►
From YouTube: Phase 4; 13/9/22; Day 5; Matter 7; Air Quality; PM (3/3)
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
Well,
we're
at
five
too,
so
we
can
we'll
assume
I
I
ought
to.
I
ought
to
start
by
making
making
something
very
clear
about
modifications.
I
was
saving
it
up.
I
was
going
to
address
it,
but
I
was
going
to
save
it
up
until
we
dealt
with
air
quality,
but
perhaps
it's
it's
more
proper
and
practical
to
deal
with
it
now.
Yes,
I
have
the
council's
suggested
modifications
to
these
policies
that
we're
talking
about
today,
and
there
are
a
series
of
others
in
there.
A
A
Once
we
reach
the
end
of
the
phase
four
hearings,
my
colleague
and
I
are
going
to
need
to
have
a
discussion
about
about
the
way
forward
and
it
may
be
I'll
put
it
no
stronger
than
that
that,
at
the
end
of
phase
four,
we
decide
that
it's
time.
Yes,
we
don't
need
to
deal
with
anything
else.
We
can
consult
on
the
modifications
and
some
of
the
background
documents
that
have
come
in
at
that
point.
People
are
given
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
them,
so
we
then
take
that
content
and
there's
a.
I
can't
remember.
A
B
B
The
the
only
point
I
was
going
to
have
made
at
the
end
of
the
discussion
before
the
break
was,
I
think,
listening
to
the
discussion
we've
had
this
really
interesting
concern
about
the
level
of
detail.
You
need
with
the
nppf
paragraph
154
test
that
mr
kersey
has
pointed
us
to
at
one
end
of
the
spectrum,
and
mr
linus
says,
if
I
can
quote,
I
think
perfectly
reasonable
concern
that
we
ossify
the
local
plan
by
over
prescriptive
wording
and
somewhere
between
those
two
definitions.
B
A
C
Delightful,
I'm
grateful
for
that
and
just
to
confirm
that
the
idea
behind
the
modification
schedule
is
to
keep
a
running
total
if
you
like,
of
of
molds
that
are
being
proposed
through
discussions
at
the
examination,
but
also
as
appended
to
the
hearing
statements
before
the
hearing
sessions,
so
we're
trying
to
give
notice
as
best
we
can
of
modifications
before
the
hearing
sessions
had
come
about,
and
obviously
the
purpose
of
the
examination
is
to
discuss
issues
in
a
way
which
may
reveal
more.
That's
the
entire
purpose.
C
Behind
the
examination
beyond
that,
I
can
say
to
mr
may
that
what
we
intend
to
do
before
the
end
of
phase
4
is
to
address
you,
sir
and
mr
barker,
publicly,
on
what
we
would
suggest
by
way
of
timings
and
for
me
involved.
So
that
can
be
done
publicly
and
everyone's
aware
of
what
we
hope
to
achieve
through
the
main
malls
process.
A
C
This
point,
just
just
very
briefly
said,
apart
from
mr
ridge
sitting
to
my
right,
you'll
have
seen
up
here
at
the
table
mike
southcom
and
andrew
gillard,
who
are
both
public
protection
officers
with
expertise
and
air
quality
at
the
council
and
to
the
extent
they
they
need
to.
They
may
contribute
this
afternoon.
As
you
said,
the
main
underlying
theme
for
their
quality
discussion
bears
some
similarity
to
what
we've
heard
already
and
if
I
can
just
set
the
scene.
C
We
also
continue
to
see
improvements
in
air
quality
and
the
remaining
aqma
subject
to
some
challenges,
which
one
accepts
has
to
be
met
in
an
any
aqma
in
the
city
centre,
location
under
current
monitoring
results,
but
they
reflect
a
gradual
improvement.
Nonetheless,
in
the
long
term
and
emissions
from
the
from
the
york
fleet,
which
also
reflect
the
impact
of
air
quality
improvement
initiatives
which
are
set
out
in
detail
in
its
in
its
monitoring,
that's
the
that's
the
broad
context.
D
Equally,
sir,
when
one
looks
at
the
inner
ring
road-
and
you
know-
I-
I
directed
you
to
the
relevant
pages
today-
of
of
traffic
impacts.
