,
which
applies
us
to
the
south
of
the
air.
It's
got
an
outline
permission.
C
C
L
G
Is
there
any
site
that
gets
permission
say
is
a
windfall,
so
that's
not
already
allocated
it'll
be
included
in
the
figures
and
the
land
Supply
figures.
These
are
particular
allocations.
Moving
forward.
The
reason
why
we're
carrying
forward
these
three
particular
allocations
is
because
they're,
the
largest
ones,
are
the
ones
that
will
take
longer
to
come
forward
and
they'll
be
continue
to
provide
houses
in
the
new
plan
period.
C
L
Sorry,
chair
and
yeah
policy,
ss4,
so
again,
we've
got
in
principle.
Development
will
come
forward
in
accordance
with
the
phasing
set
out
and
what
policies
the
first
question
about.
I
have
two
questions.
So
I'll
I'll.
Let
you
answer
that
when,
when
will
we
see
these
policies,
What
policies?
Are
they
referring
to
in.
B
G
G
L
Q
Q
It
was
explained
to
us
the
regulatory
process
that
goes
through
and
when
a
water
company,
if
they
need
to
upgrade
their
treatment
processes,
to
allow
more
development
or
for
any
other
reason,
they
then
have
to
apply
for
a
permit
to
the
environment
agency,
and
if,
at
that
stage,
there's
consent
background
they
would
have
to
if
the
water
is
just
Wastewater
is
discharged
to
the
groundwater.
They
have
to
do
a
groundwater
risk
assessment.
Q
L
If
I
may,
I,
just
to
add
on
to
that
councilor
Andy
McCormack
was,
has
always
bashed
on
about
a
reduction
in
use
of
water
rather
than
talking
just
about
the
quality,
and
where
will
we?
Where
will
we
see
those
standards
within
this,
because
obviously
there
is
a
there
is
a
theoretical
cap
on
what
you
should
be
using
as
an
individual,
but
we
ought
to
lure
that
so
as
the
water
use
within
us
as
a
Borough,
it
is
substantially
reduced.
Can
you
just
point
me
to
that.
C
J
J
I
thought
we
were
all
in
favor
of
Brownfield
first,
and
it's
rather
strange
to
me
that
that's
been
cut
out
I'd,
be
appreciative
of
some
explanation
of
that
and
I
wondered
really
whether
it
was.
It
was
linked
to
the
lack
of
clarity
on
phasing
and
delivery
that
this
documentation
sets
out.
So
I
wanted
to
how.
I
At
the
front-
and
it's
got
more
prominence
I
think
we
we've
discussed
the
point
about
phasing
before
Joe's
raised
the
point
that
the
numbers
are
constantly
changing
and
we've
also
got
a
situation
where
we
are
genuinely
Consulting
tonight
on
on
the
spatial
strategy
on
on
the
site
selection
process.
So
I
think
it's
premature
to
start
putting
exact
numbers
in
and
talking
about
phasing
before
we
finalize
what
the
site
selection
process
is
going
to
be
ahead
of
Regulation
18.
we're
here
tonight
to
listen.
So
we're
not
going
to
prejudge
that.
V
We
were
recommended
by
Council
officers
at
the
chairman
Council
that
in
view
of
the
DP
dep's
Edge,
there
was
little
point
in
the
spending
an
awful
lot
of
time
in
actually
producing
a
neighborhood
plan,
which
said
you
can't
have
any
houses.
So
that
was
why
we
didn't
choose
to
do
it
and
I.
Don't
know
that
that
rule
has
changed
very
much
because
obviously,
apart
from
a
few
sites
that
I
might
think
would
be
suitable
in
the
center
of
town
for
very
small
numbers.
L
G
Really
so
it's
the
existing
local
plan
that
that's
always
the
key
position
for
them.
Having
said
that,
as
they
move
forward
and
review
their
plan,
we
will
take
that
into
account,
as
this
plan
moves
forward
as
well.
So,
ideally,
the
tool
will
move
forward
together
and
take
each
other
into
account
and
they'll
be
in
line
with
each
other.
