►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Thank
you,
okay.
We
are
recording
on
the
webcast
okay
and
for
those
people
who
are
looking
looking
in
on
the
webcast
and
for
the
people
in
the
public
gallery.
My
name
is
council,
stuart
frost
and
I'm
the
chair
of
this
economic
planning
and
housing
meeting.
Okay.
What
I
I'd
like
to
say
is
that
to
to
my
left
or
your
right,
okay,
and
also
your
your
left
and
my
right
here.
We
have
offices
on
this
side.
A
Okay,
and
we
have
the
committee
on
this
side
here:
okay,
there
are
no
fire
alarms
tonight.
Okay,
so
if
you
hear
a
fire
alarm
going
off,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
evacuate
the
building
immediately.
The
fire
exit
is
at
the
end
of
this
room
through
those
those
doors
there
down
the
stairs
and
we
will
meet
in
the
war
memorial
park.
Okay,.
A
Sorry
members,
I've
just
just
been
it's
just
been
commented
that
the
picture
was
blurry
on
the
webcast,
so
I
was
just
requested
to
turn
my
microphone
off
and
then
back
on
again.
Okay,
I
don't
know
what
it's
done,
but
you
know
there
we
go.
Obviously
it
rules,
okay,
right,
okay,
so
members,
please
note
that
this
meeting
is
being
webcast,
live
on
the
internet
and
could
all
members
please
turn
off
your
phones,
okay
or
ensure
they're
they're
moved
to
silent,
okay
and
I'll.
Just
do
that
myself.
A
So
moving
on
okay
to
the
the
paper
tonight,
okay
and
the
agenda
there,
I
haven't
received
any
apologies
for
absence
and
substitutions
okay.
So
the
committee
is,
as
we
are,
okay
number
two:
are
there
any
decorations
of
interest.
A
No
okay,
so
that's
that's
good.
There.
I've
been
assured
that
there
are
no
urgent
matters.
Okay,
so
we
can.
We
can
move
on
okay,
the
meeting
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
18th
of
july.
Okay,
they
will
be
approved
at
a
future
meeting
of
the
committee.
They
are
not
ready,
okay,
so
we'll
move
on.
A
So
what
I
would
like
to
point
out
to
members
that
we
have
a
full
agenda
ahead
of
us
tonight
and
I
want
to
ensure
that
we
actually
get
through
the
work
by
the
end
of
the
evening
in
the
time
allocated
to
this
end
I'll
be
taking
the
water
cycle
paper
section
by
section
and
I'll
be
asking
mr
george,
okay,
at
the
end,
okay,
to
present
to
the
committee
in
section
five,
I
will
not
allow
questions
during
the
presentation,
but
have
allocated
a
short
amount
of
time
afterwards
for
questions
of
clarification.
A
Only
to
ensure
that
each
member
is
given
an
opportunity
to
comment,
I
will
not
be
taking
questions
from
speakers
in
in
the
public
forum
forum
and
I'll,
be
restricting
members
to
one
question.
Stroke
comment
per
section:
okay,
questions
and
comments
need
to
be
short,
concise
and
fact,
based
with
no
repetition
or
I'll
move
on
to
the
next
member
questions
also
must
not
be
leading
and
must
not
be
multiple
questions.
A
B
Thank
you
eph,
so
we
had
a
session
on
the
18th
of
july,
where
acom
came
in
and
presented
the
water
cycle
study,
and
at
that
meeting
there
was
a
decision
taken
that
they
would
benefit
from
a
second
meeting
in
relation
to
the
water
cycle
study
and
that's
the
paper
that
we
have
before
us
tonight,
which
has
been
requested.
So
the
paper
tonight
includes
in
it
the
summary
of
the
conclusions
that
were
in
the
water
cycle
study.
B
It
also
provides
an
update
for
you
all
in
relation
to
the
you
know,
letter
that
has
also
since
been
issued
from
joanna
avery,
basically,
the
the
chief
planner
for
the
government,
which
also
details
some
of
the
proposals
she's
suggesting
in
relation
to
d-luck
bill.
Also
attached
to
your
agenda.
B
We
did
have
some
questions
from
members
that
we
provided
written
responses
from
and
also
comments
from
dave
george,
which
we've
also
included
in
that
with
some
some
commentary
as
well.
We
also
have
attached
some
synopsis
from
dave,
george
who's,
going
to
be
one
of
the
who'll
be
presenting
to
you
all
as
well
as
part
of
this
evening.
So
I
think
the
report
in
itself
is
self-explanatory.
B
So
we've
received
letters
by
the
whit
church
conservation
group
from
wessex
rivers,
trust,
chalk
streams,
restoration,
restoration
strategy,
testing,
itching
association,
wild
try,
trout,
trust,
wild
fish,
the
piscatorials
wildlife
and
countryside
link
and
cpre
hampshire.
So
those
letters
have
also
all
been
distributed
to
you
all
as
members
supporting
a
specific
test
policy
chair,
there's
really
nothing
more
to
add.
B
We've
had
the
detailed
section
session
on
the
18th
of
july
with
acom,
and
now
it's
just
over
for
to
this
agenda
and
listening
and
hearing
what
the
members
you
know
have
to
say
in
relation
to
the
water
cycle
study.
A
Thank
you,
ruth
okay,
so
we've
obviously
all
read
the
papers.
Okay,
and
just
looking
at
section
by
section
section,
one,
I'm
assuming
that
after
people's
more
people
listening
to
to
ruth's
comments.
Okay,
does
anybody
have
any
comments
regarding
the
executive,
summary
council,
james.
C
George
had
made
were
in
the
paper,
which
is
appendix
one.
I
thought
there
was
some
concern
that
they
didn't
reflect
his
comments.
I
just
want
to
clarify.
I
is
george
happy
with
those.
Do
they
reflect
george's
comments,
dave
george's
comments
that
they
are
what
were
made
and
that
you're
happy
for
them
or
do
we
need
to
amend
those
comments.
A
I
think
that
mr
george
will
start
off
his
presentation
by
taking
those
you
know
and
letting
us
know
what
his
views
are
on
those
questions.
Okay,.
D
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
We
basically,
yes,
I
think.
Certainly
the
the
questions
when
they
were
basically
came
in
with
the
documentation
for
this
meeting
were
a
surprise
to
me.
I
think
that's
the
first
thing
because
I
hadn't
actually
asked
any
questions,
but
I
think
the
questions
that
were
put
down
were
probably
paraphrasing
things
that
I'd
actually
said
in
the
emails
and
what
have
you
so
I
I
didn't
actually
formally
submit
any
questions.
However,
I
think
the
exercise
was
valuable
in
that
it
certainly
did.
D
You
know,
give
the
opportunity
here
for
the
of
the
officers
to
actually
comment
on
those
I
I
did
send
responses
to
those,
because
you
know
I
hadn't
actually
seen
the
questions,
all
the
responses
before
then,
and
but
they
weren't
included
within
the
documentation,
but
I
subsequently,
I
think,
circulated
them
to
all,
after
speaking,
to
stuart
frost
is
that
is
that
correct?
Have
you
all
seen
them?
D
Yes,
okay,
so
I
think,
frankly,
the
the
responses
I've
given
as
long
as
you've
seen
all
of
those
clarify
where
I
stand
on
that,
but
certainly
they
they
weren't
questions
which
I
posed,
but.
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
In
relation
to
the
executive
summary,
I
just
want
it
on
record
that
a
number
of
expert
of
submissions
have
stated
that
the
water
cycle
study
does
not
meet
the
statement
in
executive
summary
1.1,
whereby
it
evaluates
how
it
can
accommodate
the
growth
in
certain
areas.
E
So
what
the
water
cycle
study
does
is
merely
say,
oh
well,
we
can
accommodate
growth
per
se,
provided
permits
are
changed
and
provided
infrastructure
is
invested
in
by
the
water
companies.
It
does
not
identify
which
sites
can
be
accommodated.
It
does
not
identify
what
infrastructure
is
required
and
therefore
I
believe
that
the
executive
summary
on
the
basis
of
expert
submissions
that
have
been
sent
to
us
is
in
fact
misguided
and
doesn't
state
the
true
state
of
affairs.
F
A
A
Thank
you,
council
keeper.
I
I
will
ask
you
please
just
you
know,
please
try
and
restrict
yourself
just
to
the
one
okay
comment
you
could
have
could
have
put
it
in
on
there.
Okay,
but
that's
fine,
okay,
council,
tomlin.
G
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
just
conscious
that
we
had
a
presentation
by
a
com
about
the
water
cycle
study
and
it
was
a
presentation
where
we
were
able
to
question
the
presenters,
but
we
had
no
debate.
G
What
I
see
in
front
of
us
tonight
is
a
slightly
different
paragraph
situation,
which
has
some
of
the
actual
detail
that
was
presented
by
way
of
summary.
So
if
it's
not
in
there
and
the
points
we've
got,
we
can't
raise
them
from
what
you've
just
said,
because
we're
only
talking
about
what's
written
in
front
of
us,
so
we've
not
had
the
opportunity
to
have
actually
had
a
debate
about
the
things
we
learned
generally
from
the
water
cycle
study.
So
that's
my
my
comment.
A
I
think
this
is
your
opportunity
now
to
actually
turn
around
and
and
say
your
comments.
So
you
know
if
you
do
have
any
comments
as
long
as
you
can
fit
them
into
the
the
various
sections,
then
then,
please,
okay,
make
them
known.
Okay.
Has
anybody
else
got
any
comments
regarding
section
one?
A
E
Like
on
record
for
it
to
be
stated
that
I
do
not
believe
that
the
water
cycle
study
is
fit
for
purpose
and
it
doesn't
focus
on
the
spatial
growth
and
the
projected
sites
that
have
been
considered.
A
H
I've
got
some
concerns
on
the
water
cycle
study,
but
it's
it's
more
a
case
of
when
we're
looking
at
things
like
water
companies
have
a
legal
duty
to
do
things
when,
like
not
have
raw
sewage
discharge
into
our
rivers,
for
instance,
they're.
Clearly
failing
in
that
at
the
moment
and
that's
been
given
national
recognition.
H
What
could
we
as
a
council
do
about
that,
because
we've
had
massive
number
of
representations
from
members
of
the
public
on
this?
It's
clearly
a
cause
of
concern
for
them.
I
Thank
you,
chair
and
just
to
cursor
cubits
point
is
there
for
large
sites,
possibly
a
requirement
to
have
a
water
cycle
study
at
the
planning
point.
You
know
if
we
were
like
south
manly
down,
it's
not
happening
yet,
but
would
there
be
a
requirement
to
have
a
water
cycle
study
a
future
day
on
those
large
sites?
Maybe
ruth
could
could
answer
that
question.
B
Okay,
so
we're
just
clarifying
a
couple
of
things
which
are
probably
worthwhile
being
really
clear
on
the
water
cycle.
Study
doesn't
address
the
issues
in
relation
to
sites
because
we
don't
have
short
listed
sites,
nor
do
we
know
which
sites
will
actually
end
up
being
the
sites
in
the
final
local
plan
or
the
spatial
strategy
in
terms
of
development
applications
in
the
future
and
environmental
impact
assessments.
B
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
It's,
I
guess
a
question
to
to
ruth
and
to
the
portfolio
holder
really.
J
We've
been
told
that
this
is
a
iterative
process
in
terms
of
the
development
of
the
local
plan,
and
so
I
I
understand
the
point
that
we
haven't
looked
at
any
specific
sites
within
the
water
cycle
study
at
the
moment,
because
no
sites
have
been
selected,
but
given
the
iterative
nature
of
this,
does
that
mean
that
there
will
be
once
we
have
selected
the
sites
and
we've
got
a
conversation
happening
about
that
on
monday?
Does
that
mean
the
water
will
go
back
to
the
water
cycle
study?
B
So
we
don't
work
in
the
sense
of
actually
having
a
further
intuition
on
the
water
cycle
study.
We
actually
work
with
the
developers,
the
environment
agency,
and
you
know
the
water
companies
in
relation
to
those
specific
sites,
depending
on
where
they
are
the
spatial
requirements
for
the
various
sites,
will
be
different.
You
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
we
don't
have
an
agreed
spatial
strategy
to
be
consulting
the
water
companies
on
at
the
moment,
and
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
doing
through
the
regulation.
18
consultation.
A
Thank
you.
Does
anybody
else
else
have
any
more
questions
at
councillor
tomlin,
please.
G
Thank
you,
chef.
Well,
building
on
that
one
I
mean
we
are
on
monday
across
the
block
on
monday,
we
are
being
asked
to
look
at
certain
sites.
Now
we
want
the
site
evaluation,
we
have
them
in
front
of
us
and
if
they're
not
fully
evaluated,
how
can
we
actually?
This
is
a
chicken
and
egg.
How
can
we
actually
do
the
promotion
of
a
site
when
we
don't
know
some
of
these
issues
and
and
we're
not
talking
about
transport,
but
it
links
to
transport,
looks
at
infrastructure,
etc.
G
For
instance,
if
we
have
a
site
in
bramley
in
the
bramley
ward,
we
know
from
thames
water
that
they
haven't
the
capacity
to
get
the
sewage
to
the
treatment
works.
Now
you
know
it's
it's
evidence
it's
black
and
white
evidence,
but
it's
not
written
in
anywhere.
G
We're
premature
yet
again
because
we
haven't
got
all
the
facts
in
front
of
us
and
actually
we
have
a
big
glaring
fact
called
water
cycle
study,
which
has
highlighted
lots
of
issues
that
perhaps
we
were
unaware
of
until
this
time.
So
I
I
agree
with
council
connectico
that
we
we're
sort
of
compromised,
basically
without
the
full
information.
Thank
you.
K
K
If
this
now
changes
and
there's
further
planning
restrictions
imposed
upon
us.
Thank
you.
K
L
Thank
you.
The
water
cycle
study
acknowledged
that
there
was
the
issue
regarding
nutrient
neutrality.
L
Obviously,
the
time
it
was
looked
at,
we
hadn't
had
the
announcement
or
the
letter
suggesting
a
tabling
amendment
to
lerb
I
mean
that
will
be
that's
good
news
in
terms
of
it
tightening
controls
that
the
wastewater
treatment
works
in
terms
of
reducing
mitigation
and
giving
some
assurance
that
there
will
be
a
solution
to
the
issues
and
it's
an
interim
situation.
L
So
that's
good
news
in
terms
of
both
for
the
the
river
test
and
the
groundwater
and
for
the
protected
sites
in
the
solent,
because
it
addresses
it
more
at
source
and
doesn't
mean
that
developers
have
to
provide
the
full
mitigation
for
it.
C
Once
that's
happened
the
and
for
a
developer,
then
the
reality
is
it's
too
late
in
relation
to
what
we've
done
and
the
the.
So
I
wonder
what
we're
going
to
do
about
that.
You're
talking
about
impact
assessments
as
if
they're
going
to
be
the
savior
here
in
relation
to
the
development
has
already
started,
and
it's
been
shown
that
there's
a
principle
in
relation
to
development.
A
B
We
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
what
you're
looking
at
here
is
the
water
cycle
study
and
the
preparation
of
a
draft
local
plan,
so
the
eia
issues
in
relation
to
those
future
applications
really
aren't
things
that
you
need
to
be
concerning
yourself
about
in
relation
to
tonight,
because
the
point
that
you're
making
councillor
james
is
that
we
will
actually,
hopefully
because
we
aren't
promoting
the
sites,
we're
preparing
a
draft
local
plan
which
will
have
proposed
allocations
in
it
that
the
developers
will
have
to
be
working
through
the
solutions
and
mitigations
for
those
sites
and
those
the
process
and
the
work
that
they
will
have
to
do
will
have
to
enhance
our
knowledge
in
relation
to
that
those
shortlisted
sites
for
inclusion
in
the
local
plan.
B
We
don't
do
their
development
work
for
them
in
terms
of
the
preparation
of
how
it
is
that
they're
going
to
mitigate
their
impacts,
but
we
will
actually
be
getting
the
certainty
around
what
can
or
cannot
be
achieved
on
those
sites
through
the
further
steps
that
happen
after
reg
18.
You
cannot,
at
this
stage
in
the
planning
policy
process,
have
the
certainty
on
the
solutions,
because
for
that
further
work
to
be
done,
they
need
to
really
be
on
the
shortlisted
sites,
just
not
all
of
the
sites.
B
B
E
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
of
anne
greaves,
please
and
I'd
like
just
to
comment
on
that
answer
from
ruth
as
well
and
on
what
basis
is
the
scrutiny
committee
under
the
constitution
run
so
strictly,
whereby
we're
only
allowed
to
ask
one
question
and
I
think
it's
absolutely
disgusting.
I
think
it's
an
offence
to
democracy
and
I've
about
had
it
with
this
administration,
because
the
content
that
they
have
for
us
who
have
been
elected
by
the
residents
is
really
really
making
me
very
upset.
M
I'd
refer
you
to
rule
16
of
the
scrutiny
rules,
so
committees
can
ask
people
to
attend.
Give
evidence
answer.
Questions
about
any
items
on
the
agendas
and
meetings
should
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
principles
that
the
business
is
conducted
fairly
and
that
all
members
of
the
committee
be
given
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
of
the
attendees
and
to
contribute
and
speak
and
those
attending
the
committee
by
giving
evidence
should
be
treated
with
respect
and
courtesy
and
that
the
business
to
be
conducted
efficiently
as
possible.
E
So
I
would
like
to
make
a
formal
complaint
combining
the
chairman's
demonstrated
contempt,
the
elected
representatives.
I
represent
8
000
people
and
all
of
my
colleagues
do
here
and
I
think
that
his
discretion
is
being
abused
and
he
is
abusing
his
power
and
where
I,
the
chair,
I
would
have
no,
inter
intent
whatsoever
to
establish
the
rules
that
he
is
established
at
the
beginning
of
this
week
in
our
fight
hopionic
circle.
That's
first
thing.
Second
thing
is
ruth
formula
just
made
a
comment
about.
E
E
Is
that
at
the
point
that
I
was
making
with
regards
to
the
water
cycle
study,
is
that
we
haven't
required
acom
to
evaluate
what
solutions
need
to
be
required
and
we
haven't
required
of
acom
to
identify
the
permits,
because
we
are
leaving
that
to
the
water
company,
so
the
solution
to
never
found
or
saw
or
identified,
because
the
statutory
obligation
is
under
the
water
provider
or
the
sewage
person
to
identify
the
solutions.
E
So,
whilst
it's
very
nice
to
hear
from
ruth
the
head
of
planning
that
we
will
be
given
those
solutions,
I
don't
recall
in
the
15
years
that
I've
been
a
counsellor
and
we've
had
significant
planning
applications
that
any
solutions
have
been
offered
up
by
the
water
providers,
because
all
the
providers
can
say
under
the
current
government
regulations
is
that
it
is
that
the
answer
has
to
be.
E
A
Let's,
let's
move
on
okay.
A
Not
at
this
particular
time
I
want
to
move
on,
so
we
can
actually
ensure
that
we
get
all
the
business
done
in
a
timely
fashion.