Again,
you
you've
got
increases
around
48
on
the
in
a
ring
road
of
traffic
delay
which
which
implies
congestion,
so,
which
means
you
know
a
lot
of
standing
traffic,
a
lot
of
belching
out
fumes
so
just
to
deal
with
the
point.
D
D
It
is
so
high
level,
and
it's
just
that
it
really
isn't
very
helpful,
whilst
draft
local
planned
parties
will
help
to
minimize
air
quality
impacts,
rising
and
sorry
I'll
guess
it's
in
front
of
me
arising,
including
true,
locating
development
accessible
in
the
case
of
reducing
the
travel
transport
infrastructure,
blah
blah
blah
development
would
have
negative
effects
on
this
object,
resulting
from
us
the
associate
increase
in
vehicle
use.
This
may
be
exacerbating
the
city
where
some
areas
already
have
air
quality
issues.
D
So
the
air
that
is
so
that
you,
you
have
no
evidence
on
you,
know
nothing
that
would
actually
constitute
evidencing
to
begin
for
you
to
to
ascertain
whether
the
planned
policies
will
secure
compliance
with
national
objectives
for
pollutants,
or,
indeed,
will
make
you
know,
could
well
because
the
increased
congestion
can
make
it
existing
worse
position.
Worse.
D
So
probably
as
a
as
a
very
generalized
statement-
that's
probably
true,
but
what
it
doesn't
do
is
actually
look
at
the
area.
Isn't
it's
not
very
helpful
to
you
where
there
are
existing
problems
of
air
quality
or
where
the
increased
congestion
will
lead
to
problems
of
air
quality
through
cumulative
impact.
D
D
So
that's
all
I've
got
to
say
it
is
a.
It
is
a
very
simple
issue:
it's
a
lack
of
any
technical
appraisal,
because
the
essay
is
not
a
technique
does
it
does
not
constitute
a
technical
appraisal.
It
is
no
more
than
simply
assertions
by
probably
as
person
as
unqualified
as
myself.
In
dealing
with
these
matters.
A
C
There's
no
specific
requirement
in
the
guidance
to
draw
any
particular
prescriptive
drawn
any
particular
prescriptive
evidence
base
no
specific
requirement
on
how
evidence
is
prepared
to
support
the
plan
and
within
that
there
isn't
anything
in
policy
which
suggests
there
has
to
be
a
a
technical
study,
and
was
mr
kersier
says.
He's
not
indicated,
needs
to
be
something
along
the
lines
of
planning
application
reality
that
close
to
what
is
being
suggested
here
we
say
you
have
adequate
information
in
front
of
you
to
reach
a
judgment
on
cumulative
impacts.
C
Deals
with
air
quality
and
identifies
how
a
series
of
sustainability
appraisals
dating
from
2013
through
to
the
sustainability
appraisal
for
the
regulation.
19
publication
draft
in
2018
dealt
with
the
baseline,
which
is
an
appendix
d
to
this.
To
cd09
a
it
looks
through
the
policies
by
reference
to
air
quality
and
appendix
j
and
cites
an
appendix
I
and
summarizes
the
position
in
cumulative
terms
in
table.
6.4
of
the
of
the
main
of
the
main
report
with
commentary
in
the
report
as
well.
C
And
you
have
the
information
and
the
comparative
effects
of
different
spatial
distributions,
which
again
give
a
broad
holistic
picture
which
is
appropriate
for
plan
making
at
this
level.
On
what
the
overall
future
trend
of
pollutants
will
be,
which
is
entirely
consistent
with
what
we
have
seen
in
the
past
and
what
was
happening
in
the
future.
So
we
just
reject
any
suggestion
from
mr
kershaw
the
evidence
that
then,
is
inadequate
because
he's
looking
for
what
is
not
necessary
and
our
submission
to
allow
the
conclusion
that
the
plan
is
signed.
A
D
I
I'll
take
you
back
to
paragraph
one
two,
two
four
and
the
sort
of
evidence
that
you
need
to
be
satisfied
on.
Thus
this
point
indeed,
sir.
If
the
situation
were,
as
mr
lioness
says,
that
the
air
quality
impacts,
the
development
are
always
going
to
be
satisfactory.
Sir
one
wonders
what
the
purpose
of
emv1
and
the
need
to
for
most
major
applications
that
you
put
in
air
management
assessments
at
application
stage.