B
L
Like
Ken
I,
just
I
just
need
to
clarify
something
on
the
neighborhood
plan
process
to
go
back
to
my
residence,
where
we
have
made
a
site
allocation
of
zero
to
a
seven.
How
does
that
impact
on
the
neighborhood
plan,
because
I'm
I'm
on
the
mppf
right
now,
paragraph
14,
says
basically
our
paraphrase
to
get
protection
for
for
a
neighborhood
plan.
The
neighborhood
plan
contains
policies
and
allegations
to
meet
its
identified
housing
requirement.
H
Have
been
other
other
Villages
within
some
parishes
within
the
borough
which
have
done
neighborhood
plans,
for
example
So
within
some
Lawrence
and
ramsdale,
who
don't
have
a
housing
requirement
at
the
moment
and
they
haven't
allocated
any
sites
within
their
plans.
So
it's
a
similar
scenario
of
a
target
of
effectively
zero
and
and
planning
for
zero,
and
there's
been
no
suggestion
that
they
should
get
that
protection
development.
A
powerful
team.
L
H
B
H
L
Welcome
the
conclusion
of
strategic
gaps:
I
think
it
is
important
that
there's
no
coalescence
between
some
settlements
and
I
think,
if
there's
add
to
the
sense
of
place
for
some
people,
the
difference
between
hardly
a
boards
is
quite
pronounced.
If
I,
if
I,
can
say
that
in
Joe's
presence,
but
the
reality
is
that
we
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
settlements
are
of
themselves.
L
Those
people
do
have
a
sense
of
community
a
sense
of
identity
and
they
cannot
allow
the
creeping
development
into
other
bits
of
other
towns
or
other
Villages
I
think
it
is
important
and
we
have
supported
that
through
the
DC
I
think
we've
we
rejected
in
intrusions
into
the
Strategic
Gap
and
I
and
I
welcome
this
piece.
I
thought
it
was
a.
It
was
a
very
good
piece
of
work
and
and
allows
us
all
to
see
something
that
we
can
genuinely
get
behind
and
protect
so
well
done.
L
L
I
L
The
separate
identity
of
children,
strategic
Gap,
should
be
set
in
stone,
I
hate.
The
word
planning
too.
This
is
this-
is
this
is
fundamentally
what
our
residents
are
talking
about
when
they're
talking
about
environments
where
they
can
raise
their
children
where
they
go
out
walking
with
the
dogs.
This
is
this
is
the
views.
This
is
our
heritage.
We
can't
just
drop
and
change
these
every
five
years
when
we
go
to
update
our
plans.
I
C
C
L
C
L
G
C
V
Would
you
qualification
chairman
and
the
speakers
that
spoke
earlier
against
societalocation
and
particularly,
is
all
that
information
going
to
be
captured
so
that
when
we
come
back
on
the
28th,
we're
going
to
remember
what
it
was
that
all
those
people
actually
said,
because
they
did
say
quite
a
lot
and
unless
we
sit
and
absolutely
re-listen
to
the
the
session?
And
it's
it's
going
to
be
quite
difficult.
It's
quite
a
long
way
away
for
some
of
us
in
our
memory.
C
F
V
B
N
N
I
L
Struggle
to
know
how
I
want
to
actually
go
to
a
deliver,
this
rather
huge
number
of
houses.
So
but
it's
specifically
on
many
down
south
there's
a
reference
to
a
landscape,
sensitivity,
study
and
and
and
I
understand
it
correctly.
That
there's
a
view
that
that
this
is
an
area
of
high
landscape
sensitivity
and
it's
not
suitable
for
significant
development.
So
it'll,
just
I
saw
that
and
I
thought
wow.
L
L
G
And
in
terms
of
delivery,
I
mean
first,
we
need
to
agree
what
sites
we
favor.
So
really
you
need
this
chicken
and
egg.