Tonight,
counselor
james,
please.
A
The
point
is
that
the
experts
aren't
here.
Okay,
the
experts
were
acom;
okay,
they
were
here
on
the
18th,
okay,
just
just
hold
on.
Please.
Let
me
finish:
I've
done
you
the
courtesy
of
how
you've
finished.
So,
please
let
me
okay.
So
it's
it's
very
simple
that
the
experts
are
not
here.
Okay,
that
we're
here
in
in
june,
okay.
Well,
we
had
the
presentation
from
akon.
Okay,
there
were
lots
of
questions
there.
You
were
given
the
ability
to
to
actually
write
in
questions.
A
Okay,
and
I
know
a
number
of
people
did
and
since
then,
okay,
you've
also
had
the
the
ability
and
the
opportunity
of
asking
questions
of
officers,
okay,
which
I
know
that
some
people
in
this
committee
have
taken
advantage
of
council
cubit,
for
example,
okay,
but
I
know
other
people
haven't
okay,
so
I
think
there's
been
plenty
of
opportunity
to
actually
question
experts,
okay
and
we
need
to
get
through
the
work
tonight,
which
is
why
I
said
one
question
per
section.
A
Thank
you
so,
moving
on,
let's
move
on
to
section
four:
please
does
anybody
have
any
recommendations
on
section?
Four
section:
sorry,
I
beg
your
pardon
section
three.
H
Section
3.6
on
page
eight,
I
think
that
gets
the
number
of
it
really
with
regards
to
water
supply,
south
east
water
and
southern
water,
both
saying
that
they
are
confident
that
adequate
water
supplies
will
be
available
up
to
2039
and
will
cater
for
proposed
levels
of
growth,
I'm
tempted
to
say
they
would
say
that,
wouldn't
they
I
have
concerns.
I
I've
noticed
in
the
gazette
this
week
that
councillor
harvey
present
in
the
chamber
here
today
had
made
mention
of
his
concerns
about
water
supply
and
future.
H
Actually,
what
I
recall
the
meeting
was
I
made
that
point
and
it
pays
to
do
your
homework.
The
reason
why
I
made
that
point
is
in
this
reference.
I
got
here
from
the
new
scientist
about
the
worst
drought
in
500
years
that
we
just
had
across
europe
and
it's
a
drought
that
we've
only
seen
once
before
in
1976
last
50
years,
but
it
would
be
but
naive
of
any
of
us,
be
it
counsellors
or
mps
or
scientific
experts
to
think
that
we've
just
had
the
worst
drought
in
500
years.
H
So
what
I
would
like
is
to
simply
have
a
reassurance
that
we
will
have
adequate
water
supply
up
to
and
include
in
2039,
taking
into
account
climate
change,
and
the
study
could
not
have
taken
into
account.
What's
just
happened,
it
was
made
before
we
had
this
drought,
so
I
have
real
concerns
and
I
would
take
advice
from
anyone
in
this
room
as
to
how
we,
as
a
council,
move
forward
on
this
and
make
sure
that
we
don't
make
a
ghastly
mistake
of
allowing
additional
houses
and
industrial
units
and
have
increased
agriculture
use
water.
H
And
we
do
get
to
the
point
where
the
the
system
breaks
down.
Now
there
are
alternative
solutions,
and
I
think
councillor
reed
alluded
to
that
on
the
18th
hampshire
are
looking
at
providing
reservoirs.
There
is
the
possibility
that
they
have
a
reservoir
in
south
new
hampshire
and
a
reservoir
in
north
hampshire.
H
The
reservoir
of
north
hampshire
could
quite
well
end
up
more
likely
to
end
up
in
bay
state,
indeed
be
careful
what
you
wish
for
when
making
a
really
plaintive
plea
about
over
demand
for
water,
because
that
will
prompt
the
water
companies
to
go
to
the
government
and
end
up
having
a
question
of
who
wants
the
reservoir
and
where
and
that
will
just
ignite
inflamed
public
opinion.
You
know
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
bramley
underwater,
for
instance,
but
you
know
it
could.
It
could
well
be
that
we
have
an
unwelcome
addition.
H
The
other
option,
the
more
expensive
option,
but
the
option
that
I
would
prefer
to
see
happening
is
if
we
had
sea
water
desalination
we're
close
to
solar,
that's
technically
feasible,
although
we
are
above
a
watershed
from
from
winchester.
The
only
thing
that
really
pains
me
to
to
report
to
the
committee
is
that
our
only
desalination
plant
in
the
uk
in
the
thames
estuary
is
currently
broken
down,
pending
maintenance
and
won't
be
open
again
for
another
year.
H
So
I
think
it's
probably
worth
us
noting
that
there
are
alternatives.
There
may
be
unpalatable
alternatives
to
groundwater
extraction,
but
I
think
the
absolute
key
requirement
is
that
we
have
a
resilient
plan
that
takes
into
account
the
likely
additional
stresses
on
our
existing
water
supply,
especially
in
the
the
test
basin,
where
we
had
on
tv
news
as
part
of
this
drought
requests
to
extract
increased
amounts
from
the
rivers
and
the
likely
impact
that's
going
to
have
on
wild
trout
and
all
the
other
fish
that
that
swim
in
these
rivers
and
the
fragile
ecosystems.
H
So
I
I'm
really
quite
concerned
that
when
we
have
a
statement
from
the
likes
of
southeast
water
and
southern
water,
do
we
just
take
it
at
face
value?
Or
do
we
ask
for
more
detailed
information
to
be
recorded
as
to
what
their
plans
actually
are
and
at
what
point
they
would
think
about
building
reservoirs
and
at
what
point?
They
would
think
about
sea
water
extraction
and
desalination.
L
They
have
been
looking
at
desalination
at
desalinization
and
they
were
progressing
there,
but
I
understand
that
that's
been
abandoned
and
they're.
Now
looking
at
wastewater
recycling,
I
think
there
were.
There
was
quite
a
lot
of
resistance
to
the
desalination
in
south
hampshire
and
there
were
environmental
issues
and,
on
that
basis,
they're
not
progressing
that
one,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
long
that's
for
and
whether
that
will
still
be
an
option.
L
I
understand
that
they're
consulting
on
their
next
water
resource
management
plan,
probably
later
this
year
and
that's
probably
an
opportunity
for
us
to
throw
into
the
mix
that
any
suggestions,
but
I
know
that
they
they
do
start
by
considering
a
wide
range
of
options
and
they
do
consult
on
that
and
there
is
quite
a
lot
of
information
on
it.
So
that
is
the
means
that
those
alternative
water
supply
issues
are
looked
at
through
that
process.
N
Chair
in
the
report,
it
says
that
overton,
which
and
oakley
are
at
full
capacity
but
to
mitigate
that
we're
going
to
issue
more
permits
in
the
future.
Why
would
we
want
to
issue
more
permits
when
the
permits
aren't
working?
At
the
moment?
We
have
southern
water
just
flout
in
it
at
the
moment,
they've
just
been
fined.
N
100
million,
and
I
just
don't
see
how
we
can
have
a
water
strategy
where
we're
just
going
to
issue
more
permits
when
it's
not
actually
working
at
the
moment,
and
I
would
like
to
know
which
area
is
the
pop
I'm
going
to
feed
into?
Is
it
going
to
feed
into
the
overton
which
area
which
is
already
at
full
capacity?
A
L
Is
the
environment
agency's
role
to
review
permits
and
whether
they
need
tightening
or
whether
the
water
wastewater
treatment,
water
wastewater
providers
need
to
apply
for
new
permits?
Yeah?
As
you're
aware,
southern
water
were
heavily
fined
along
with
others,
but
my
understanding
is
there's
going
to
be
stricter
controls
on
that,
and
there
is
the
fining
mechanism
and
the
drainage
and
wastewater
management
plans
seek
to
address
to
ensure
that
there
is
compliance
with
those
permit
controls
in
terms
of
popham.
L
It's
obviously
some
distance
away
from
any
wastewater
treatment
work
for
the
purposes
of
the
weight
water
cycle
study.
L
It
was
there
was
some
discussion
and
it
was
considered
that
probably
the
most
appropriate,
be
wit,
church,
but
that's
quite
a
good
example
of,
although
that's
how
the
water
cycle
study
considered
it,
and
obviously
there
have
been
issues
flagged
up
with
capacity
at
which
church
and
there
needing
to
be
improvement.
So
that's
quite
a
good
example
of
where
there
could
be
alternative
solutions,
because
the
promoters
have
indicated
that
they're
looking
at
options,
one
of
them
maybe
being
providing
a
treatment
plan
on
site.
So
it
would
just
deal
with
popham's
wastewater.
L
So
it
wouldn't
go
to
whitchurch,
but
for
the
sort
of
worst
case
scenario,
the
water
cycle
study
looked
at
and
assumed
that
pop
and
would
go
to
whit,
church,
but
and
and
was
looking
to
see
if
there
was
a
solution
and
what
measures
could
be
taken
to
ensure
that
that
could
happen.
But
it
is
the
developers
you
know
they.
They
they're
aware
that
there's
capacity
issues,
and
so
they
are
in
talking
to
the
wastewater
treatment,
work
provider
and
they're.
Looking
at
alternative
provision.
I
Thank
you
chair,
just
as
a
thanks
to
councilman
mccormick
just
shows
you
how
how
much
you
can
talk
with
only
asking
one
question.
So
thank
you
for
for
showing
us
the
way
forward.
I
am
I'm
worried
about
waste
water
treatment.
If
I
I'm
honest,
two
questions
in
one,
is
there
a
way
we
condition
polished
water
back
into
the
into
the
test?
I
B
B
B
So
the
money
was,
you
know,
distributed
to
those
of
us
that
pay
into
those
companies
directly
back
to
you
know
those
of
us
that
pay
those
bills
as
well,
as
you
know
what
they
needed
to
in
in
terms
of
government,
I'm
envisaging
the
environment
agency
also,
you
know
allocated
some
of
those
funds
for
things
as
well
so,
but
we
don't
have
the
insight
into
it.
I
only
know
as
a
resident
what
we
got
from
it.
G
Thank
you
sure.
The
first
things
3.1
the
the
the
report
assesses
the
capacities
of
sewage
treatment
plants.
It's
it's
failed
to
all
throughout
look
at
the
infrastructure
of
delivery
from
settlements
to
those
sites,
and
I
find
that
a
massive
omission,
because
we
have
problems
all
over
bay
system
that
we
find
out
at
the
planning
stage,
which
I
think
is
a
bit
too
late,
because
it
delays
house
building
and
strangely
that
has
this
effect
on
the
5v
land
supply.
G
But
in
that
presentation
that
we
had,
it
said
southern
water
they
considered,
they
have
a
supply
issue.
They
admitted
it
and
south
east
water
said
or
implied
that
they
have
enough
water
to
cover
all
of
the
berkshire
and
hampshire
new
homes
requirements
up
to
the
end
of
our
plan.
But
as
a
company,
they
are
actually
concerned
that
their
abstraction
permits
are
likely
to
see
the
situation.
Reverse
and
both
suppliers
are
looking
at
water
management
plans
as
we
described,
and
one
of
that
is
this
consumer
usage.
How
the
devil?
G
Can
someone
explain
to
me
how
we
can
regulate
people,
how
they
can
get
people
to
have
four
minute
showers
and
sing
the
words
to
richie
blackmore's,
rainbow
songs
and
that's
exactly
four
minutes
long
and
how
we
can
you
know,
stop
people
going
to
the
toilet
more
than
their
neighbors.
It
just
makes
sense,
so
it
relies
on
us,
conserving
water
and
through
building
regulations,
and
you
know
then
we've
even
as
a
council
got
to
look
at
retrofitting,
all
the
grey
water
and
all
of
this
technology
into
our
existing
housing
stock.
G
So
it's
a
massive
cost,
a
massive
challenge
and
we
have
to
now
consider
are
we
going
to
support
a
promise
that
they
will
deliver
and
I'll
just
say,
one
last
thing
today
and
sorry
yesterday
in
the
post,
because
today
we
didn't
get
post
because
they're
on
strike
or
something
I
got
a
flyer
from
southern
water,
reminding
me
we
had
a
water,
hosepipe
band
and
asked
me
to
conserve
water.
G
Well,
I
am
a
south
east
water
customer,
so
they
don't
even
know
their
customers.
So
do
I
trust
them?
No,
I
don't,
and
I
think
this
borough
should
actually
be
very
suspicious
of
any
of
these
promises
where
we
don't
know
what
and
we
don't
know
by
when.
But
what
we
hear
is
that
they've
had
a
look
at
something
decided
against
it,
going
to
try
something
else.
Maybe
flood-basing
stoke
whatever
it
is.
Just
there's
nothing
there.
That's
the
problem!
Thank
you.
A
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair.
So
in
terms
of
the
solutions,
we
don't
know
that
what
they
are
in
terms
of
the
assumptions
on
the
part
of
the
water
cycle
study.
E
They
make
a
central
assumption
that
if
our
river
was
good
status
and
we
were
to
build
the
number
of
houses
that
we're
proposing
in
the
local
plan
update
then
from
good
status,
we
would
not
deviate
from
that
band.
So
it's
hypothetical,
and
I
would
like
to
quote
something
which
is
extremely
important,
which
is
that
a
computer
model
does
not
mean
data,
and
data
does
not
mean
fact
and
computer
models
mean
at
best
a
hypothesis
posing
as
a
mathematical
fact.
So
we
are
here
with
a
water
cycle
study.
That's
not
fit
for
purpose.
E
E
We
haven't
had
discussions
on
the
impact
of
artificial
recharging
and
wastewater
recycling,
and
I
want
to
put
it
on
record
and
I
wish
that
this
is
all
in
the
minutes
too,
that
when
you
artificially
recharge
rivers,
that
means
that
the
valium,
the
cocaine,
the
antibiotics
all
of
the
hideous
things
the
estrogen
from
the
pill.
All
of
those
hideous
things
are
not
removed
when
they're
artificially
recharged
into
the
river.
So
we
will
be
loading
into
beautiful,
crystal
supposedly
waters
of
our
precious
chalk,
rivers,
even
more
cocaine,
valium
antibiotics
and
estrogen.
E
Finally,
what
I
would
like
to
say
in
relation
to
this
section
and
it's
3.5,
all
of
the
points
that
I've
been
making
are
relevant
to
this
section
is
that
in
the
newly
updated
non-spatial
plan
policies,
members
will
be
horrified
horrified
to
hear
that,
whilst
in
3.5
we
say
we're
going
to
work
together
and
coordinate,
regular
updates,
et
cetera
la
di
da
di
da
right,
preferred
it
all.
Before.
In
the
original
local
plan
that
we
approved
in
2016.
E
There
was
a
commitment
on
the
part
of
the
environment
agency
to
provide
us
with
annual
monitoring,
and
there
was
a
statement
of
common
ground
that
stated
that
the
environment
agency
would
give
us
annual
monitoring.
Well,
they
failed
in
that
they
decided
unilaterally
to
change
it
to
three
and
in
our
non-spatial
policies
update.
It
demonstrates
that
they
do
not
intend
to
give
us
annual
monitoring,
because
the
word
annual
has
been
removed.
E
Moreover-
and
this
is
in
relation
to
the
answers
to
the
questions
from
councillor
konetsky
councillor
ratgun
and
councillor
tomlin
in
the
original
water
quality
policy,
we
had
an
obligation
for
there
not
to
be
a
continued
deterioration
and
for
there
to
be
annual
monitoring
now,
it
says
if
it's
approved,
wherever
possible.
E
Development
should
include
measures
that
will
improve
the
water
environment
and
where
new
water
supply
or
wastewater
infrastructure
is
required
or
proposed
in
support
of
new
development.
The
development
will
be
phased
alongside
the
provision
of
the
infrastructure
to
ensure
the
following,
so
wherever
possible.
So
I
leave
that
with
you
members.
I
have
no
confidence
that
the
wherever
possible
will
ever
be
achievable.
I
have
no
confidence.
E
The
water
companies
will
provide
the
solutions
that
have
a
nebulous
and
have
not
been
defined,
and
I
have
no
confidence
that
the
environment
agency
will
do
what
is
required
of
them
nationwide
to
ensure
that
our
rivers
are
not
further
deteriorated.
Thank
you.
A
J
So
so
far
in
the
section
we've
spoken
about
water
supply-
and
I
think
it's
consensus
in
the
room
seems
to
be
that
that
members
are
concerned
about
how
southeast
water
and
how
southern
water
actually
going
to
ensure
delivery
of
water,
particularly
if
there's
a
another
drought
like
we've
experienced
this
year,
we've
also
spoken
about
the
wastewater
treatment
works
and
again
there
we've
been
promised
that
everything's
going
to
be
okay
as
long
as
there's
some
investment,
but
there's
no
detail
as
to
as
to
what
this
investment
will
be
and
how
it's,
how
we
can
hold
the
water
companies
to
account
to
make
sure
it
happens.
J
They
and
they
employed
an
independent
agency
to
take
a
look
at
our
water
cycle.
Studying
critique
it,
and
one
of
the
points
they
raised
right
at
the
end
in
section
4.3,
is
that
the
our
water
cycle
study
only
considers
flood
risk
in
terms
of
the
increased
wastewater
treatment
effluent
discharges
to
water
courses
and
does
not
make
any
recommendations
in
relation
to
identified
areas
at
risk
of
flooding
from
surface
water,
from
ground
water
and
from
foul
sewers.
J
All
are
worrying
that
the
foul
sewers,
in
particular
as
a
representative
for
brighton
hill.
It's
noted
that
brighton,
hill
and
hatch
warren
have
foul
sewers
that
are
coming
up
to
capacity
and
therefore
any
upstream
additions
to
to
that
network
could
cause
serious
foul
sewer
leakage,
so
yeah
we're
talking
about
people's
poo
appearing
in
in
their
gardens
and
potentially
in
their
homes
as
well,
and
given
this
is
such
an
important
point.
A
L
I've
not
seen
the
document
that
it's
referred
to
from
the
stand
up
for
north
hampshire
downs.
The
wood
cycle
study
is
just
looking
at
it
in
terms
of
the
additional
discharges
in
response
to
growth,
because
the
strategic
flood
risk
assessment
looks
at
the
bigger
picture
of
flooding
and
that
was
completed
a
year
or
so
ago.
Now.
J
L
I
really
need
to
see
the
document
referring
to,
but
it
sounds
like
it's
a
bit
more
specific.
Really,
there
have
been,
I
get
confused
with
their
catchment
plans
or
catchment
management
plans
prepared
by
the
local
league
flood
authority
of
hampshire,
county
council
that
priorities
brighton
hill,
and
that
looks
in
more
detail
about
surface
water
flooding.
J
A
K
I
wouldn't
be
offended,
mr
chair.
I
will
be
quick,
it's
it's
a
pity
that
councillor
koniski
got
in
there
because
councillor
cubic
teed
me
up
quite
nicely
for
my
question.
I
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
her
points
that
she
made.