Isn't
it
really
without,
even
though
delivery
obviously
is
a
matter
that
you
take
into
account
when
you're
choosing
the
site,
but
we
need
to
consider
those
sites
first,
but
yes,
I
mean
the
phasing
is
obviously
very
important.
G
That's
part
of
the
reason
why
the
administration
is
considering
the
stepped
approach,
because,
if
you've
got
allocations
like
many
down
and
pop
them
in
there,
they
will
potentially
take
quite
a
while
to
come
forward,
as
you
say.
So.
That's
reject
trajectory
reflects
that
and
gives
time
for
the
student
sites
in
terms
of
Overton
mail,
as
you
know
that
Ocean's
got
a
number
in.
G
Planning,
so
that's
something
that
Overton
Community
are
considering
at
the
minute
in
terms
of
looking
at
their
neighborhood
plan,
whether
that's
something
they
would
allocate
through
that,
whether
it
will
come
forward
through
the
further
management
process,
either
way,
I
mean
that
number
will
be
looked
at
and
over
to
Mill
will
be
looked
at
really
and
if
it
does
go
forward
that
will
obviously
help
them
or
potentially
exceed
that
Overton
figure.
It's
beautiful.
C
L
You
thank
you.
Obviously,
the
ability
to
put
in
infrastructure
is
really
important.
Now,
we've
already
highlighted
that
the
NHS
requires
money
all
the
time
and
can
I
just
point
out
or
when,
when
developers
go
to
the
NHS
and
say,
we've
got
what
do
you
need?
They
can't
allocate
it
straight
to
the
straight
to
the
NHS.
It's
got
to
be
done
through
Sil
payments.
Now.
L
Is
there
anything
that
we
can
do
to
alter
the
infrastructure
plan
to
to
allow
the
NHS
to
to
go
direct
to
a
developer
or
put
in
a
bid
directly
to
the
developer
that
we
would
see
in
DC,
because,
frankly,
it
seems
a
convoluted
way
that
we
ask
what
they
want.
The
NHS
says:
yes,
we
need
this,
and
actually
the
process
is
you've
got
to
apply
for
it
through
still
I
wonder.
Is
there
a?
Is
there
likely
to
be
a
quicker
way
to
deliver
infrastructure
and
through
this
paper.
H
B
L
Does
that
mean
they
can
the
NHS
or
anybody
who
required
infrastructure?
Can
they
lay
down
a
marker
and
say
we
would
like
money
if
I,
don't
I'm
going
to
say,
contentiously
Easter
Beijing
still
comes
forward?
Are
they
are
they
allowed
to
lay
down
markers
for
what
they
may
or
may
not
need,
or
does
that
have
to
be
updated
to
the
point
where
we're
starting
to
deliver.
O
Thank
you
just
in
relation
just
adding
to
the
in
relation
to
the
speed
of
having
the
infrastructure
in
place.
I'm,
specifically
I'm
talking
about
transport,
public
transports
and
and
school
and
school
building
as
well.
At
the
moment,
we
can
see
from
the
existing
new
development
that
was
developed
over
the
last
few
years,
and
the
schools
are
struggling.
B
O
Capacity
in
public
schools,
so
students,
including
my
daughter,
for
example,
has
to
travel
all
the
way
to
Newbury
to
to
be
able
to
find
a
place
to
in
secondary
school,
and
that's
not
the
only
case.
I've
hear
that
from
many
people
building
School
takes
time.
So
what
will
happen?
Is
we
initially?
We
will
give
the
permission
and
developers
that
we
start
to
build
up
developments,
and
then
there
will
be
many
students
who
won't
be
able
to
find
a
place
to
go
to.
K
O
This
and
and
I
and
I
can't
find
this
identified
in
this
policy
and
obviously
to
add
I've
spoken
before
about
this,
and
there
is
this
issue
and-
and
it
was
made
aware
that
there
is
a
we
consult,
the
Hampshire
County
Council
and
they
come
back
and
say:
I
I,
don't
know
ungrounded
in
reality
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
reflected.