However,
I
I
wanted
to
ask
the
officers,
the
the
so
what
we
have
our
water
cycle
study
3.4,
that
talks
about
section
3.4
that
talks
about
a
paper-based
exercise
and
the
the
implementation
of
the
necessary
treatment
process
upgrades
and
that's
also
that's
subject
to
those.
K
We
obviously
have
the
nutrient
neutrality
elephant
in
the
room
and
possibly
coming
on
in
2030.
So
the
question
is
we
get
down
that
path
and
the
water
companies
actually
haven't
done
their
work,
which
I'm
fairly
confident
they
won't
have?
What
do
we
do?
What
is
the
impact
on
us?
I
know
the
previous
mention
in
one
of
the
previous
document.
Packs
was
grampian
conditions.
The
question
was
asked
and
I
believe
it
wasn't
felt
that
that
is
a
valued
option.
K
L
The
water
companies
have
to
justify
their
investment
and
it
will
be
through
going
through
various
processes
and
going
through
various
stages
that
they
will
narrow
down
exactly
what
investment
and
what
infrastructure
is
needed.
So
this
is
the
first
stage
of
what
could
be
provided
and
what
might
be
needed
when
we
do
the
draft
local
plan,
they
will
have
more
specific
comments.
L
I
would
imagine
the
water
companies
and
we
will
see
more
specific
comments
on
specific
sites,
specific
networks
and
infrastructure
and
then,
as
the
plan
gets
adopted,
then
they
can
take
that
more
into
account
in
their
infrastructure
planning
process.
I'm
sure
he's
aware
the
water
companies
do
have
this
five-year
investment
process.
L
Based
on
this,
I
think
it's
unlikely
that
they're
going
to
take
into
account
because
there's
no
certainty
but
as
it
gets
further
down
the
process
as
there's
allocations
in
the
local
plan,
they'll
take
it
more
seriously
and
engage
more
with
developers
than
if
there's
master
plans
and
then
someone's
subsequently
at
planning
application
stage,
but
you're
right.
It's
not
until
it
gets
to
the
planning,
application
stage
and
detailed
submissions
of
number
of
houses.
L
What
water
consumption
might
be,
what
specific
network
infrastructure
is
needed
that
they
will
actually
be
looking
at
seriously,
what's
required
so
you're
right,
it
is
the
grampian
conditions,
but
but
they
can
be
negotiations
and
discussions
going
on
well
before
that.
A
Thank
you
anne.
I
noticed
that
you've
got
your
hand
up.
Council
cube
you've
already
had
your
your
your
one
question
for,
for
this
particular
section,
just
that
we
are
out
of
time.
Unfortunately,
okay
is
the
reason
why
you
have
your
hand
up
council,
cubit.
E
E
Yes,
under
policy
section
ss4
and
under
the
water
quality
of
both
the
local
plan
and
the
local
plan
update,
it
says:
policy
ss4
will
prevent
further
development,
which
exacerbates
deterioration
within
the
relevant
catchment
and
intervention
mechanisms
will
be
required
prior
to
the
release
of
any
further
allocated
sites
or
granting
a
planning
permission,
and
it
says
further
that
in
principle,
development
will
be
triggered
and
if
future
supply
can't
be
demonstrated.
So
we
can
stop
developments
under
the
policy
that
we
have
now
and
hopefully
that
section
will
remain
in
the
new
policy
update.
A
O
H
To
place
a
new
statutory
duty
on
water
and
sewage
companies
across
england
to
upgrade
wastewater
treatment,
works
the
highest
technically
achievable
limits
by
2030
in
nutrient
neutrality
areas.
Do
we
have
any
indication
as
to
the
text
to
that
bill
when
that
bill
is
going
to
be
made
law
and
what
impact
that
will
have
on
this
local
plan?.
J
B
E
Yes,
I'd
like
again
for
it
to
be
minuted
that
I
think
that
the
position
of
national
government
is
duplicitous
and
extreme
they're
imposing
housing
numbers
on
us,
whilst
also
under
the
withdrawal
treaty.
They
agreed
to
adherence
of
the
water
framework
directive
and,
whilst
14
only
14
of
our
rivers
meet
the
water
framework
directive,
so
the
position
of
national
government
stinks.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
comments.
Council,
cupid
and
finally,
councillor
madigan.
I
P
Happy
to
do
that,
contrary
to
him.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
section
five:
we
have.
We
have
two
public
speakers.
Okay,
so
I'd
like
to
call
forward
counselor,
tracy
woodruff,
please.
A
Right
councilwood,
I'm
gonna
pass
you
over
to
my
my
vice
chair,
okay,
who
will
take
you
through
the
timings?
Thank
you.
J
Good
evening
right,
you
have
two
minutes
I'll,
let
you
know
when
you
have
36.
J
Q
I'm
councillor
tracy
woodruff,
chairman
of
whitchurchtown
council,
and
I
appear
before
you
with
a
serious
and
earnest
request.
Tonight
you
will
hear
a
presentation
by
dave,
george,
our
hydrologist
and
subject
matter:
expert,
the
loddon
and
the
test,
and
its
aquifer
are
in
danger.
Last
week
we
presented
evidence
that
the
aquifer
is
leaching.
Contaminants.
Q
The
test,
is
in
serious
decline,
which
church
waste
water
treatment
works,
will
experience
native
six
percent
increase
in
contaminants,
largely
due
to
the
proposed
popham
garden
village
to
meet
your
housing
targets,
the
council
was
resolved
to
develop
an
exceptional
circumstances
case
to
reduce
the
overall
borough
housing
figure.
This
should
include
the
health
and
sustainability
of
our
water
resources,
but
there
has
so
far
been
no
report
presented
to
us
outlining
such
a
case.
Q
Q
Q
My
serious
and
earnest
request
to
you
is
that
you
recommend
withdrawing
the
spatial
strategy
that
is
before
you
on
monday
and
protect
our
water
resources
in
our
common
environment
by
using
a
housing
requirement,
figure
derived
with
the
chalmer
model
in
accordance
with
paragraph
61
of
the
mppf.
The
current
spatial
strategy
is
in
conflict.
The
council's
own
resolutions
and
premature
consultation
is
a
waste
of
time,
money
and
resources.
Q
J
R
Thank
you.
I
don't
think
any
of
us
can
deny
the
threat
of
climate
change
that
we've
seen
this
summer
across
the
globe
as
well
as
here
at
home,
we
declared
a
climate
change
emergency
and
we
also
declared
an
ecological
emergency.
We
unanimously
voted
for
these
motions
of
full
council,
but
they
have
got
to
be
more
than
motions
on
bits
of
paper.
R
R
I
hear
our
mp
tell
us
it's
all
down
to
the
council
to
choose
the
housing
figure
and
she's
launched
a
petition
which
is
welcome.
The
secretary
of
state
has
just
confirmed
to
the
planning
inspector
at
that.
You
will
appreciate
that
the
present
we
are
considering
changes
to
the
planning
system,
in
addition
to
the
leveling
open
regeneration
bill,
which
is
partly
past
the
commons
committee
stage
in
parliament.
It
is
also
our
intention
to
update
and
consult
on
the
nppf
and,
of
course,
in
the
autumn,
we
will
see
the
new
prime
minister
and
cabinet
take
office.
R
The
truth
is
that
there
are
two
fundamental
priorities
for
this
council.
We
need
to
see
homes
built
that
our
actual
local
people
can
afford
to
live
in
and
the
existing
homes
be
livable,
but
we
also
need
to
protect
our
environment
for
generations
to
come
and
the
generations.
Today,
however,
our
existing
residents
are
crying
out
for
help
with
investment
in
existing
doctors,
schools,
roads
and
water
infrastructure
that
you
are
discussing
tonight
as
we
debate
the
future
of
housing.
R
We
can't
forget
our
existing
communities
and
what
they're
facing
right
now
you'll
hear
tonight
from
experts,
who've
studied
and
understand
the
implications
of
the
scale
of
house,
building
that
the
current
cabinet
are
proposing,
I
say
cabinet,
because
it's
they
alone.
Who
will
make
the
decision
to
go
out
for
regulation,
18
consultation
on
the
draft
local
plan
that
promotes
eighteen
thousand
houses.
They
will
say
with
whatever
the
space
that
they
have,
that
eighteen
thousand
houses
is
possible
and
it
is
our
draft
recommendation.
R
R
Our
offices
tell
us
that
we
can
change
everything
that
regulation.
18
is
the
best
way
to
protect
us,
but
we
know
that
some
developers
and
their
barristers
are
waiting
to
argue
for
the
18
000
houses
and
once
we
say,
18
000
houses,
putting
that
genie
back
in
the
bottle
will
almost
be
impossible,
as
we've
all
been
arguing.
R
So
the
current
council
administrations
messed
up
big
time.
You've
lost
the
five-year
housing
land
supply
because
the
games
played
over
many
down
in
the
last
local
plan
and
now
that
unlawful
acts
coming
back
to
haunt
us
and
still
not
one
house
has
been
built
on
many
down:
you're
desperate
for
a
local
plant
to
try
and
plug
the
hole
which
won't
arrive
at
best
until
late
2024,
but
you're
driving
ahead
with
80
000
houses,
regardless
and
in
the
meanwhile.
R
You
debate
and
consult
on
reg
18,
while
developers
will
use
the
intervening
period
to
bring
forward
sites
because
we
don't
have
a
five-year
housing,
land
supply
and
they'll
try
and
force
them
through
and
because
you're
touting
18
000
houses.
You
will
need
to
see
these
sites.
You've
basically
got
big
neon
signs
over
the
top
of
them
saying
the
development
of
principle
is
supported.
R
R
I
will
do
whatever
is
needed
with
colleagues
to
defend
our
borough
from
excessive
expansion
and
we
say
no
to
erratically
damaging
our
environment.
We
say
that
we
want
to
truly
affordable
local
homes.
We
want
infrastructure
first,
but
above
all
believing
tonight
you
need
to
take
the
climate
change
crisis
seriously
and
water
is
a
fundamental
part
of
that
debate.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
councillor
harvey
okay.
What
we're
now
on
to
you
know
section
number
five!
Okay,
before
we
get
to
mr
george's
presentation,
does
anybody
have
any
comments,
recommendations
on
this
very
short
paragraph?
A
No
okay,
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
is
to
to
move
and
introduce?
Mr
david
george,
okay
and
your
presentation,
please
thank
you.
D
Sorry,
did
you
hear
that
you
did
yes
absolutely
right
if
I
can
work
this,
firstly
like
to
introduce
lawrence
holden
at
the
back,
there
he's
been
working
with
us
and
he's
a
consultant
hydrogeologist,
just
as
I
am
he's
been
doing,
some
work
for
us
funded
by
the
hampshire
and
ireland
like
wildlife,
trust,
and
we
we
have
to
give
acknowledgement
to
that.
So
thank
you.
D
Laurence
for
all
you've
done
in
terms
of
help
I'd
like
to
sort
of
I've
been
living
in
time,
so
I'm
going
to
paraphrase
that
you've
all
got
copies
of
the
slide,
so
I'm
going
to
quickly
rattle
through
these.
If
I
may
and
try
and
paraphrase
it,
looking
looking
at
the
work
on
the
white
water
cycle
study
in
the
latin,
it
basically
says.
As
far
as
I
can
see
that
you
you
know,
laden
is
running
out
of
environmental
capacity
in
lots
of
ways
if
it's
going
to
remain
in
in
moderate
status.
D
We're
in
a
position
now
is
even
if
they
upgrade
the
sewage
treatment
works
of
beijing
stoke
to
best
available
technology.
We're
going
to
be
struggling
with
the
current
proposals
for
housing
in
that
area.
Fundamentally-
and
I
think
it
just
shows
that
basically
the
modern-
even
though
it's
been
you
know,
a
high
quality
chalk,
river
warranty
and
special
protection
is
basically
now
is
proposed
that
it
goes
into
derogation,
which
I
think
is
just
shows
where
we're
going
with
with
housing.
D
It's
just
everything's
going
downhill
and
the
order
framework
is
just
documenting,
what's
happening
reality
rather
than
being
shown
as
any
real
targets
or
what
have
you?
It
really
is
quite
appalling,
and
so
the
trouble
with
that
now
is
that
we've
run
out
of
capacity
in
the
loddon.
Now
in
lots
of
ways
are
we
now
going
to
do
the
same
to
the
test
and
that's
the
big
question,
because
that's
where
we
seem
to
be
going
now:
5
500
homes,
well
that
compares
to
about
whole
white
churches
about
2
600
homes
of
that
order.
D
So
in
that
catchment
we're
going
to
be
putting
a
large
number
of
hoses,
including
poplars,
we
discussed
and
it's
going
to
produce.
I
I
know
there's
some
discussion
about
alternatives,
but
even
if
popham
has
its
own
water
treatment
works,
it's
still
going
to
end
up
going
into
the
aquifer
in
the
in
the
test
valley
anyway.
D
So
we're
ending
up
with
a
lot
more
sewage
effluent
going
into
the
sewage
treatment
works
and
then
into
the
chalk
aquifer
and
that's
the
issue
we've
mentioned
I'll
call
it
lerp,
because
it's
a
big
leveling
up
and
regeneration
bill,
but
basically
it
sounds
great
and
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
good
stuff
there,
but
it's
all
basically
linked
through
to
natural
england's
advice.
D
And
basically,
if
you
look
at
that,
the
test
and
the
itching
only
are
included
within
that.
So
it
doesn't
affect
a
lot
in
whatsoever
and
the
biggest
problem
we've
got
is
for
some
unknown
reason.
Phosphate
has
been
excluded
from
the
nutrients,
so
it's
only
nitrate.
This
is
going
to
affect
in
the
test
and
phosphate
is
the
one
thing
which
will
kill
the
test.
Not
nitrates.
Nitrates
only
affect
the
solent
and
what
have
you
and
we
can
understand
they
want
protecting,
but
there
is
no
protection
in
the
for
the
to
test
really
at
all
other.
D
You
know,
nitrates
aren't
really
a
worry
use,
the
phosphates
that
are
going
to
kill
the
kiln
and,
as
you
can
see,
if
I
go
in,
there's
there's
the
catchment.
So
basically
the
southern
part
we've
got
five
well.
Five
sewage
stream
was
four
which
are
really
mentioned
in
the
water
cycle
study.
D
The
two
are
upstream
of
of
the
river
and
they've
got
very
long
flow
paths,
so
they
they
just
affect
the
aquifer,
that's
all
really
the
ones
to
the
top
north
but
overton
and
which
church
the
two
principal
suturing
works,
but
they
discharge
not
into
the
river
like
the
modern
they
discharge
into
the
chalk.
In
fact,
all
forts
are
discharged
into
the.
D
I
remember
sitting
at
the
back
there
and
being
told
that
basically,
sewage
works
didn't
really
contribute
much
to
to
to
to
nutrient
problems
in
the
in
the
test
valley.
Well,
I
I
I
could
give
you
all
the
technical
details,
but
why
the
devil,
then,
are
they
really
now
considering
all
this
lure?
But
why
are
they
considering
natural
england
doing
all
this
work
on
on
new
trade
neutrality
and
extending
their
phosphates?
If
that
was
true
that
they
didn't
have
any
impact,
why
are
they
doing
that?
That's
that's
the
simple
answer.
D
The
ecological
test
at
the
moment
condition
it's
really.
As
you
know,
it's
it's
it's
a
very,
very
pleasant
river.
It's
a
very
beautiful
river.
It
features
on
tele
is
one
of
the
top
current
in
the
country.
It's
one
of
12
chalk
streams
protected
as
ssi.
That's
only
15
of
the
total.
The
the
itching
is
additionally
a
sac.
What
you
call
sac,
it's
a
special
special
area
of
conservation
and
it
has
some
salmon
in
it,
and
things
like
that.
D
It's
only
one
of
six
streams,
in
fact
the
the
the
support
salmon.
So
it's
the
the
fishing
in
there
is
world
renowned
and
really
it's
it's
still
in
a
position
where
it's
one
of
the
most
species-rich
rivers
in
the
country.
So
it's
wonderful
in
that
respect,
but
we're
starting
to
see
things
creeping
on
the
edge
now
we're
starting
to
see
signs
of
illness
creeping
in,
shall
we
in
decay
and
also
I'm
talking
about
quality
here,
but
also
it's
very,
very
important,
particularly
in
the
headwaters.
D
If
we're
going
to
have
salmon
coming
up
from
the
from
the
sea,
there
has
to
be
flow
in
the
river
and
that's
a
big
problem
as
well.
We've
got
and
the
flow
the
mouth
of
the
of
the
test
also
supplies
the
the
itching
as
well.
So
if
the
water
doesn't
come
down
the
test,
the
salmon
can't
get
up
the
itching.
Basically
here's
just
an
example
of
some
of
the
problems
we're
starting
to
see.
Now
it's
called
filamentous
algae.
D
It
starts
to
smother
some
of
our
gravel
beds
and
other
things
are
happening
and
what
I've
done
throughout
this
presentation
you'll
see
a
little
box
there
with
some
orange
text
in
it
there's
areas.
Basically,
it
quotes
from
the
from
the
water
cycle
study.
We
agree
with
many
of
the
quotes
that
are
in
there.
It's
just
some
of
the
approaches,
we're
not
too
happy
about,
but
you
can
see
that
only
18
of
the
habitats
in
the
test
now
are
considered
favorable.
D
I
am
now
going
to
go
into
a
little
bit
of
science
because
I
think
I
want
you
to
understand
this.
I
know
it's
probably
a
bit
boring
and
what
have
you
but
I'd
like
to
go
into
because
it
underpins
what
I'm
going
to
tell
you.
If
we
have
a
look-
and
I've
mentioned
here-
that
we've
got
our
wastewater
treatment
works
and
they
they
all
go
into
the
chalk
aquifer.
D
We've
got
one
very
positive
thing
about
that,
is
they,
it
all
has
what
they
call
an
unsaturated
zone,
which
is
a
bit
above
the
water
table
and
that
actually
helps
a
bit
believe
it
or
not.
It
actually
takes
out
some
of
the
nitrate
in
the
process,
which
is
very,
very
helpful.
It
denitrifies
it
basically
and
it
ends
up
with
nitrogen
and
so
that
unsaturated
zone
is
very
important
and
most
of
the
water
treatment
works.
D
D
The
water
cycle
study
suggests
that,
for
which
church
is
1.8,
kilometers
flow
path,
but
we've
got
some
evidence
to
show
it's
considerably
shorter
than
that
now
overturn
is
a
couple
of
hundred
meters
or
so,
but
the
other
ones
which
are
up
up
above
the
headwaters
have
got
many
kilometers
and
fundamentally
anything
we
put
in
those
ends
up
and
stays
in
the
aquifer.
It
doesn't
go
anywhere
fundamentally
in
terms
of
the
way
that
the
chalk
has
been
used
over
the
years.
It
has
been
received
all
this
sewage
treatment.
D
Originally
it
didn't
even
have
any
treatment
in
place.
You
know
they
they
didn't
have
any.