They
inside
there
is
a
place
for
every
student
come
across
many
people
who
doesn't
have
a
place
for
a
student
Basics.
O
B
O
B
H
C
T
J
J
We
don't
want
traffic
capacity
to
be
an
issue
that
prevents
our
Hospital
coming
forwards,
given
the
number
of
homes
that
are
also
proposed-
and
we
know
too
that,
with
the
recent
Oak
down
Farm
application,
the
impact
on
highways
is
a
significant
factor.
So
I
wondered
if
whether
we
could
explore
whether
that
needs
to
be
a
critical
priority
and
whether
more
thinking
needs
to
go
into
that.
H
C
L
Yeah
thanks
so
I've
got
page
22
of
40.,
but
I'm
Electronics,
don't
forget!
So
it's
he.
It's
the
one
on
primary
education,
apologies,
Echo,
eight
E8,
expansion
of
existing
primary
schools
to
meet
mids
arising
from
new
development
and
we've
got
about
high
weighted
and
red
we've
got.
That
would
require
a
policy
change
to
allow
section.
106.
H
V
V
Although
we
have
got
sites
which
could
actually
be
further
developed
because
I
actually
run
one
of
them,
which
is
called
father's
Park
and
it's
a
Borough
Council,
although
it's
in
West,
Yorkshire
and
I
know
that
the
sports
strategy
that
you
want
is
on
its
way
I've
been
promised.
It's
been
on
its
way
for
five
years,
I've
been
on
about
seven
different
consultations
with
different
people
on
the
phone
and
I'm
still
waiting
to
see
it
I'm.
V
Since
then,
we've
built
three
pitches
when
we've
lost
three
pictures,
so
we've
gained
absolutely
nothing
and
we
may
get
the
one
at
the
hearse,
so
I'd
be
interested
to
know
what
people
are
thinking
about
future
and
whether
this
ties
in
with
a
new
plan
that
haven't
seen
yet
so
I'm,
not
saying
it's
not
in
the
plan,
because
I
don't
know
what's
in
Japan,
but
obviously
I
know
that
if,
if
things
aren't
in
the
plan,
there's
unlikely
to
be
any
money
in
the
next
10
years
for
it.
So
it's
to
Catch-22
here.
H
I'd
say
the
infrastructure
identifying
this
list
to
be
identified
on
in
lays
and
with
our
colleagues
in
in
the
sports
sports
and
Leisure
team,
informed
by
by
the
recent
lrna
work
which
which
has
been
done.
But
this
focuses
upon
the
sort
of
a
more
strategic
bits
infrastructure
rather
than
sort
of
the
smaller
opportunities.
V
Foreign,
if
it
were
to
be
in
the
plant,
it's
260
houses.
It
probably
isn't
big
enough
to
be
considered
as
a
security
site.
However,
they
view
the
homes
which
I
have
had
various
conversations
with,
in
probably
can't
be
private,
are
not
delivering
anything
anything
to
our
infrastructure
at
all,
because
they
have
told
us
they
are
not
going
to
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
you
know.
C
L
Thank
you.
It's
just
to
go
wish
list
here
or
possible
delivery
list.
Let's,
let's
hope
it
is
the
funding
for
this.
Are
you
going
to
provide
us
with
a
Quantum
of
what
we're
going
to
receive
in
sale
payments
from
each
delivery
site
that
we
have,
because,
obviously
that
would
be
useful
for
a
community
as
Joe's
just
pointed
out?
H
B
H
A
windfall
site
comes
for
us
how
much
seal
will
be
yielded
from
that
I.
Think
in
terms
of
looking
at
the
sites
in
the
local
Plan
update,
the
the
borrow
seal
rate
will
need
to
review
the
long
side
of
the
local
planning
update
anyway
to
know
because
it
needs
for
one
thing:
the
the
current
sort
of
charging
machines.
You
will
be
quite
old
at
that
time,
but
also
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
seal
rate
responds
to
all
the
new
requirements
you're
putting
in
the
local
panel
update.
H
You
know
the
the
zero
carbon
homes,
the
affordable
housing,
all
those
other
types
of
infrastructures
that
we
expect
development
to
pay
for
so
because
of
that
it'd
be
difficult
to
say
at
this
time
what
Osteo
rates
would
be?
You
know
post
the
adoption
of
the
plan.
That
would
be
work
which
would
take
place
alongside
work.
Looking
the
viability
of
the
local.
B
H
L
If
we
are
likely
to
change
still
rates
a
when
that
might
happen,
because,
obviously
that
will
affect
development
I
mean
it
is
important
that
we
we
flag
that
early
to
developers,
but
also
Sue
rates
may
well
affect
viability
for
some
of
these
things
coming
through
and
that
might
put
a
a
downward
pressure
on
the
delivery
of
numbers
and
just
make
that
point.
You've
got
any
comments
on
that.
L
L
L
H
V
V
I
did
see
that
there
was
one
site
that
mentioned
I
think
it
was
Popham.
Wasn't
it
that's
mentioning
solar
when
I
read
the
papers,
but
I
can't
see
that
in
here,
whether
or
not
we've
had
any
thoughts
about
whether
we
should
be
proactive
in
looking
for
sites
so
that
we
can
actually
encourage
green
infrastructure.
V
After
all,
we
have
got
a
climate
emergency
and
the
Declaration.
We
should
perhaps
being
a
little
bit
more
foresight
looking
forward.
Rather
than
waiting
for
people
to
come
forward
with
where
they
think
they
should
be,
if
we
had
an
idea
whether
we
think
they
should
be,
but
the
best
survey
infrastructure
and
the
alongside
Villages
Community
energy
can
provide
some
of
these
new
housing
building
sites.
D
Thank
you,
Jeff
I'm,
on
page
38
facilities,
comments,
I,
don't
understand
why
we
would
have
improvements
to
ensure
sufficient
capacity
and
maintain
water
quality.
When
we
know
it's
lamentable,
that
really
does
need
to
be
improved
and
I'd,
certainly
like
it
to
be
talked
about
all
the
river
water
bodies.
So
we've
got
tiny
little
pumping
stations
dotted
around
all
over
the
place
that
surcharge
regularly
I
mean
I,
know
there's
one
in
concert,
it's
contacted
by
Resident
and
it
was
disgraceful,
absolutely
shocking.
L
Thank
you.
In
fact,
we
can
move
past
our
requirements
on
that
to
the
green
infrastructure
and
picking
up
Council,
Simmons,
Point,
Michael
Gore's
decision
to
have
onshore
wind
turbines,
I
think
is,
is
very
important
for
us
and
I
think
you
know
many
things
to
say
that
on
top
of
hannington
we
have
a
tower
which
was
already
a
blight
on
the
landscape.
L
What
work
will
you
do
to
see
if
there
is
an
opportunity
to
have
onshore
wind
at
a
place
where
it's
all
you
know
it's
the
highest
point?
There's
a
wind
wind
tunnel
coming
up
through
Watership
Down
work.
Are
you
going
to
do
to
try
and
improve
our
take
on
the
on
the
green
infrastructure
that
is
required.
C
C
C
C
J
N
J
B
J
J
And-
and
it
would
be
useful
to
understand
as
a
committee
where
we
are
on
big
regeneration
projects,
housing
regeneration
projects,
obviously
for
many
down,
we
have
the
many
of
you
owed
over
the
infinity
and
I
know
that's
progressing.
But
for
me
the
the
questions
are:
where
is
this
Administration
on
Winkle?
Three?
Where
is
this
Administration
on
Buckskin
and
Southampton?.
C
Joe
I
mean
as
soham:
we
have
a
meeting
with
Sovereign
in
a
couple
of
weeks
time
with
officers
and
portfolio
holders
to
see
where
we,
where
we
are
going
because
we've
been
stagnating
for
a
number
of
years,
but
yeah
we'd
be
good
to
have
a
an
update.
This
committee,
to
where
we
are
actually
on
on
regeneration,.