If
you
look
back
in
the
records,
but
now
they've
filled
simple
filter
beds,
but
the
technology
in
most
of
the
sort
of
sewage
treatment
works
is
really
rudimentary
compared
to
some.
What
happens
is
once
this
has
gone
through
the
unsaturated
zone
and
down
into
the
the
chalk
I'm
taking
two
two
particular
nutrients
here,
that's
nitrates
and
phosphates.
They
act
differently,
the
nitrates.
D
What
they
do
is
they
soak
into
the
short
blocks,
because
basically,
the
aquifer
is
like
a
series
of
sponges
with
gaps
in
between
and
it
soaks
in
nitrate,
just
soaks
into
these
short
blocks
and
it's
held
in
there,
which
is
nice.
The
phosphate
actually
adheres
to
the
outside.
So
there's
two
totally
different
mechanisms
in
play
here,
and
this
is
important
in
that
as
you,
I
just
go
back
a
slide
as
you
go
down
the
plume
the,
because
the
contamination
is
soaked
in
and
absorbed
on
on
the
chalk.
D
Basically,
the
water
continues
flow,
but
the
contamination
front
just
moves
very
much
much
more
slowly
and
eventually,
it'll
go
through
and
it'll
reach.
What
I
call
a
breakthrough
condition.
It
exceeds
the
capacity
of
the
aqueous
tool
to
absorb
these
things,
and
so
it
then
breaks
through
into
the
river
or
to
the
springs.
Or
what
have
you
so
I'm
just
summarizing
here.
You
can
see
that
the
the
other
point,
though,
is
the
volume
of
water
in
the
chalk.
Blocks
is
very
great.
Indeed
it's
about
30
times
that
in
the
mobile
water.
D
So
there's
a
lot
of
capacity
there
for
it
to
absorb
nitrate
and
and
really
we're
getting
to
position
now,
where
some
of
these,
even
that
are
100
meters
or
kilometers
away
from
the
river,
the
capacity
of
those
aquifers
to
absorb
all
that
contamination
is
being
exceeded.
Fundamentally,
that's
the
problem.
We
have
right
quickly
go
into
now
why
this
standstill
method
that
was
used
in
the
watercycle
study
that
the
trouble
with
that
is
it's
great.
D
Firstly,
it
assumes
that
what
we're
doing
now
is
totally
acceptable,
but,
as
I've
explained
to
you,
there's
the
aquifers
soaking
this
up
and
it's
like
having
a
big
bucket.
You
continually
pour
any
contamination
in
and
at
some
point
it's
going
to
overflow
and
then,
when
it
overflows,
you've
got
a
problem,
but
while
you're
filling
that
button
bucket
up
you're
thinking-
oh
this
is
nice.
We
haven't
got
any
problems
here
whatsoever,
so
we
have
this
this
issue,
but
if
I
go
through
them,
there's
a
number
of
assumptions
that
aren't
aren't
aren't
being
on
correct.
D
Actually,
firstly,
well.
The
second
point
down
is
the
capacity
check
the
river
will
not
be
exceeded.
Well,
it's
getting
to
that
point
now.
The
additional
flow
capacity
will
not
be
used
before
the
wastewater
treatment
plants
will
be
upgraded.
That's
another
issue.
If
you
look
at
the
current
consents,
the
sandsew
method
is
assumed
on
current
flows,
but
there's
still
some
capacity
for
which
church
is
about
25
now.
D
Clearly,
if
we
put
25
percent
more
through,
we've
got
more
contamination
going
in,
so
it's
not
stand
still,
it
really
isn't
and
the
also
there's
a
I'll
go
through.
There's
an
increased
hydraulic
flow
will
have
no
impact
on
contamination,
but
that's
not
correct
either
and-
and
this
really
comes
down
to
mobilization
of
the
contamination
that's
already
stored
in
there
are
going
to
have
a
minute
and
the
other
thing
is
they
do
this
wonderful
thing
where
they
include
bods
within
the
consent
limits,
but
one
of
the
worst
things
you
can
possibly
do.
D
Under
these
circumstances
is
possibly
reduce
the
bod
loading,
because
that's
the
thing
that
takes
helps
to
take
the
nutrient
out
in
the
first
place,
so
it's
not
properly
thought
through.
Frankly,
if
I
go
for
nitrates
and
what
have
you
because
just
to
explain
the
situation,
you've
got
all
these
blocks
full
of
nitrates.
D
You've
been
pushing
contaminated
water
through
for
decades,
and
it's
reached
equilibrium
with
this
chalk.
You've
got
the
same
concentration
and
short
blocks
as
you
have
in
the
in
the
in
the
water
flowing
through
it.
If
suddenly,
you
decide
to
put
a
lower
concentration
but
more
water
through
what
will
happen
is
that
more
water
going
through
will
actually
come
in
equilibrium
with
the
chalk.
D
Therefore,
the
the
flux
making
reaching
the
river,
which
we
will
be
much
higher-
and
this
is
the
problem
we
have
so
even
if
we
treat
water
down
to
the
I've,
got
three
things.
Three
little
curves
there,
the
water
cycle
study
stands
still.
We
are
going
to
get
a
big
slug
of
nitrates
going
to
the
river
for
a
a
period
of
time.
D
D
Admittedly,
if
we
get
to
10
milligrams
per
liter
on
the
the
herb
that
will
help
tremendously
in
reducing
it,
but
that's
not
legislation
yet,
and
we
don't
know
whether
it's
going
ahead,
but
that's
the
position
and
looking
at
the
impact.
The
quick
question
is
so
what
you
know.
D
D
I
think
we
talked
about
dual
porosity
modelling
and
everything
else,
but
basically
it's
quite
simple
to
run
these
sorts
of
calculations
using
a
dual
porosity
model,
and
it's
probably
something
that
ought
to
be
done
at
some
stage
actually
to
have
a
look
at
it
and
the
key
thing
problem
we've
got
here.
This
isn't
about.
You
know
simple
technology.
This
is
you've
got
to
resolve
this.
You
know.
One
thing
we
can
do
is
put
the.
D
For
example,
the
water
treatment
works,
an
entirely
different
place
and
a
new
treatment
works,
but
without
doing
something
like
that,
it's
much
more
difficult
to
actually
resolve
this
problem.
It
really
is
phosphates,
well,
they're
the
they're,
the
killer,
basically
the
same
with
the
laden
and
it's
the
same
with
the
test.
Phosphates
are
really
really
nasty
things
and
you
can
see
there
the
test.
This
is
a
quote
directly
from
the
water
cycle
study.
The
test
is
very
species-rich,
which
is
considered
to
be
particularly
sensitive
to
phosphate
pollution
and
that's
absolutely
correct.
It
really
is.
D
And
it's
suggesting
there
that
there
there
is
potential
for
sewage
effluent
to
reach
the
s
triple
s
I
via
the
groundwater
baseball.
So
we
agree
with
that
entirely
now.
The
issue
again
is
very
much
the
same
phosphates
as
nitrates.
Either
you
have
breakthrough
or
you
can
get
remember
mobilization
or
you
can
get
both
and
the
big
problem
you've
got
with
phosphates.
D
Is
the
levels
required
to
cause
a
problem
are
much
much
lower
than
nitrates,
they're
way
down
in
the
micrograms
per
liter,
rather
than
the
milligrams
per
liter
at
about
150th
of
the
nitrate
concentration,
the
phosphate
starting
causing
problems.
So
this
is
the
big
issue
we've
got
and
you
can
see
there
that
really
it
was
mentioned
that
agriculture
was
causing
all
these
problems.
Well,
no
hang
on.
D
The
reality
is
that
the
phosphate
in
from
agriculture
gets
absorbed
in
the
root
zones
and
the
soils
and
everything
else
and
very
little
of
it
ends
up
in
the
river
from
agriculture,
whereas
the
flow
paths
from
the
soil
treatment
works
are
much
shorter,
they'll
get
then
completely
saturated
in
these
things,
and
they
will
cause
problems.
So,
no
I'm
sorry
phosphate
from
sewage
treatment
works
is
a
real
problem
in
this
area.
It
really
is,
and
and
so
once
again
that
that
again
read
the
the
the
orange.
D
Can
you
see
that
on
the
screens
at
all,
that's
again
the
water
cycle
study?
Can
you
read
it
all
or
not?
No,
it's
not
very
good
okay,
but
they.
They
do
admit
that
there's
a
admit
all
that
I've
said
that
it
has
a
limited
capacity
and
that
once
that
capacity
is
exceeded,
it
will
dissolve
and
get
in
the
stream.
So
it
says
that
and
and
really
looking
at
the
numbers,
I've
done
some
calculations,
but
basically
somewhere
between
one
and
two
hundred
tons
of
phosphate
have
gone
through
the
water
and
works
over
the
years.
D
A
lot
of
it
has
ended
up
being
held
up
in
the
in
the
chalk
and
that
compares
to
about
2.5
tons
per
year
going
down
the
river.
So
it's
a
big
number
that's
held
up
there
in
talk
and-
and
I
will
then
go
on
to
show
you
what's
happening
now-
we've
looked
at
the
locations
where
this
is
now
coming
out.
D
The
water
cycle
study
assumes
that
the
water
goes
down
the
hydraulic
radiation,
but
I
think
we've
found
out
where
it
actually
does
go
and
it
follows
probably
a
lineation
of
a
dry
valley
route
and
you
can
see
here
it's
only
500
rather
than
1.8
kilometers
away.
So
it's
a
much
shorter
area
or
length
for
it
to
to
absorb,
and
if
we
look
there's
the
spring
where
this
is
coming
out
now,
that
is
really
nasty.
Eutrophication,
that's
awful
stuff!
D
That's
you
don't
want
that
in
your
river,
but
that
is
now
going
into
the
test
that
is
going
to
test.
We've
done
some
tests
on
it
and
basically
it's
high
in
phosphates,
and
we
want
to
get
some
proper
water
samples,
but
that
is
literally
at
the
end
of
that
500
meters
thing
and
that's,
what's
actually
ending
up
going
in
the
river
now,
so
we
are
showing
signs
now
that
phosphates
are
breaking
through
breakthroughs
occurred
there
and
the
last
thing
we
want
is
is
for
that
to
occur.
D
The
other
thing
is
that
if
we
put
a
new
treatment
process
in
place
on
the
water
waste
horse,
treatment
works
that
inevitably
the
process
will
involve
changes
in
process
changes
in
volumes
changes
in
bods,
and
it's
found
that
phosphates
are
particularly
sensitive
to
those
changes.
So
if
those
changes
occur,
it
is
quite
it's
very
very
likely.
It
will
happen
that
the
phosphate
will
be
mobilized
and
if
again,
like
the
nitrates,
we
could
end
up
with
a
big
slug
of
phosphates
ending
up
in
our
river.
O
D
And
I'll
go
to
this,
because
this
is
important.
You
know
all
this
is
highly
technical
stuff,
but
the
precautionary
principle
really
applies
here.
The
is
enshrined
in
uk
law,
particularly
for
environmental
issues,
and
really
it
puts
the
onus
on
people
who
are
passing
plans
and
things
like
that
to
show
that
there
is
going
to
be
no
impact,
rather
than
the
other
way
around
it's
as
simple
as
that,
it
really
is,
and-
and
at
the
moment
we've
got
nothing
to
show,
there's
going
to
be
no
impact,
we've
got
no
scientific
evidence.
D
D
I
just
put
that
quote
in
the
bottom,
because
that
worries
me
extensively.
The
groundwater
body
is
extensive
and
establishing
and
establishing.
If
the
soils
have
reached
the
saturation
level
of
stored
phosphorus
would
require
extensive
surveys
and
interpretation.
Okay.
Well,
you
know
it'll
take
a
little
effort,
but
then
he
goes
on
to
say
linking
the
impact
directly
strokes
solely
to
the
increased
waste
water
treatment.
Workflows
would
likely
be
inconclusive,
though,
given
the
extent
of
the
water
body
and
therefore
other
influencing
factors.
D
I
don't
quite
sure
what
is
about
that,
but
it
does
seem
to
be
saying
well
if
this
does
occur.
We
can't
really
blame
the
water
companies,
and
that
really
worries
me.
That's
not
in
the
spirit
of
the
precautionary
principle
at
all,
and
I'm
really
concerned
about
that
as
something
that
shouldn't
be
into
that
document.
D
So
we've
gone
through
that
I've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
and
I
don't
think
I'm
willing
to
go
into
in
detail,
but
I
have
pointed
out
here
that
basically,
the
phosphates
could
be
mobilized
and
if
that
happens,
it's
going
to
be
a
really
significant
impact
and
that,
at
the
moment,
since
we
haven't
got
a
phosphate
limit
for
for
which
verge
in
particular,
there
is
one
for
overton
we
haven't
got
one
for,
for
which
church
no
assessment
was
made
in
the
right
way.
D
Motorcycle
study
at
all,
they
didn't
propose
any
limit
and
they're
saying
well.
This
is
something
that
southern
water
ought
to
look
at
in
detail
themselves,
but
we've
talked
about
it
tonight.
Would
we
want
southern
water
actually
marking
their
home
homework?
Here?
It's
going
to
require
a
big
investment
it'd,
be
a
huge
impact.
If
something
goes
wrong
here,
do
we
really
really
want
them
doing
it,
and
they
also
say
that
it
should
be
investigated
before
significant
new
growth
is
permitted
in
the
catchment?
Well,
this
is
the
time
it
should
be
done.
D
We
should
be
understanding
this
now,
not
you
know
it's
no
good
proposing
that
we're
going
to
put
5000
homes
there,
including
in
that
special
strategy
and
then
at
some
point
saying:
oh,
we
can't
build
them
there.
That's
that's,
that's
going
to
be
nonsense,
isn't
it
really?
So
it
really
needs
to
be
done
at
this
stage
I'll
go
into
this
one.
The
other
big
area
which
is
excluded
from
the
water
cycle
study,
is
around
priority
substances.
D
It
doesn't
cost
much
to
pollute
things,
but
it
costs
a
lot
of
money
to
clean
them
up
and
that's
a
big
issue
and
the
other
big
problem
with
the
chalk
is
once
the
effects
of
all.
This
is
seen
it's
too
late
to
do
anything
about
it.
It's
infeasible,
it's
it's
too
costly
and
it's
not
technically
achievable.
So
we
have
a
real
issue
here
in
terms
of
by
the
time
the
effects
seen
particularly
as
you've
got
now
a
three-year
monitoring
cycle
and
then
a
five-year
amp
cycle.
D
Well,
when
when
are
things
going
to
get
done,
it's
a
real
problem?
Isn't
it?
I
won't
go
into
them
in
more
detail.
I
know
that
the
government
are
looking
at
trying
to
control
these
things
at
source,
but
the
reality
is
they're
going
out
in
the
sewerage
effort
at
the
moment,
they're
being
accumulated
and
we're
just
going
to
see
more
of
those
being
acclimated.
In
short,
if
we
put
more
sewage
effluent
through
it's
as
simple
as
that
I'll
go
through
quickly,
then
on
availability
of
water.
D
Well,
I
think
it's
the
watercycle
study
says
it
all
doesn't
and
we've
all
talked
about
it
tonight.
We've
got
problems
simple
as
that:
it's
not
it's
not
an
issue.
The
a
lot
of
it
is
noticed
in
all
cycle,
serious
studies
theoretical
and
that
worries
me
once
people
say
things
are
theoretical,
it
means
yeah.
You
can
do
it
in
theory,
but
there's
absolutely
no
chance
of
being
carrying
practice.
You
know
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
that.
D
I
won't
go
into
the
detail,
but
until
you
know,
we've
got
that
there's
this
temporary
use
span
going
on
and
you
can
see
there
there's
the
southern
water
position,
which
includes
that's
what
confirms
that
really
they
can't
supply
sufficient
water
in
a
drought
situation
number
one
they
haven't
got
enough
in
the
southern
water
zone
and
that
basically,
until
then
we're
going
to
get
these
host
pipe
bands
and
and
and
drought
as
orders
in
place,
and
it's
it's
going
to
be
problematic.
You
know
for
the
test
they're
already
taking
out.
D
Well
we'll
go
into
that.
I
think
actually
and
although
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
southern
waters,
securing
or
alternative
supplies,
the
reality
is,
there's
nothing
really
hard
and
fast.
I
agree
you
know
I
was
talking
to
somebody
again
about
desalination.
That's
great,
but
are
we
going
to
actually
pay
for
desalination?
What
are
these
current
power
prices?
That's
one
of
the
power
hungriest
processes.
We've
got.
You
know
it's
just
going
to
be
totally
and
utterly
ridiculous.
D
When
gas
is,
you
know,
they've
got
to
have
a
power
supply
to
run
desalination
plants,
it's
going
to
be
extraordinarily
expensive,
so
we
have
a
real
issue
there.
So
there's
no
really
visible
route
out
of
all
this.
At
the
moment,
as
I
can
see,
and
we've
got
the
reality
in
2020-
and
I
think
that
says
it
all-
we've
we've
got
the
derogations
input.
Sorry,
the
we've
got
the
host
pipelines
in
place.
D
D
I
also
put
one
slide
up
there,
which
is
clearly
it's
probably
modest,
compared
to
the
rest
of
base
in
stokend,
but
there's
a
very,
very
significant
local
economy
around
the
test
in
terms
of
fishing
in
terms
of
tourism,
the
silk
mill
we've
got,
the
the
the
gin
distillery
down,
there
bombay
sapphire,
and
what
have
you
and
a
lot
of
it?
You
know
tourists
will
stand
on
witches
bridge,
looking
at
the
trout,
that's
all
they
do.
D
They
look
at
the
trout
and
they
throw
bread
in
to
see
what's
going
to
get
it
first,
the
ducks
or
the
traps.
It's
it's
on
our
town
symbol.
This
is
all
part
of
our
heritage,
and
unless
we
get
this
right,
we're
going
to
lose
it
all
frankly,
and
the
reality
is
unless
we
get
it
right
at
this
stage
now
before
we
start
saying:
well,
yes,
we'll
put
some
development
in
place
and
we
might
think
about
the
quality
issues
afterwards.
D
All
this
is
going
to
go,
there's
no
doubt
about
it
at
all,
and
of
course,
at
the
moment,
all
this
hand
is
in
the
hands
of
the
water
companies
I'll
just
flash
that
one,
but
southern
water
comes
out
at
one
star
rating.
According
to
the
environment
agency,
in
terms
of
our
environmental
protection,
thames
is
a
bit
better,
it's
a
two
star,
but
we're
you
know.
D
Are
we
really
going
to
put
the
hands
of
our
beautiful
barbara
and
all
these
places
in
the
hands
of
a
water
company
with
that
that
level
of
credibility?
Frankly,
and
if
we
look
at
the
quality
of
our
water
bodies,
we've
already
talked
about
the
derogation
for
the
lord.
I
don't
quite
that
that
leaves
us.
Perhaps
the
officers
can
can
answer
that.
One
really
you
know,
can
we
are
we?
Are
we
limited
to
keeping
it
moderate,
or
can
we
take
it
into
poor,
or
can
we
just
keep
on
polluting
it?
D
I
don't
know,
and
that's
an
interesting
point.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
and
the
basically
our
aquifer
is
going
to
continue
getting
polluted.
With
these
proposals
in
place.
There's
no
doubt
about
it.
They're
they're,
basically
saying
goodbye,
27
and
goodbye
2027
was
their
original
target,
is
now
good
by
2060..
Well,
what
are
they
doing?
There's
no
real
proposals
to
clean
it
up.
It's
just
kicking
the
can
down
the
road,
isn't
it
basically
and
and
the
ea
recognize
that
the
97
percent
of
the
flow
from
the
act
friends
up
in
the
river
anyway.
D
So
if
we
pollute
the
act
well,
you
know
the
test
is
going
to
go,
isn't
it
frankly
and
the
other
thing
is
really
over.
It
is
the
failure
to
include
phosphate
in
that
natural
england
guidance
shows
lack
of
any
commitment
to
the
river
whatsoever,
and
that's
that's
a
document
produced
by
the
environment
agency
in
natural
england,
and
that
really
worries
me.
You
know
it's
only
one
of
three
three
rivers
not
to
have
phosphate
and
why
haven't
they
included
it?
I
have
no
idea
whatsoever.
D
It's
a
triple
si.
It's
one
of
the
fifteen
percent
of
australia's
size.
Why
have
they
not
included
phosphate,
they
weren't
there.
Unfortunately,
they
didn't
come
to
the
meeting
on
the
23rd
when
they
were
invited
everybody
they
couldn't.
They
couldn't
manage
it
for
some
reason
or
other
lab
availability
of
staff
whatever,
but
we
wanted
to
ask
those
questions
very
important
questions,
but
they
weren't
available
and
and
and
as
I
mentioned,
the
point
of
the
bottom
is
is
once
problems
occur
is
too
late
because
the
water's
in
the
aquifer
already
there's
lots
of
it.
D
It's
not
going
to
be
possible
to
clean
up
the
aquifer
to
protect
the
river.
It's
just
not
technically
feasible,
so
we
can
say
goodbye
to
it
frankly
and
then
the
last
one
is
deliverability,
I
think.
Well,
we
looked
at
the
programs
contained
in
the
watercycle
study.
There's
a
lot
there
and
I
noticed
the
the
the
other
report
from
from
stanford
came
through.
It
has
exactly
the
same
conclusion
here.
This
is
all
you
know,
no
chance
of
this
being
actually
delivered
in
principle
in
in
reality.
D
It's
it's
great.
It
looks
great,
but
they're
not
going
to
deliver
all
of
this,
and
and
basically
we're
going
to
end
up
paying
the
price.
Frankly,
and-
and
this
is
in
fact
a
comment
from
the
inspector
from
the
the
existing
plan
and
it
still
states
today,
you
know
we
need
some
clarities
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
local
plan
is
deliverable
at
an
environmentally
acceptable
standard.
We
haven't
got
that
in
the
wall
cycle
study
at
all,
it
doesn't
occur,
and
these
sorts
of
comments
from
the
war
cycle
study
worry
me.
D
Nitrate
improvements
identified
by
the
water
cycle
stay
a
future
business
case
by
southern
water
to
off
what
would
be
needed
to
secure
this
as
a
long-term
investment.
So
in
other
words
where
it
comes
to
nitrate
improvements,
for
example.
Well,
that's
that's
some
way,
long
down
road
once
we've
built
lots
of
houses
and
it's
a
perhaps
might
occur
aspiration
fundamentally
that
comes
across
and
it
does
worry
me.
D
D
D
You
know,
I
think,
basically,
we
ought
to
be
protecting
our
environment
rather
than
fundamentally
sitting
down
and
saying
well
we're
going
to
facilitate
lots
of
houses
and
we're
going
to
allow
southern
water
to
treat
the
water,
but
not
to
a
standard
which
will
protect
our
environment
and
that's
where
at
the
moment,
I
would
ask
perhaps
the
committee
here
and
the
officers
to
consider
how
we
can
improve
that
in
the
local
plan,
because
the
moment
it's
all
about
providing
capacity
and
very
little
about
protecting
the
environment.
It
really
is.
D
Yeah,
I
think
I've
covered
that
before
I
go
into
the
workplace.
I'd
like
to
really
just
put
some
clue
concluding
marks
my
right
hand,
sorry
council's
possible.
D
I
think
I
got
some
sort
of
summary
here,
which
is
phosphates,
which
wastewater
treatment
works,
contributes
significantly
to
are
the
limiting
nutrient
to
our
rivers,
it's
true
of
the
laden
and
and
the
test
and
the
itching
as
well
london's
already
reaching
its
environmental
capacity.
Unless
new
technology
to
remove
phosphates
is
implemented.
That's
that's
clear.
The
test
chalk
has
protected
the
rivers
against
wastewater
treatment
works
for
many
decades.
It
has
it's
soaked
it
all
up
nicely
for
us.
D
The
assessments
in
the
wastewater
in
the
cycle
study
ignore
the
aquifer
and
assume,
falsely
that
it
will
continue
to
soak
up
the
contamination
of
the
future.
It
won't
do
that.
D
The
test
is
on
the
edge
it's
already,
showing
signs
of
capacity
being
reached
for
these
soaking
up
and
and
breakthrough
occurring
in
some
areas.
The
proposed
changes
result
in
mobilization
of
contaminants
as
well,
both
in
terms
of
chemistry
and
in
terms
of
flow.
It's
not
clear.
There
will
be
an
easier
technical
fix
of
these
problems.
If
we
start
doing
that,
you
know.
I
think
the
water
cycle
study
goes
a
long
way
to
suggesting
whether
all
this
can
be
fixed.
D
Technically,
no
you've
got
to
look
at
this
in
detail
and
there's
not
easy
fixes
to
this,
and
and
that
there
appears
to
be
no
commitment
to
protecting
the
test.
I'm
afraid
that
comes
from
from
lerp
and
the
natural
linked
and
stuff,
and
and
also
we
haven't,
got
a
policy
for
the
test.
We've
got
one
for
the
loddon,
but
why
haven't
we
got
one
for
the
test?
It
seems
very
odd.
D
The
emphasis
on
the
recommendation
seems
to
be
towards
providing
flow
capacity
rather
than
protecting
the
environment.
It's
all
about
that
and
that's
where
prepared
lies,
particularly
comments.
I'm
very
worried
about
the
comments
about
using
the
head
room.
There's
there's.
Basically,
the
water
cycle
study
states
that,
for
the
oldest
treatment
works,
if
you
use
that
additional
head
room
they're
not
designed,
basically
there's
no
guarantee
that
the
water
framework
directive
targets
will
be
met.
Yet
we're
going
well
if
there's
room
headroom
available,
we'll
use
that.
D
Certainly,
if
we
look
at,
for
example,
for
the
test
we've
currently
got
a
limit
of
phosphate
to
go
from
high
to
good
of
42
in
the
test
at
the
moment
is
39,
so
we
need
that
much
extra
25
additional
capacity
would
blow
us
through
that
completely
absolutely
it's
easiest
part
so,
and
that
clearly
comes
down
to
what
was
it
policy
ss4?
Are
we
going
to
use
that
to
stop
development?
I
hope
so
because
that's
what
it
says
in
our
local
plan,
we
can
do
that,
but
that's
going
to
take.
D
D
The
if
we
also
look
at
the
we've
talked
about
them
there
by
the
way
go
into
that
the
southern
water
plans
involved.
If
you
look
at
their
plans
for
investment,
it's
clear
what
they're
going
to
do
is:
is
they
they've
included
investment?
These
are
the
plans
that
are
going
through
consultation
at
the
moment,
a
lot
of
them
in
detail,
there's
lots
of
money
in
there
1.25
million
for
increased
capacity,
but
nothing
about
increased
treatment
again,
which
just
underlines
this
problem.
We
want
to
put
more
through
there,
but
we
don't
want
to
increase
treatment
capacity.
D
It
does
say
there's
some
money
in
there
for
studying
the
the
nutrient
balance,
but
well,
I'm
afraid
that's
not
much
help
really
I'm.
I
was
a
consultant
all
my
life
and
frankly,
if
I
didn't
want
to
do
something
or
a
client
didn't
want
to
do
it,
it
studied
it.
Basically,
I'm
afraid.
That's
so
that
way
of
doing
things.
So,
there's
no
real
commitment
there
and
and
the
upgrades
to
improve
capacity,
just
improved
treatment
are
described
as
long-term
investments.
D
Other
others
agree
that
there
are
grounds
for
doubt
that
the
water
company
programs
to
deliver
the
infrastructure
required
to
protect
the
environment
was
delivered
on
time
or
support
spatial
strategy.
We
we
can't
guarantee
that,
and
I
think
we've
had
another
study.
Independent
study
toes
agrees
entirely
with
that,
and
we
really.
I
would
like
to
see
us
being
stronger
on
the
water
companies.
We
really
need
to
put
quality
of
our
environment
before
delivering
the
houses.
D
I'm
sorry
about
that,
but
we
need
in
our
policy
to
actually
be
stronger
on
them
and
our
policies
need
to
be
stronger
on
them
to
deliver
quality
at
the
moment.
I
don't
see
that
I
really
don't,
and
the
final
comment
is,
unless
we
do
that
now,
all
the
tests
go
the
same
way
as
a
lot
and
we'll
lose
this
valuable
resource.
D
D
I
I
did
put
together
a
a
way
forward
because
I'm
we
want
to
be
constructive
here.
There
are
some
suggestions
there
and
I
thought
we
were
going
to
have
a
bit
of
debate
on
these.
But
you
know
some
of
these
again
have
been
really
can.
D
D
The
first
one
says:
reduction
in
the
total
number
of
homes
to
be
delivered
on
the
basis
of
inadequate
environmental
capacity
or
again
we're
talking
about
that,
and
not
only
that
the
calculation
methods,
I
think,
was
one
of
those
rethinking
the
spatial
strategy
to
place
less
demand
and
impact
on
those
areas,
most
vulnerable
to
water,
supply
and
wastewater
impacts,
and
I
noticed
the
other
independent
study
goes
on
to
say.
D
Well,
we
also
need
to
think
about
where
the
current
water
infrastructure
is
so
we
can
build
on
that
which
I
think
is
very,
very
sensible
as
well.
We
think
we
really
need
competent
scientific
assessments
of
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
changes
to
water
wastewater
treatment
works,
as
I've
suggested,
particularly
phosphates
before
committing
to
development
as
recommended.
D
I
think
we
really
need
to
do
that
to
consider
the
environmental
impact
of
utilizing
existing
flow
capacity
and
older
walls.
Treatment
works
as
the
water
cycle
study
clearly
states.
That
could
be
a
problem,
and
I
really,
if
I
was
doing
this
looking
at
the
possibilities
of
non-delivery
I'd,
be
doing
a
risk
assessment
and
on
delivery.
This
is
so
important
that
you
know
before
you
put
any
plan
in
place.
That's
that's
critical.
Like
this.
D
You
do
a
risk
assessment,
you
say
well,
you
know
if
we
couldn't
do
this
and
if
we
can't
do
that,
what
would
our
fallback
positions
be?
It's
very
sensible,
but
I
don't
see
anything
along
those
lines
at
all
in
terms
of
a
risk
assessment
and
I
think
there's
some
real
risks
of
non-delivery
of
this,
and
so
so
what
do
we
do?
Frankly?
D
I
I
think
we-
and
I
I
talked
to
simon
bound
about
this,
but
we
need
high-level
meetings
with
the
ea
to
fully
understand
their
position,
because,
particularly
over
over
the
natural
income
guidance
and
things
like
that,
we
need
to
fully
understand
that,
if
they're
written
off
the
test,
we
need
to
know
about
it.
We
really
do
you
know
if
that's
their
position,
because
at
the
moment
that's
the
way
it
seems
actually
the
inclusion
of,
in
the
local
plan,
of
a
policy
to
protect
the
test
parallel
to
the
london
one,
which
is
very
important.
D
The
implementation
of
strategic
granting
clauses
to
situations
where
water
companies
have
not
agreed
or
revised
discharge
standards
with
environment
agencies,
so
we
can
ensure
that
the
quality
is
there
before
we
build
the
housing,
and
I
think
we
need
to
lobby
of
government
natural
england
to
extend
intent,
enhance
phosphate
treatment
to
the
test.
D
West
water
treatment
marks
under
the
pros
proposal
association-
and
I
think,
that's
very
important-
also
given
basically
our
potentially
new
prime
minister's
recent
comments
on
being
harder
on
the
wastewater
treatment
companies
and
protecting
actual
streams.
If
she
wants
to
protect
one
well,
we're
we're
one
of
the
top
15
in
the
country
here,
so
she's
got
to
to
actually
live
up
to
that.
So
those
are
my
suggestions
in
terms
of
possible
ways
for
them.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
george.
That
was
the
most
welcome
and
I
think
the
committee
will
thank
you.
The
committee
we're
very
grateful
for
for
your
input.
I
now
want
to
go
through
a
quick
questions.
Okay,.
A
No,
no
one
per
member
okay
and
then,
if
I've
got
time
going
forward,
okay,
then
we'll
we'll
continue
so
council
tomlin.
Please.
G
Swing,
thank
you,
chair
david,
thank
you.
That
was
incredibly
informative
and
I
think
the
borough
owes
you
a
great
debt
that
information.
Yes,
exactly
it's
a
pivotal
moment.
I
think
we
can
totally
ignore
what
you've
said
or
we
embrace
it,
and
we
do
something
about
it,
and
I
don't
know
what
I
can
do
other
than
support
that
we
do
do
something
about
it,
but
I
wouldn't
say
I'm
now
a
hydrologist
at
all,
but
my
goodness
may
do.
G
I
understand
a
lot
more
than
I
did
before
I
came
into
this
building,
so
I
think
we
must
implore
the
portfolio
holder
through
to
the
leader
to
talk
to
government.
We've
got
to
have
those
conversations,
and
one
little
question
is:
was
everything
that
you
presented
available
to
acom?
What
is
it
outside
of
their?
G
D
Sorry,
thank
you
very
good
question.
I
think
the
what
cycle
study
did
what
it
did
and
the
level
of
detail.
I
must
admit,
for
the
test
for
the
modern.
It
was
quite
a
good
modeling
exercise,
you
know
and
they
went
through
things
and
things
aren't
perfect
in
any
way,
but
you
know
at
least
they
did
try
and
quantify
the
the
impacts.
And
what
have
you
I
think
for
the
test.
D
Given
the
delay,
should
we
say
being
able
to
see
the
motorcycle
study?
Well,
it
was
frankly
quite
quite
basic.
Now
they
would
argue.
D
That's
that's
the
stance
that
they
agree
with
the
environment
agency
and
it's
the
one
that
is
sometimes
used,
but
I
think
in
general
you
know
and
probably
what
I've
gone
into
is
is
in
detail
and
I'm
a
hydrogeologist,
and
I
understand
these
things
you
know,
but
in
general,
if
you
look
at
much
of
the
work
that
the
environment
agency
and
natural
england
do,
the
the
geology
and
the
hydrogeology
is
ignored,
it
is
ignored,
and
this
is
a
big
problem.
You
know
it
even
comes
through
the
natural
england
guidance
on
on
all
this.
D
The
housing
offset.
You
know
if
they
took
the
geology
and
hydrogeology
into
account,
particularly
the
ability
to
denitrify
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
We
wouldn't
have
the
level
of
offsets
that
we've
got,
but
in
general
I'm
afraid
that
the
the
geology
and
what
have
you
just
ignored,
I'm
afraid
and
and
that's
that's
the
reality
of
the
situation
so
econ
will
probably
argue.
Well,
we
weren't
weren't
required
to
go
into
that
level
of
detail
at
this
stage,
but
I
think
possibly,
hopefully,
I've
demonstrated
tonight.
D
It
is
a
fundamental
issue
and
it
is
something
that
should
have
should
be
taken
into
account
in
these
sorts
of
things.
Under
the
circumstances
where
water
is
discharged
to
the
ground,
water
and
off
to
the
aquifers
where
it
discharges
the
rivers
standstill,
calculation
is
perfectly
valid
because
it's
a
one-dimensional
thing,
but
when
you've
got
this
storage
store
contamination
in
place
and
and
there's
all
this
interaction,
it
just
doesn't
work.
I'm
afraid
it's
as
simple
as
that.
A
Thank
you,
mr
george.
Okay,
councilman
cormac,
please.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
and,
and
thank
you
david
for
her
most
informative
presentation.
I'm
still
trying
to
get
my
head
around
the
concept
of
an
aquifer.
That's
like
a
giant
sponge
absorbing
all
these
various
chemical
substances.
Basically,
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
about
phosphates
and
green
algae.
H
Now
my
understanding
and
the
police
question.
If
I'm
wrong
is
that
phosphate
pollution,
the
majority
of
that
is
agricultural
based
pollution,
although
some
of
that
might
be
human
settlement
pollution
as
well.
How
do
we
mitigate
against
that?
H
I'm
thinking?
We
should
have
some
kind
of
reference
to
that
in
the
local
plan,
because
it
looks
like
the
the
test
is
potentially
teetering
on
the
brink
as
a
result
of
a
threat
from
phosphates.
That
doesn't
seem
to
be
in
any
of
our
planning
policies
at
the
moment
and
and
similarly
with
green
algae,
I
mean
how
do
we
mitigate
against
that
is?
Is
there
any
looking
at
what
we've
declared
in
ecological
emergencies,
and
then
we
can
do
in
terms
of
the
ecosystem
to
introduce
new
species
that
could
consume.
M
H
D
Well,
thank
you
for
that
question.
If
I
take
the
last
one
first,
because
that's
an
easy
one,
I'm
sorry
I'm
not
an
expert
in
the
field,
but
I
know
we
have
people
fundamentally
who
who
are
itching
destination
association
people
like
that's
very
some
very
strong
groups,
chalk
stream
alliance
and
things
like
that.
Who
would
maybe
be
able
to
answer
those
questions
and
they've
got
good
expertise
in
those
areas,
but
I
personally
wouldn't
deem
to
to
answer
that
question.
Unfortunately,
it's
not
my
area
in
terms
of
the
importance
of
phosphates.
D
You
are
correct.
I
did
some
calculations
to
have
a
look
at
that.
You
know
the
normal
bag
of
fertilizer
is
is
amazing,
mainly
mainly
basically
nitrate
fertilizer,
but
it
does
have
about.
I
I
come
to.
I
did
some
look
on
the
web
and
came
up
it's
about
13
phosphate
as
well
as
peak.
So
if
you
look
at
what
farmers
put
on
their
fields,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
phosphate
there,
but
the
telling
thing
is
if
you
actually
have
a
look
at
the
level
actually
that
reaches
the
rivers,
it's
very
low.
D
It
gives
rise
to
about
eight
milligrams
per
liter
in
the
river,
the
stuff
that
comes
down
from
from
the
gets
through
all
the
agriculture
process
and
impacts.
The
river
is
only
about
40
micrograms
150th
of
that.
So,
although
we
apply
a
lot
of
phosphate,
most
of
it
gets
taken
up
in
the
crops
and
the
sore
zone
and
everything
else,
so
only
a
relatively
small
proportion
of
it
ends
up
polluting
the
river.
D
Now
compare
that
then,
to
unfortunately,
where
you've
got
the
sewage
treatment
works
is
either
directly
discharges
it
or
it
goes
through
the
aquifer,
but
the
active
becomes
saturated.
You
end
up
with
a
hundred
percent
getting
through
there.
So
when
you
do
the
calculations
on
fluxes,
the
amount
coming
through
in
sewage
effluent
is
about
the
same
as
that
coming
down
from
agriculture.
D
N
Thank
you,
david.
That
was
very
informative.
Who
else
have
you
shared
your
report
with
you've
shared
it
with
environment
agency
and
natural
england,
and
are
you
aware
of
whatever
councils
are
doing
on
their
local
plan
that
face
on
to
the
test?
Are
they
taking
a
more
vigorous
line
than
us?
D
Taking
from
top
hope,
we
shared
this
with
we've
shared
this
at
the
moment
with
on
the
23rd,
we
shared
this
with
with
basically
patient
certainty
and
planning
departments.
So
there
are
four
warns
of
what
was
coming
up
today
and
we
hope
to
discuss
it
to
some
degree.
D
We
we
haven't
shared
it
with
anybody
else
to
date,
really
in
any
great
detail.
The
idea
is
that
lawrence
who
says
back
there
is
going
to
write
a
formal
paper
on
this,
and
this
is
being
funded
under
this
program.
As
I
mentioned,
it
was
funded
by
the
hampshire
isle
of
wight
wildlife,
trust
because
they're
worried
about
the
river
as
a
habitat,
and
they
wanted
to
know
about
the
role
of
the
aquifer
in
the
whole
process.
So
there
will
be
a
formal
report
produced.
D
It
will
go
to
hampshire
and
ireland,
white
wildlife,
trust,
and
they
will
have
a
copy
of
that.
Fundamentally,
I
haven't
shared
it
with
anybody
else
other
than
that,
and
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
aware
of
of
other
councils
taking
similar
chance
stances
in
any
way.
I'm
afraid
I
haven't
done
that
it
probably
comes
down
to
again
I'm
looking
at
lawrence.
Now.
D
J
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
thank
you
dave
for
that
presentation,
really
illuminating
and
really
depressing
as
well.
J
If
I'm
honest,
so
the
water
cycle
study,
if
yeah,
if
you
take
it
at
face
value
that
the
one
with
commission
says
everything's
going
to
be
okay,
if
the
water
companies
make
the
necessary
investments
and
they're
legally
obliged
to
make
those
investments,
but
I
think,
having
heard
your
presentation
today,
I
I
think
it's
yeah,
it's
not
quite
so
clear-cut,
and-
and
this
is
what
worries
me-
it
sort
of
worries
me
in
relation
to
the
future
planning
process,
because
we
were
told
earlier
that,
what's
going
to
happen,
is
that
there'll
be
specific
planning
applications
for
the
specific
sites
at
some
point
further
down
the
line
and
they'll
need
to
demonstrate
that
they're
not
going
to
cause
any
adverse
environmental
impact,
including
any
adverse
impact
on
the
on
the
hydro
geology.
J
Now
there
is
potentially
a
risk
or
high
probability.
I
would
argue
that
the
developers
could
commission
their
own
environmental
impact
assessments
when
it
comes
to
the
hydrogeology.
They
could
use
similar
assumptions
similar
methodologies
to
the
water
cycle
study
and
that
will
show
that
everything
is
okay,
provided
the
water
companies
invest
and
the
water
companies
will
back
them
up
because
they're
legally
obliged
to
say
that
they
invest,
and
that
means
that
we,
as
a
local
authority,
have
very
little
scope
to
reject
these
applications.
Even
though
we
know
the
reality.
J
If
you
look
beneath
the
numbers
and
if
we
get
a
detailed
assessment
like
the
one
you've
done
suggests
that
we
should
and
if
it
ever
goes
to
appeal,
an
inspector
would
rely.
Presumably
on
the
water
cycle
study
onwards,
cycle
study
they'll
rely
on
the
environmental
impact
assessments
that
these
consultants
have
created
and
again,
there's
there's
very
little
room
for
us
to
to
overturn
this.
So
you
know
it
is
a
worry
that
that
we
can't
we
we
could
see
developers.
J
We
could
see
developments
that
are
going
to
have
an
adverse
impact,
but
we
can't
do
anything
to
stop
them
and
and
that's
exactly
the
opposite
of
what
we've
tried
to
achieve.
So
there
is
a
question
here,
and
I
I
guess,
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
to
do
about
that.
But
I'm
very
concerned
about
it
and
I
think
my
question
to
you
is
as
a
hydrogeologist.
Is
you
know
if
you
were
in
charge?
J
J
We
we
can
do
our
best
there,
but
we're
not
fully
control
of
that
is
it
yeah
do
do
we
need
to
look
again
almost
at
the
water
cycle
study
and
then
in
more
detail
in
some
of
the
regards
that
you've
described
to
make
sure
that
it's
not
used
by
developers.
Everything's
gonna
be
okay,
because
the
water
companies
will
invest.
D
D
You've
got
a
very
good
officer
here
in
and
shattuck
who
is
doing
a
great
job
but-
and
I
know
she's-
not
a
hydrogeologist
herself
but
she's
doing
a
great
job
of
learning
about
all
this
stuff
and
I'm,
hopefully
she
will
know
the
source
of
questions
to
ask
going
forward
on
these
sorts
of
things,
and
I
hope
that's
the
case.
So
you
know
it
is
about
having
somebody
who
understands
these
things
on
the
on
your
style
for
or
within
the
boroughs,
to
actually
raise
awareness
of
all
these
things.
D
I
agree
it's
very
difficult
because
the
trouble
is.
I
sat
as
you
know,
as
vice
chair
of
the
development
control
committee.
At
one
point,
and
and
really
you
couldn't
ask
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
water
companies
and
their
role
and
was
their
availability
of
this
or
and-
and
I
know
we
it's
very
difficult
to
actually
put
policies
in
place
which
should
be
the
responsibility
of
the
water
companies
to
provide
it's
very
difficult
to
do
that.
But
but
I
would
ask
that
you
know
as
either
a
committee
or
as
a
council.
D
Here
we
look
at
how
far
we
can
go
on
that
and
how
far
we
can
put
conditions
on
on
water
companies
to
perform
in
this
area,
because
if,
if
there's
one
reason
for
us
being
here
as
a
council,
sorry
I'm
not
a
councillor
anymore.
But
if
there's
one
reason
for
this
council
being
here,
surely
it's
to
help
to
protect
the
health,
well-being
and
environment
in
which
our
constituents
live?
D
And
I
think
it's
a
very
important
point
and-
and
I
I
would
encourage-
maybe
a
a
working
finish
group
or
something
like
that
to
to
try
and
to
have
a
look
at
some
of
these
issues.
Now
we've
raised
them.
A
Thank
you,
mr
george.
Okay,
I've
I've
got.
We
need
to
be
very
quick
and
very
concise
with
with
our
questions,
because
I've
got
ten
minutes
which
include
the
answers
and
already
I've
got
council
mcintyre
a
councillor
core
others:
okay,
councillor,
laura
james
and
council
cubit.
So
after
that
I
won't
be
taking
any
more
questions.
No,
no!
I
won't
be
taking
any
more
questions
from
round
the
time.
Okay,
I'm
sorry
councilloratica
and
I'm
out
of
time
so
councillor
mcintyre,
please.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
hope
that
wasn't
from
my
time
allocation.
Thank
you
very
much
david,
and
I
want
to
thank
your
colleague
as
well
lawrence
for
for
a
very
conclusive
report
and,
most
importantly,
for
giving
up
your
free
time
and
coming
and
sitting
here
on
a
number
of
occasions
and
helping
to
educators.
K
I
I
I
repeat
what
counselor
tomlin
has
said,
my
my
learning
curve
of
water
hydrography
and
all
that
good
stuff
is
certainly
it
is
going
up
quite
high,
even
though
I'm
still
right
at
the
bottom
of
that
level,
and
I'm
going
to
be
quite
succinct
here
and
I'm
going
to
focus
on
the.
So.
What
which
is
this
last
slide
that
you've
got
up
here?
There's
a
lot
of
very
good
pertinent.
K
So
what's
there
the
first
one,
the
reduction
of
the
total
number
of
homes
to
be
delivered
on
the
basis
of
inadequate
environmental
capacity?
Well,
I
think
you're
preaching
to
the
converted.
This
committee
has
rejected
the
housing
number
our
council
has
rejected
our
housing
number,
and
I
know
councillor
harvey,
will
be
very
very
pleased
to
know
that
our
council
leader
was
on
bbc
south
yesterday
saying
we
need
to
slow
down
growth
and
that
business
though
contain
has
built
built
too
much.
K
So
I
think
we're
there
we're
looking
for
that
evidence
to
hang
on,
and
I
think
this,
this
inadequate
environmental
capacity
absolutely
helps
to
feed
into
those
exceptional
circumstances
for
us
and
rethinking
the
spatial
strategy.
So
it's
fantastic
because
in
four
days
time
we're
debating
the
spatial
strategy.
So
that's
something
this
committee
can
do
and
look
in
that
and
hopefully
look
to
give
recommendations
rather
than
rattle
through
them.
All.
K
I'm
just
going
to
focus
on
two
now
and
the
two
is
going
to
be
questions
to
to
our
officers
and
it's
really
about
the
are
these
are
these
feasible
can?
Can
we
put
this
into
the
plan
and
the
first
one
is
competent.
K
Scientific
assessment
of
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
changes
to
the
to
the
wastewater
treatment
works
particularly
phosphates
before
committing
to
development,
as
recommended
in
the
motorcycle
study,
and
the
second
one
is
implementation
of
a
strategic
grampian
clause
clauses
to
situations
where
the
water
companies
have
not
agreed
revised
discharge
standards
with
the
ea
and
provided
the
appropriate
treatment
technology
question
to
our
offices.
Is
this
feasible?
Is
this
something
we
can
put
in
place?
A
L
Thank
you
I'll
have
a
good
then
so
regarding
the
first
one,
just
to
outline
going
back
slightly
to
what
acom
said
about
phosphates
and
why
it
wasn't,
including
the
motorcycle
study.
L
L
You
know
it
doesn't
flag
up
at
the
wastewater
treatment,
work
being
a
problem
in
terms
of
phosphates,
but
when
we
met
with
church
conservation
group
last
week,
we
think
that's
a
reasonable
thing
that
we
should
be
engaging
with
the
environment
agency
and
I
think
southern
water
to
get
a
feeling
of
whether
they
think
there
is
an
issue.
L
So
it's
not
flagged
up
as
an
issue
in
the
room
basement
management
plan,
but
we
would
want
to
probe
that
a
little
bit
more
and
to
see
if
there
has
been
any
monitoring
of
the
sort
of
contaminant
flux
that
david
george
has
referred
to,
and
whether
whether
someone
wanted
to
do
any
monitoring
of
that
that
we're
not
aware
of
and
whether
the
environment
agency
do
so
that
we
see
that
we
should
be
probing
a
bit
more
on
that
issue
to
see
if
there
is
an
issue
and
and
we're
going
to
go
back
to
the
environment
agency
and
work
with
a
with
church
conservation
group
with
their
project.
L
L
L
I
think
we'll
have
to
look
into
that
further,
really
to
be
honest,
because
that
should
have
been
agreed
from
the
revision
of
the
permits,
there's
still
the
stage
of
implementing
infrastructure,
so
to
have
a
grampian
clause
on
that
there
still
could
be
quite
a
long
time
before
infrastructure
is
implemented
to
meet
the
permit.
So
that
might
be
too
late
in
the
day.
To
be
honest-
and
I
think
the
permit
should
have
been
agreed
before
then.
F
Thank
you
chair
just
to
say,
as
everyone
else
has
thank
you
for
a
fantastic
but
also
shocking
report.
I
just
listened
to
it
and
it's
heartbreaking.
F
Building
on
david's
questions,
focusing
on
the
way
forward,
one
of
the
suggestions
was
a
policy
specifically
to
protect
the
river
test,
and
I
suppose
my
question
is
more
of
offices.
Is:
is
it
possible
to
do
this
and
also
we?
We
need
it
to
be
properly
informed,
not
informed
by
the
water
cycle
study
and
by
the
report
by
aecom,
but
informed
by
the
type
of
science
that
we've
heard
here
tonight
and
that
policy.
F
So
I
suppose
my
question
to
officers
is:
what
do
we
need
to
do
as
a
council
and
as
councillors
to
get
that
policy
implemented
to
something
that
we're
happy
with
and
to
get
that
included
in
our
local
plan?.
M
L
L
So
it
wasn't
quite
clear
what
the
reference
was
to
only
applying
to
the
loddon,
but
we'd
obviously
welcome
comments
on
that
and
as
part
of
the
regulating
consultation,
if
there's
any
refinement
needing
to
that
proposed
policy,
yeah
yeah,
yeah
yeah,
but
but
if
it
needs
refining
to
more
specific
areas
of
the
test,
you
know
would
welcome
that.
I
mean
there's
quite
a
few
policies
in
the
local
plant
now
that
are
relevant
to
the
river
test
and
the
rivers
generally
in
various
forms
as
the
water
quality
biodiversity
green
room
structure.
L
Now
the
river
corridor
is
one
so
there's
quite
a
lot
of
policies
that
look
at
individual
elements.
So
I
suggest
you,
you
have
a
look
at
the
proposed
river
corridor
policy
and
see
if
that
meets
the
aspirations.
D
Well,
look
thank
you
for
that
information,
but
certainly
it's
probably
because
I'm
no
longer
a
counselor.
I
don't
see
all
these
documents
coming
through
and
what
have
you,
but
certainly
the
last
revision
I
saw
of
the
local
plan
purely
had
a
specific
policy
for
the
lord
and
nothing
for
the
test
at
all.
So
and
in
fact,
I
think
he
was
headed
protection
of
the
river
laden
or
something
like
that.
D
I
can't
remember,
but
but
certainly
certainly
the
last
version
of
the
local
plan
purely
referred
to
the
modern
and
it's
a
specific
policy
of
the
modern
and
not
the
test.
Now
that
may
have
changed
but-
and
I
haven't
seen
those
changes,
but
certainly
that's
the
the
last
version
I
saw,
which
was
maybe
three
or
four
months
ago
now,
something
like
that.
L
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Both
okay
councillor,
laura
james.
C
So
if
we're
saying
tonight
that
we
don't
think
that
the
water
study
is
fit
for
purpose
and
we
will
have
lots
of
concerns
and
dave
george
has
given
us,
you
know
a
brilliant
presentation
tonight
and
within
that
presentation
he
says
that
there's
significance
will
cause
significant
harm
to
our
river,
and
he
says
in
in
your
presentation.
You
said
goodbye
to
our
rivers.
C
C
If
we
were
to
consider
those
will
that
save
those
rivers
is
that
something
you
think
will
make
a
significant
difference?
What
I
want
to
know
is
if
we
were
then
to
consider
them
before
we
actually
and
started.
Looking
at
our
special
strategy
is
that
the
way
forward
in
relation
to
this
is
that
what
we
should
be
doing,
but
so
that's
several
questions
within
one,
but
also.
I
really
want
to
know
what
you
mean
by
goodbye
to
our
rivers.
What
is
ultimately,
if
they're
killed
sorry.
C
Gosh,
I
didn't
think.
Can
I
just
say.
I
think
this
is
amazing.
I
mean
we
have
a
an
administration
that
was
on
the
tv
last
night,
actually
talking
about
their
concerns
about
this
whole
agenda,
and
then
we
have
the
administration
tonight.
That
is
actually
closing
down
democracy
and
timing
us
out.
So
you
can't
have
it
both
ways
either
you're
concerned
or
you're.
Not
there
seems
to
be
enormous
fear
about
us.
Actually,
having
a
debate
in
this
chamber
is
incredible
tonight.
Absolutely
incredible,
so
I
don't
buy
it.
C
I
don't
buy
last
night
that
you
actually
are
concerned
as
an
administration,
because
you
were
concerned.
We
would
have
an
open
debate
here
and
be
able
to
discuss
some
of
these
issues,
but
we're
actually
going
to
close
this
down
a
hot,
prostate
and
we're
going
to
then
discuss
the
plan
for
the
rest
of
the
year,
which
is
normally
takes
us
as
a
committee
about
five
minutes
to
discuss.
A
Council
james,
it's
now
quarter
to
nine
okay,
so
it's
not
that
at
all.
Basically,
I
have
an
agenda
which
I
need
to
get
through.
Okay
and
I
need
to
get
through
it
as
efficiently
as
possible,
which
I
am
doing
so.
I'm
also
trying
to
give
everybody
a
chance
to
actually
make
comments.
Now.
You
know
you
you've
already
interrupted,
and
you
know
ask
questions
that
not
through
the
chair
and
I've,
let
that
go
okay
and
then
you
you've,
you've
sat
there
and
you
you've
asked
five
or
six
questions
in
a
multiple.
A
D
D
D
We've
got
so
much
nitrate
in
there
there's
it's
a
bit
like
having,
but
there's
no
there's
very
little
phosphate
at
all
in
the
rivers
getting
in,
and
I'm
not
happy
and
the
trouble
is
that
the
all
the
fish
and
higher
life
species
and
everything
else
and
require
the
river
to
be
clean.
And
what
have
you
and
not
a
lot
of
algae?
Anything
and,
if
you
add
just
a
very
small
extra
amount
of
phosphate
these
algae
and
everything,
love
nitrate,
but
if
they
have
any
phosphate,
they
can't
grow.
D
You
put
a
little
bit
of
phosphate
in
there
and
suddenly
it
blooms
and
that's
why
you
get
algal
blooms
in
the
sea.
You
know
the
seeds
are
voluminous,
but
you
only
need
a
very
small
amount
of
nutrient
for
it
to
go,
and
this
is
where
you
get
the
red
tides
and
the
and
and
all
these
these
algal
blooms.
So
it
requires
a
very,
very
small
amount
of
phosphate
to
create
a
chain
reaction
which,
which
basically
starts
off
killing
the
the
higher
life
forms
and
the
biota.
And
what
have
you
fish?
D
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
an
expert
in
this
area,
but
you
know-
and
you
get
these
algal
mats
that
tend
to
smother
everything
and
the
filament
stuff,
and
so
the
river
just
becomes
a
shadow
of
its
former
self.
You
know,
in
other
words,
it'll,
probably
still
support
some
life.
You
know
ducks
will
still
swim
on
it
and
things
like
that.
But
you
won't
get
the
trout
species,
the
fisheries
will
be
affected
and-
and
it
will
know-
and
you
know
it'll
possibly
affect-
we've
got
water
voles
now
in
which
church
believe
it
or
not.
D
And
things
like
that,
so
these
species
rely
on
a
very,
very
clean
river,
with
not
a
lot
of
nutrient
in
and
once
you
put
the
face
space
in
you'll
lose
all
these
high
life
forms
and
and
a
lot
of
the
plant
species
and
everything
else,
and
that's
why.
Interestingly,
they
protected
the
itching
against
phosphates,
because
it's
a
special
area
of
conservation,
but
they
haven't
protected
the
test
and
we
don't
know
why,
and
I
don't
know
why.
D
Frankly,
I
have
no
idea
why,
because
it's
a
triple
s
I,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
we
put
that
phosphate
in
it
will
cause
the
river
to
do
degrade
and
it
will
become.
You
know
it
certainly
wouldn't
be
able
to
support
the
the
fisheries
and
it
certainly
wouldn't
be
a
beautiful
place.
You
wouldn't
be
able
to
stand
on
the
on
the
bridge
and
look
down
and
see
lots
of
trout
and
everything
else.
It
just
wouldn't
happen,
basically
very
different.
Different
environments.
C
Sorry
I'll
give
you
the
question.
The
question
was
about
the
in
relation
to
the
recommendations
and
your
way
forward.
If
we
was
to
achieve
that,
particularly
maybe
even
before
we
go
out
for
a
spatial
strategy
or
discuss
the
professional
strategy,
would
we
save
those
rivers?
Is
this
our
hope.
D
I
think
what
what
we're
up
against
here
in
lots
of
ways
is,
is
the
simplicity
that
is
used
to
assess
these
situations,
and
this
is
brought
out
by
the
water
cycle
study.
It's
a
very
simple
approach,
I'm
afraid
across
the
board,
now
even
natural
england
seem
to
be
using
very
broad
brush
and
even
environment
agency
use
very
broad,
brush,
simple
approaches.
D
What
we've
got
to
do
here
is
look
at
the
detail
of
this
before
we
fully
understand
the
picture
and
what
we
can
do
about
it
and
at
the
moment,
that's
being
done
by
these
very
broad
approaches
which
we
seem
to
get
from
the
environment
agency
about.
Well,
it's
all
agricultural,
so
we
can't
do
anything
about
it.
The
answer
is:
no,
that's
not
correct.
Look
at
this.
You
know
the
the
one-dimensional
approach
so
by
going
in
and
doing
these
studies
and
what
have
you
that
are
needed,
we
would
understand
the
situation
properly.
D
So
if
we
can
achieve
through
this
process,
for
example,
the
the
the
lerb
and
the
natural
engine
guidance
to
include
phosphates
for
for
for
the
test,
it
would
help
tremendously.
It
really
would
help
tremendously,
but
we
haven't
got
that
at
the
moment
and
those
are
sorts
of
things
we've
got
to
achieve,
and
we've
got
to
have
the
evidence
base
basically
to
be
able
to
inform
these
decisions
and
how
to
go
forward.
We've.
A
D
Basically,
with
with
basis
stoke
and
dean
here
that,
as
soon
as
we've
finalized
our
documents
and
we
get
approval
from
hampshire
and
our
isle
of
wight
wildlife
trust
to
release
it,
we
release
that
document
to
them
to
form
part
of
the
evidence
base.
So
they
can
then
use
that
to
try
and
inform
decisions
and
move
things
forward.
I
don't
know
whether
that
answers
your
question
or
not,
but
not
really.
C
D
Well,
I'd
like
to
say
thank
you,
but
the
idea
of
pulling
that
forward
was
more
of
a
discussion
document
that
was,
for
you
know,
people
to
consider
rather
than
being
a
definitive
list,
but
so
you
know
the
committees
and
the
members.
Are
you
know
I
I
it
was.
The
idea
was
to
open
up
discussion
on
these
things,
but
you
know
rather
than
being
participating.
A
Thank
you,
mr
george,
okay
and
finally,
council
cubit.
Please.
E
So
if
I
could
just
say
thank
you,
I
also
want
to
say
I
feel
very
let
down
by
the
busy
second
dean
borah
council
and
the
technical
study
that
we
were
given,
and
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
in
the
local
plan
policy
that
we
approved
in
2016
and
in
the
statement
of
common
ground
that
was
approved
by
the
inspector.
E
There
was
an
obligation
that
the
policy
would
be
monitored
by
the
environment
agency,
water
companies
and
the
council,
through
a
detailed
monitoring
plan
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
water
framework
directive
and
the
relevant
river
basin
management
plans.
And
the
second
bullet
point
of
the
approved
local
plan
was
that
there'd
be
a
reporting
of
the
annual
monitoring
undertaken
by
the
environment
agency
and
updates.
E
E
I
would
like
you
to
tell
me
whether
you
believe
that
we've
been
negligent
corporately,
because
we
have
failed
to
adhere
to
the
implementation
and
monitoring
undertakings
that
we
made
to
the
inspector
in
2016,
and
I
would
also
like
you
to
advise
us
what
you
propose
to
do
in
light
of
the
information
that
we've
been
given
today.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
chef
in
terms
of
the
the
payments
made
and
all
that
I'd
like
to
get
back
to
you
with
the
details,
if
that's
allowed,
with
that
with
the
with
the
council's
policies,
but
as
the
cabinet
member
responsible
for
this
entire
process,
I
am
conscious
of
the
concerns
that
you
all
have
and
I've
been
meeting
with
the
parish
councils
and
conservation
groups
and
residents.
P
So
we
all
are
concerned
on
the
proposed
housing
need
figure
and
as
a
cabinet
member
responsible
for
the
local
plan,
I
will
I
will
be
supporting
the
officers
if
there's
any
sort
of
national
work
needed
and
if
there's
a
way
we
can
find
out
say
if
there's
a
way
to
find
out,
we
can
come
up
with
a
different
or
all
or
an
alternative
numbers
or
method
to
come
up
with
a
way
forward.
P
With
this
local
plan,
I
will
work
with
the
offices
and
I
am
concerned
with
all
the
evidence
that
we
have
been
collecting
and
I
have
been
talking
to
conservation
groups
and
the
parish
councils
engaging
with
the
officers
regularly.
So
I
share
the
concerns
I
share
the
concerns
that
committee
has
so
I
do.
I
do
I
do
work
with
officers
to
find
a
way
out
and
we
have
as
a
full
council
as
a
ph
as
a
committee.
P
You
have
refused
in
terms
of
the
housing
numbers,
so
we
work
with
this
very
strict
government
central
government's
the
policy
that
we
will
have
to
adhere
to.
But
if
there's
a
way
around
to
come
up
with
a
way
to
mitigate
this,
I
will
work
with
officers
and
ask
for
if
there's
any
additional
work
needed.
That
probably
could
help
I'm
happy
to.
B
I
think
it
might
be
helpful
because
I
just
wanted
to
reflect
on
what
we've
been
hearing
tonight,
maybe
as
a
summary
just
to
try
and
capture
some
of
what
we've
heard,
which
also
might
help
dave.
George
was
unfortunately
asked
the
question
as
to
what
we
were
going
to
do,
and
I
appreciate
you
respectfully.
B
You
know
left
that
for
us
to
sort
of
get
on
with
our
job
really
there
was
lots
to
digest
tonight
and
it
was
really
interesting
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
I'm
really
also
glad
that
we've
got
the
slides
and
we
also
have
your
phone
number
so
and
we
know
where,
where
you
are
so
it's
not
like
you're
getting
away
so
look.
We
welcome
receiving
the
wheat
church
group
report
once
it's
prepared,
and
you
know
that
would
be
really
helpful.
B
So
thank
you
for
that
and
would
also
welcome
receiving
the
report
from
stand
up
for
north
downs,
which
council
connect
shows
referred
to
tonight.
We
also
haven't
seen
that
as
officers
either.
These
are
all
really
good
things
because
they
help
and
contribute
towards
our
evidence
base,
which
is
an
evolving
piece
of
work.
As
dave
george
has
mentioned
already,
we
are
working
and
we
have
already
expressed
that
we
do
intend
to
work
with
the
environment
agency
in
relation
to
a
way
forward.
B
With
some
of
these
I'm
going
to
say
starting
points
and
some
of
the
points
which
have
already
been
raised
and
discussed
tonight.
I
think
you
just
need
to
let
us
capture
that
and
take
that
away.
I
can't
give
you
any.
You
know
certainty
and
undertakings
on
things
which
aren't
within
our
in
our
gift,
really
looking
forward
to
supporting
councillor
ganesha
with
his
representations
to
do
like
in
relation
to
you
know
some
of
the
issues
that
you've
raised
here
tonight,
not
just
the
letter
and
the
suggestions
around
the
bill.
B
You've
all
raised
a
question
of
trust
and
likelihood
of
that
being
actually
able
to
be
delivered
and
also
really
you've
challenged
in
a
way
the
water
cycle
study
methodology,
which
is
actually
a
government
set
methodology
as
well
in
much
of
the
discussion
here
tonight.
So
there's
probably
a
number
of
themes
and
threads
which
we'll
be
able
to
support
counselor
ganeshan,
including
the
point
around
phosphates,
which
dave
george,
has
already
mentioned
here.
So
that's
a
piece
of
work
that
we're
also
taking
away,
and
this
is
actually
about
a
piece
of
evolving
evidence.
B
So
you
know
I
appreciate
that
you're
questioning
our
procurement
process
around
who
we've
procured
and
what
we've
procured.
So
that's
a
set
of
questions,
counselor
qubit
that
we
have
to
take
away
and
provide
in
in
writing
or
come
back
to
you
on.
I
can't
answer
questions
around
costs
and
support
the
portfolio
holder
with
those
answers
here
tonight.
But
those
are
things
that
we
can
capture.
You
know
subsequent
to
the
meeting.
B
I
think
that
those
are
all
of
the
I'll
say
actions
that
I've
picked
up
for
the
purpose
of
the
record
and
the
minute.
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
capture
those
in
relation
to
this
informative
evening
and
if
I
hope,
that's
helped.
B
E
I
recall
there
was
an
undertaking
on
our
part
together
with,
and
it
states
in
the
in
the
local
planet
was
approved
in
2016,
the
environment
agency,
the
water
companies
and
the
council
through
a
detail
through
a
detailed
monitoring
plan
to
ensure
compliance.
Interestingly,
in
the
local
plan,
update
somebody,
and
certainly
not
a
member-
has
removed
that
and
so
going
forward.
If
this
local
plan
update
is
approved,
it
is
now
exclusively
the
environment
agency
that
will
be
providing
data
for
the
water
framework
directive.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
just
to
kind
of
wrap
up
this,
this
part
of
the
session.
B
I'd
like
to
get
back
to
you
on
that
issue
around
the
statement
of
common
ground
and
the
environment
agency,
you
know
that's,
obviously
you
know
a
point,
that's
being
raised,
that
we
need
to
capture
properly
I'm
following
the
meeting.
So
that's
fine.
We've
got
that
on
the
list.
A
Thank
you,
committee.
Okay.
Obviously,
I'm
just
trying
to
to
get
the
recommendations
out
of
the
committee
and
rooster
done
a
stirring
job
there
of
capturing
everything.
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
ask
you
know,
is:
is
the
committee
happy
with
the
work
that's
to
be
done
by
officers?
Okay?
Is
there
anything
else?
Okay,
do
we
want
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
the
cabinet
that
there
are?
You
know
there
are
other
streams
of
work
that
need
to
be
done.
For
example,
the
way
forward
counselor
james.
C
I'd
like
to
pick
up
on
the
way
forward-
and
I
know
that
dave
george
has
said
they
were
just
discussion
points,
but
I
think
there
I
think
there
seems
to
be
a
consensus
that
we
we
welcome
those
and
I
think
they
should
form
a
recommendation
from
this
committee.
In
relation
to
the
work
of
this
local
plan.
J
Thank
you
jay.
Yes,
I'd
echo
that
as
well
particularly
the
points
around
further
scientific
assessment
of
the
impact,
because
I
think
that
seems
to
be
an
area
where
there
is
some
discrepancy
between
what
the
water
cycle
study
says
and
what
the
experts
have
told
us
this
evening.
I
think
also,
if
I'm
sensing
this
correctly,
I'm
sure
that
the
members
will
speak
for
themselves
if
they
disagree.
There
is
a
lot
of
concern
about
the
actual
deliverability
of
of
what's
needed
for
these
upgrades.
J
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
discussing
that
this
evening
and
again
some
further
into
investigation
into
actually
what
this
means
and
how
deliverable
it
is,
I
think,
will
probably
give
us
some
more
comfort,
because
at
the
moment
I'm
sensing
there's
there's
very
little
belief
in
any
of
this
actually
happening.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
so
just
to
be
clear.
Okay,
the
committee
wishes
sorry
council
tommen.
G
Sorry,
just
on
that,
I,
like
it
clarified
that
we're
aware
that
the
the
head
of
planning
did
comment
that
the
water
cycle
study
was
the
government
improved
method
that
we
should
go
through
now.
That
gives
me
great
concern
that
we've
just
sort
of
just
shot
it
to
pieces
and
how
we've
got
to
pick
those
pieces
up
to
be
able
to
challenge
that.
We
think
we
have
an
issue
or
we
have.
We
talked
about
an
exceptional
circumstance,
contrary
to
the
government,
slamming
us
down,
saying
well
you're,
looking
too
deeply
into
the
subject.
A
Thank
you,
council
tomlin.
What
I
was
going
to
do
to
say
that
this
committee,
with
your
approval,
makes
the
recommendation
to
the
cabinets
that
they
look
at
the
way
forward
here:
okay
and
and
look
to
commission
pieces
of
work
okay
for
for
further
study
and
to
allow
officers
to
actually
do
that,
council
cubit.
E
I
I
I
would
support
that.
I
think
it's
invaluable.
I.
I
also
think
that
ss4
needs
to
be
strengthened
so
that,
when
it
is
identified
that
infrastructure
is
required,
that
we
apply
ss4
until
we
are
given
a
date,
an
expenditure
and
a
time
of
completion
of
that
infrastructure
that
is
required
in
order
to
ensure
no
further
deterioration
either
of
the
test
or
of
the
loddon.
A
H
I'm
aligned
with
that
craving
the
indulgence
of
yourself
and
the
committee
there's
an
implicit
assumption
in
in
sections
3.5
and
3.6
that
thames
water
and
southern
water
is
disposal,
authorities
and
southeast
water
and
southern
waters
demand
and
supply
authorities.
H
Everything
is
in
hand,
but
that's
variance
with
what's
been
discussed
tonight.
Would
the
committee
like
to
make
that
point
to
cabinet
that
we
should
take
what
the
water
companies
are
saying
with
a
dose
of
salt.
A
Is
the
committee
in
agreement
with
that?
Yes,
okay,
we'll
add
that
to
the
recommendations
as
well?
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
okay!
So
thank
you
very
much,
mr
george,
for
your
presentation.
It's
much
appreciated
and
and
thank
you
for
sharing
it
early
with
us
as
well.
Okay,
so
we
could
all
have
have.
A
Have
a
detailed
study
of
it?
Okay!
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
So
I'd
like
to
move
on
okay
within
the
paper
we
have
appendix
one
which
contains
effectively
the
questions
that
members
made
with
the
relevant
technical
answers
and
responses.
So
I'm
not
anticipating
any
questions
or
comments
on
there.
Okay,
appendix
2,
excuse
me
public
gary.
Can
you
it's
one
meeting
please,
okay,
so
appendix
two
contains
the
synopsis
of
mr
george's
presentation
and
I
think
that's
been
covered
earlier
in
the
in
the
presentation
in
part
number
five
and
then
moving
on
to
appendix
three.
A
A
No
okay,
so
looking
at
the
the
fact
that
we've
had
a
presentation
from
mr
george
regarding
his
views
on
behalf
of
the
the
whitchurch
town
council,
two
we've
received
the
track
changes
to
policies,
okay,
which
were
in
in
the
previous
meeting.
Okay,
we've
looked
at
the
water
cycle
study
and
we
had
the
acom
presentation
on
the
18th
of
july.
Okay
and
members
have
have
had
a
additional
opportunity
to
descending
questions,
written
questions
and
get
technical
responses.
In
writing.
We've
looked
at
the
transport
impact
report.
A
A
Thank
you,
council
cuba,
I'd
like
to
invite
you
to
put
those
questions
in
writing.
Okay,
if
you
put
me
on
copy,
we'll
make
sure
that
officers
respond
to
them
and
get
them
circulated
around
the
committee.
E
I
would
like
to
know
what
other
members
think
I
spent
an
enormous
amount
of
time
making
raising
questions
with
regards
to
the
water
cycle
study
and
I
actually
don't
think
it's
extremely
fair
to
require
of
us
the
members
to
go
through
in
detailed
writing
questions
which
then
get
ignored.
E
The
original
amendments
engendered
a
huge
number
of
responses
from
a
small
committee
of
people
that
were
allowed
to
make
comments
on
the
policy
changes,
and
I
haven't
seen
a
document
which
says
yes,
we've
accepted
that
comment
from
that
member
and
no,
we
haven't
accepted
that
comment
from
that
member
and
so
now
to
say
to
me,
as
just
one
member
send
me
in
the
comments
when
we've
already
been
through
these
process.
Various
times
I
don't
think
is
a
very
satisfactory
way
to
undertake
democracy.
I
actually
think
that
we
need,
as
we
did
before
in
2014.
E
We
need
a
meeting
at
which
eph
members
discuss
each
of
the
policies
separately
to
discuss
whether
we
like
the
word,
wherever
possible,
inserted,
left
right
and
flipping
whale
center
and
proportionate
qc
is
going
to
have
a
great
deal
of
fun
with
the
word
proportionate,
and
I
don't
think
questions
written
by
me
will
meet
the
that
level
of
scrutiny
that
I
think
we
are
entitled
to.
As
as
political
representatives.
B
I
think
that,
just
for
the
public
record,
just
in
case
someone's
listening,
who
isn't
aware
of
everything
that
we've
been
doing
over
the
last
18
months,
it's
important
to
explain
that
we
started
the
local
plan
update
process
by
undertaking
a
review
on
the
adopted
local
plan
policies
and
worked
on
new
policies
with
members,
as
council
cubits
mentioned,
and
that
led
to
in
march
of
this
year
an
eph
meeting
where
the
proposed
policies
and
updated
policies
were
part
of
that
agenda.
B
And
you
know
it's
a
fair
enough
comment,
because
we've
had
so
many
versions
as
we've
been
building
on
those
comments
that
it
might
be
a
question
that
people
have
in
relation
to.
Well.
Where
was
my
comment?
Was
that
comment
adopted
or
not?
So
what
we've
been
working
on
as
officers
is
a
piece
of
work
which
is
a
you
said.
B
We
did
piece
around
some
of
those
policies
which
we
were
hoping
to
be
able
to
include
as
part
of
our
work
that
we've
been
doing
with
members
that
we
have
to
compile
in
terms
of
preparing
the
draft
local
plan,
and
we
were
actually
like
when
we
provided
those
track
changes,
comments
virema,
which
I
did
in
august.
B
I
was
fully
aware
and
expecting
that
some
of
you
would
wonder
whether
your
comments
following
the
number
of
different
exchanges
that
we
had
over
last
year,
as
well
as
at
eph
earlier
this
year,
whether
they
were
adopted
or
not.
So
I
was
sort
of
expecting
some
form
of
engagement
prior
to
this
evening,
which
I
didn't
receive
any
questions.
B
All
of
you
as
members
as
well
as
residents
across
the
borough
would
be
able
to
make
comments
on
those
policies
which
would
be
actually
logged
on
the
consultation
system,
which
we
would
need
to
actually
address
and
respond
to
as
part
of
that
evolution
on
the
policies
you
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
we
actually
had
a
number
of
you
know,
exchanges
by
email
with
all
of
the
members,
getting
to
the
point
that
we
have
the
draft
policies
with
the
track
changes
which
we've
provided
you
the
process
of
preparing
a
draft
local
plan
just
to
get
to
this
reg
18
consultation
means
we
have
a
set
of
policies.
B
You
might
be
questioning
whether
they're
acceptable
or
not
acceptable,
but
until
they
go
out
for
a
public
consultation
we
haven't,
you
know
you've
got
to
actually
create
a
benchmark
that
you
can
go
out
and
consult
on,
because
otherwise
we
get
a
whole
range
of
views
from
all
of
you,
as
in
relation
to
which
bits
and
pieces
are
or
are
not.
You
know
liked
the
permissive
language
in
the
policies
which
many
of
you
have
raised.
I
expect.
B
E
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much
ruth.
I
mean
firstly,
I'd
like
it
on
public
record
that
there
were
a
number
of
members
that
were
excluded
from
that
piece
of
work,
and
I
put
a
formal
complaint
to
the
chief
executive
because
I
personally
was
excluded
and
secondly,
I
believe
that,
under
the
government
guidance
that
the
policies
only
needed
to
be
amended
in
the
event
that
it
transpired
that
they
demonstrated
that
they
were
not
working
under
the
local
plan,
approval
of
2016..
E
In
fact,
what
we've
gone
and
done
is
we
seem
to
have
rewritten
an
inordinate
amount
of
policies
that
weren't
failing
to
be
weren't.
Failing
we've,
just
we've
just
amended
them,
and
not
only
do
we
seem
to
have
just
amended
them,
but
we
seem
to
have
weakened
them,
and
I
don't
understand
because
I
believed,
when
I
read
the
government
guidelines,
that
the
policies
that
were
to
be
amended
when
is
not
an
obligation
to
amend
all
of
them.
E
There
were
only
supposed
to
be
those
amended
that
were
not
not
fulfilling
the
the
annual
monitoring
report
and,
furthermore,
they
were
not
supposed
to
be
weak
and
they
were
supposed
to
be
strength.
And
when
you
insert
words
like
wherever
possible
or
proportionate,
that
is
clearly
a
weakening
of
a
policy,
so
I
don't
quite
understand
how
that
language
got
into
the
policies.
E
Moreover-
and
just
finally,
mr
chairman,
in
the
example
that
I
cited
with
regards
to
the
water
quality,
so
I've
got
the
I've
had
the
hard
copy
printed
of
the
non-spatial
policies,
which
was
supposed
to
be
track.
Change
for
amendments
and
lo
and
behold,
the
policy
document
which
I
made
reference
to
earlier,
which
has
the
implement
the
implementation
and
monitoring
box.
The
policy
will
be
monitored.
There's
been
significant
changes,
but
there's
no
track
change
amendment.
E
So
if
I
were
to
look
at
that
claim
without
cross-referencing,
which
I
spent
my
entire
life
doing,
because
I
don't
trust
the
system,
I've
been
proven
right,
not
trust
system,
because
there
are
no
track
changes,
implying,
there's
a
change
that
box
and
lo
and
behold,
there's
a
significant
change
and
had
I
not
bothered
to
cross-reference,
I
would
not
have
been
privy
to
that,
and
that
makes
me
jolly
concerned
and
very
frightful
and
fearful
that
the
non-spatial
policies
are
track.
Changes
are
to
be
trusted.
G
Thank
you
chair.
Well,
it's
just
to
add
some
some
fat
to
what
councillor
cubit
has
just
said.
I
was
on
the
original
map
panel,
not
a
member
of
eph
at
the
time
way
back
in
november
and
went
through
loads
of
the
initial
policies.
G
Rafts
of
these
policies
made
several
comments,
made
several
comments
where
we
saw,
or
I
saw
changes
to
unnecessary
changes,
the
language
all
sorts
of
comments-
and
I
remember
now
that
that
review
was
going
to
be
summed
up
by
the
at
that
time,
portfolio
holder,
who
then
shut
the
process
down.
This
was
all
on
on
on
zoom
and
whatever,
and
then
in
march,
as
a
visiting
councillor,
I
did
present
that
the
policies
that
we
had
seen
and
have
made
the
comments
and
had
the
comments
tabulated
and
sent
back
to
us.
G
They
were
about
90
at
least
were,
what's
the
word
not
dismissed,
there
was
an
argument
put
up,
but
basically
the
success
rate
of
a
number
of
councillors
who
contributed
to
this
did
not
seem
to
well
frustratingly
justify
the
effort
put
in
one
likes
to
see
some
sort
of
debate
and
having
it
shut
down
in
the
way
it
was
done.
I
think
we've
now
in
a
situation
where
we've
not
taken
that
on
board
since
there's
an
awful
lot
more
policies
and
we're
here
and
we're
busy
to
get
on
with
the
spatial
strategy
and
park.
G
A
B
I
just
wanted
to
painfully
go
back
to
the
point
that
I
make
that
I
know
you
must
all
groan
when
I
say
it,
but
the
difference
between
what
you
went
through
in
us.
Getting
to
the
point
that
we
had
a
draft
set
that
we
could
actually
take
to
an
eph
meeting
and
a
reg
18
is
your
comments
on
a
reg.
18
are
logged
they're
on
a
consultation
system.
B
They
all
have
to
be
tracked
and
followed
through
and
you're
concerned
that
you've
raised
that
there's
a
concern
that
you've
made
comments
and
they've
not
been
taken
through
or
that
you've
got
issues
that
you
wish
to
raise.
That's
the
benefit
of
a
reg
18,
because
you'd
be
able
to
do
that
in
a
very
public
way
in
terms
of
what
we've
been
able
to
do
as
officers.
B
That
old,
in
terms
of
our
current
local
plan,
there
is
further
guidance,
that's
been
shaped,
or
the
position
has
changed
or
been
enhanced
nationally
in
relation
to
some
of
those
topic
areas,
which
is
why
we
have
to
update
the
policies,
because
the
next
local
plan
is
actually
going
to
take
us.
You
know
further
forward
into
2039
and
policies
that
were
written
in
you
know.
2014
aren't
necessarily
going
to
be
fit
for
purpose
in
20.
B
You
know
39,
so
it's
really
important
to
actually
capture
and
make
sure
we've
updated
everything
as
much
as
we
can
going
forward,
rather
than
thinking
that
a
saved
policy
that
was
draft
back
in
2014
is
fit
for
purpose.
C
For
me,
I
I've
always
said
that
I
think
the
policies
are
really
fundamental
to
this
local
plan
and
I've
had
real
concerns
about
many
of
the
policies.
We
did
a
lot
of
work
in
relation
to
our
representation
and
what
we
sent
in
and
individually.
I
did
work
as
well
as
a
member
of
the
committee,
but
I've
always,
I
think,
a
fundamental
in
relation
to
how
we
move
forward.
C
What
I'd
like
to
understand
now
that,
then,
if
we
are
where
we
are,
what
happens
and
as
a
committee,
how
do
we
now
continue
to
work
on
these
policies
at
what
stage
and
when
will
they
come
back
to
us
again
and
for
us
to
look
at
this
again,
because
I
just
think
for
us,
as
the
the
policy
aspect
of
the
spatial
strategy
is,
is
fundamental.
A
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
There,
council,
james.
B
Okay,
so
there
are
two
types
of
policies
that
you're
talking
about.
I
think
in
your
your
question.
I
just
want
to
clarify:
we've
been
talking
about
the
development
management
policies
and
those
broader
policies
that
are
non-spatial
in
relation
to
all
of
the
track
changes.
B
B
We
would
be
capturing
those
changes
and
having
to
actually
look
at
those
in
terms
of
how
the
local
plan
would
evolve
and
be
shaped
and
dph
would
be
part
of
the
any
post
consultation
shaping
anyway.
That's
not
something
that
you
don't
get
sight
off
again,
because
at
the
end
of
day
of
the
day,
that
final
plan
for
submission
actually
has
to
be
agreed
by
full
council.
So
you
do.
Actually
all
you
know
have
a
role
in
relation
to
how
it
travels
forward.
B
Further,
you
know
further
from
you
know
anything
that
gets
completed
as
a
draft
plan
in
terms
of
the
spatial
policies
you're.
Yet
to
debate
those
you're
going
to
do
that,
hopefully,
on
monday.
C
A
C
It's
fundamental
that
we
look
at
those
management
policies
after
the
reg
18
and
that
are
on
the
re
on
the
work
program,
and
I
don't
want
what
happened
to
us
before
and
on
honolee
is
right.
It
was.
It
was
an
appalling
process
and-
and
I
and
I
just
on
the
record
what
to
say-
as
as
we've
been
said
tonight,
it
was
awful
and
how
we
were
treated
as
members
and
it's
it's
similar
to
what's
happening
here
tonight,
but
it
was
really
bad
in
that
those
map
meetings
really
bad.
C
P
A
Council
cubit
just
hold
on.
Finally,
because
if
we
go
from
beyond
five
minutes,
I
I
do
need
to
suspend
standing
orders.
E
I'm
sorry
my
cheek
quip
is
to
ruth
because
she
said
our
policies
relate
to
2014
and
yet
we're
being
asked
to
consider
population
projections
and
housing
needs
based
on
2014..
That
wasn't
my
central
point.
That
was
a
cheap
quip.
I'm
sorry
for
that.
E
But
my
central
point
is:
I
believe
that,
as
a
committee,
we
as
a
group
would
be
much
more
successful
at
rep,
representing
our
residents,
producing
much
better
policies
than
just
being
treated
like
all
consultees,
with
little
annotations
on
huge
landscape
documents,
where
this
is
what
x
said
and
why
said
and
refuted
or
ignored
or
whatever.
I
think
we,
as
a
group
have
shown
in
2014
2013
that
we
wrote
some
really
good
policies,
and
I
think
we
have
the
ability
to
do
that
again.
So
I
would
absolutely
agree
with
council
james.
E
We
should
add
it
to
your
provisional
work
report
that
we
discuss
before
reg,
18.
and
and
just
finally,
I'm
not
averse
to
reg
18
and
I
don't
think
any
any
any
council's
averse
to
reg
18.
I
think
what
a
lot
of
counselors
I
don't
want
to
put
words
into
their
mouth
are
averse
to
is
proceeding
with
reg
18
at
a
housing
number
that
has
been
rejected
outright
by
full
council.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
that
will
be
debated
on
monday,
okay,
that
the
housing
number
is
mentioned.
Okay,
I'd
just
like
to
suspend
standing,
orders,
okay,
okay,
and
go
through
to
discuss
the
work
program
so
we'll
we
should
easily
be
finished
by
quarter
to
10..
Do
I
have
the
committee's
agreement
on
that?
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
okay
right.
So,
let's
so
is
that
all
the
questions
that
we
have?
Okay?
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
let's
officers,
thank
you!
A
Okay
and
now
we'll
just
move
on
to
the
the
work
program
so
committee.
If
we
we
have
a
a
look,
we
can
see
that
we've
got
obviously
the
first
september
at
the
top
okay,
which
is
tonight
and
then
on
the
fifth.
We
have
the
local
plan
update
okay,
to
sit
to
consider
the
spatial
strat
draft
spatial,
so
I've
got
my
wife's
teeth
in
obviously
the
draft
spatial
strategy
and
the
site
specific
allocations
prior
to
the
any
reg
18
consultation
and
then
moving
forward
onto
the
3rd
of
november.
A
We
have
mark
lambert
with
the
transport
strategy,
okay,
which
will
provide
an
update
on
progress
with
the
with
with
transport.
A
Then,
in
january
we
have
the
the
amr,
okay
and
also
in
that
it's
gonna
be
a
long
evening.
There
we
have
the
the
infrastructure,
delivery
statement,
okay
and
I've
well
at
the
moment,
that's
that
was
kind
of
agreed
by
the
chairman
of
scrutiny.
A
Okay,
it's
gonna
be
such
a
long
evening
that
night,
okay,
I
will
look
at
splitting
it
out,
but
what
I
would
like
to
do.
N
A
A
I've
left
the
second
of
march
free
for
this
particular
time
at
the
moment.
Okay,
because
we've
got
three
hold
on
committee,
we've
got
three
papers:
okay,
we've
got
one
maintaining
amenities
and
green
spaces,
which
is
a
reporting
response
to
a
council
motion.
Okay,
then
we
have
safety
in
a
high-rise
residential
buildings
and
then
we
also
have
the
leisure
park
master
plan.
A
Okay,
so
you
know,
whilst
I
I'm
not
a
burster
holding
or
splitting
the
amr
in
the
infrastructure
delivery
statement,
the
issue
we're
going
to
have
is
timing.
Okay,
so
we
just
need
to
have
a
think
on
that.
Okay,
and
then
we
can
discuss
that.
You
know
by
the
third
of
november,
okay,
which
will
give
people
sorry
councillor
james.
You
had
a
finger
raise.
C
So
if
we
could
put
in
some
extra
dates
in
so
so
that
we
can
move
that,
because
I
just
think
we've
always
said
as
a
committee,
we
wish
to
discuss
the
annual
monitoring.
It
forms
everything
that
we're
about
as
a
committee,
nothing
else
that
is
our
work
and
we
should
spend
some
significant
time
on
it
and
nothing
else.
So,
please
ensure
you've
got
another
date
to
move
it.
A
I
understand
that
okay
and
I
have
to
say
that
well
just
just
hold
on
okay,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
a
motion.
Okay,
I
will
take
that
under
advisement.
Okay,
I
was
because
I
personally
think
that
the
amr
okay
should
go
to
scrutiny,
but
I
was
overruled
okay
by
the
chair
of
scrutiny
and,
as
he
was
basically
fixing
all
our
work
plans
and
agreeing
to
our
work
plans,
it
was
agreed
that,
because
we
didn't
yeah,
we
unfortunately
that's
the
the
way
that
the
new
process
is.
Okay.
A
Is
that
the
amr,
okay
and
the
infrastructure
delivery
statement
were
put
on
one
evening
at
that
particular
time?
Let
me
go
away.
Let
me
see
if
we
can
get
some
more
dates.
Okay,
because
the
one
thing
that
that
we
we
don't
have
in
reality
hold
on
council
keeper.
Let
me
finish
and
then
I'll
come
to
you,
okay.
In
reality,
we've
we've
already
had
a
large
number
of
adjourned
meetings.
Okay,
so
we
need
to
get
the
work
done.
I
appreciate
the
importance
of
the
amr
I
really
do,
which
is
why
you
know
I've.
A
E
E
But,
secondly,
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan,
we
haven't
seen
right
and
it
is
to
the
local
town.
I
think-
and
I
think
the
given
on
the
5th
of
january
is
unacceptable.
I
think
we
should
be
seeing
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan
now.
It
should
have
actually
been
with
us
with
the
motorcycle
study
and
the
transport
study.
B
The
item,
which
is
on
the
fifth
of
january
meeting,
is
the
infrastructure
funding
statement,
the
ifs
not
the
idp,
but
I
take
on
board
the
point
that
councillor
cubits
made,
which
is
that
the
eph
committee
haven't
yet
seen
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan.
The
idp,
which
sits
alongside
the
spatial
strategy,
and
the
reason
why
you
haven't
is
that
we
were
wanting
to
progress
the
spatial
strategy
conversation.
I
apologize
members
from
back
in
june
and
you
would
have
actually
by
now
had
the
idp.
B
If
we
were
aware
of
that-
and
I
can
see
that,
depending
on
how
our
work
program
progresses,
there
might
be
a
need
for
some
form
of
paper
in
relation
to
the
idp.
So
I
take
on
board
the
question
that's
been
raised
and
I
wanted
to
take
that
away
and
look
at
our
officer
work
programs,
the
stuff
that
we
do
to
prepare
for
these
agendas.
B
You
know
following
well
basically
following
the
summer
leave
when
I'm
able
to
actually
clarify
a
few
key
points.
So
it's
a
good
question,
I'm
happy
to
take
it
away,
but
they're
two
different
things:
has
everyone
understood
my
clarification?
B
E
Thank
you
so
sorry,
mr
chairman,
I
would
like
to
see
a
mission
I'd
like
a
motion
and
the
mission
is
this.
I
would
like
us,
the
committee
to
vote
on
securing
a
date
to
discuss
the
non-spatial
strategies,
one
and
two
to
discuss
the
infrastructure
delivery
program
before
the
end
of
2022.
E
Yeah,
so
so
why?
Because
I
mean
this
is
obviously
not
the
verbage
for
the
motion,
but
why
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan
last
one
we
had
was
in
2015
identified,
that
being
and
dean
had
a
shortfall
of
199
million
in
its
infrastructure
and
I'm
quite
sure
that,
with
the
additional
18
000
house
that
we're
currently
proceeding
with
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan,
I
would
imagine,
is
going
to
be
significant
and
199
million
might
might
might
be.
What
it
is
or
might
be
lower
might
be
high.
E
But
we
at
the
moment
don't
know
what
our
infrastructure
delivery
plan
shortfall
is.
That
was
a
shortfall
199
million
by
the
way.
Secondly,
with
the
non-spatial
strategies,
I
said,
I
believe
that
we
collectively
liberal
democrats,
labor
independents
and
conservatives
will
together
produce
amendments
to
our
local
plan
policies
that
are
much
better
than
just
little
bylines
in.
I
don't
know
typographical
font
three
on
a
huge
a3
next
door
to
mr
b
holmes,
mr
taylor,
wimpy
and
mr
persimmons
and
treated
equally.
E
N
This
committee
or
the
council
haven't
reviewed
seal
since
2018.
We
have
inflation
running
out
over
10
percent
with
our
current
seal
level
levels.
This
vital
projects
could
be
losing
money
and
I
think
it's
vital
that
this
council
reviews
our
seal
policies
in
the
next
six
months.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council
watts.
I
will
take
that
on
board
and
I'll
discuss
that
with
the
chair
of
scrutiny,
okay
and
take
it
from
there
and
report
back.
Thank
you
because,
under
the
the
the
actual
rules
of
the
scrutiny
committee
of
all
the
committees,
the
work
program
has
to
be
agreed.
A
Okay
with
the
chair
of
scrutiny,
okay,
so
I
I
will
take
that
away
and
I
will
speak
to
tony
and-
and
I
will
come
back
to
the
committee
okay,
if,
if
there
are
no
more
comments,
I
will
then
conclude
that
the
meeting
okay
is
finished
at
21
35.
Thank
you
very
much.
Members.