C
E
E
And
I'm
not
quite
sure
when
the
current
dft
mandated
time
is
for
the
end
of
sales
of
fossil
fuel
powered
vehicles
is,
I
think,
it's
20
20,
30
or
2032,
but
anyway
it
is.
It
is
significantly
before
that
congestion,
if
it
does
present,
is
forecast
to
present.
So
there
will
be
significant
mitigation
to
the
air
quality
impact
simply
through
changing
of
the
fleet.
D
So
that
may
or
may
not
be
the
case.
Obviously
we
don't
this
entire
speculation
as
to
how
long
the
older
parts
of
the
fleet
will
take
to
be
off
the
road
and
but
sir,
the
the.
The
key
point
is
that
that
there
is
that
congestion
you
have,
if,
if
the
council
were
indeed
to
be
serious,
that
should
be
par
factored
into
any
appraisal.
D
B
B
B
C
As
those
dft
data
book
values
would
assume
improvements
through
electrication
of
the
fleet,
and
we
said
that's
entirely
appropriate
basis
upon
which
to
come
up
with
the
with
the
figures.
So
it's
wrong
to
suggest
there
isn't
any
evidence
to
indicate
what
improvements
it
would
be,
and
it's
fanciful
to
suggest
that
there
aren't
going
to
be
any
improvements.
C
Secondly,
the
approach
that
was
taken
in
excyc
91
is
a
level
of
calculation
assessment
which
is
appropriate
to
this
level
of
the
plan
that
sites
were
assessed.
Strategic
sites
were
assessed
individually
within
the
scope
of
the
sustainability
appraisal.
Having
regard
to
mitigation
that
could
be
delivered
holistically
through
the
plan
and
through
plan
policies.
C
C
C
As
we
understand
it
was
no
consideration
given
to
their
actual
achievability
and
in
practice
it
may
be
that
the
guidelines
are
unachievable
for
local
authority
areas.
Are
we
not
the
who
guidelines
themselves
acknowledge
that
the
guidelines
are
very
challenging,
but
fundamentally
they
do
not
yet
apply
in
in
uk
law.
F
So,
thank
you.
We,
we
just
wanted
to
think
a
little
bit
about
the
cumulative
effect
of
the
sites,
so
it's
clear
that
a
lot
more
traffic
will
be
generated
from
the
sites
st4
st15
and
also
by
the
increased
university
of
york
activity,
whether
or
not
that
be
on
us
on
a
new
site
and
a
lot
of
that
traffic
will
funnel
in
through
parts
of
haslington
the
st4
site.
F
F
F
It's
going
to
have
a
significant
change
in
traffic
volumes.
There'll
be
a
significant
change
in
vehicle
speeds,
both
faster
because
you're
going
to
have
a
faster
link
road
across
to
the
a64
than
the
current
country
lanes,
and
also
slower,
because
traffic
will
be
backed
up
and
slower.
If
there's
a
cycle
route
that
you're
having
to
negotiate
different
users
along
along
a
single
track
highway,
the
traffic
composition
will
be
altered
and
there's
going
to
be
new
exposure
to
close
to
existing
sources
of
air
pollution.
F
With
the
new
link
road
there's
going
to
be
very
significant
impacts
during
construction,
and
I
should
say
also
during
destruction
so
during
the
demolition
of
the
airstrip
and
then
obviously
the
building
of
sg-15
and
also
whatever
works,
have
to
take
place
on
os
10,
which
we'll
be
discussing
on
thursday
mata
five
open
forgotten.
What
they're
called
now
open
spaces.
F
So
we
would
say
that
all
of
those
mean
that
a
requirement
for
an
emission
assessment
is
is
triggered
and
we
think
that
that
needs
to
be
done
soon
and
it
needs
to
be
done
very
rigorously
because
it's
not
only
about
not
breaching
the
whatever
the
current
air
quality
regulations
are
or
what
whatever
the
new
who
ones
are.
But
it's
also
about
monitoring
the
quality
of
air
that
is
there
now,
so
that
people
know
what
has
been
lost
and
if
we
don't
know
what's
there
now
we
can
go
on
monitoring
once
once.
G
G
What's
really
going
on
in
those
areas
of
concern,
and
that's,
I
think
why
we
are
pushing
this.
This
particular
issue,
because
I
mean
the
reality
is
we
should
have
been
below
40
in
terms
of
the
original
legislation
seven
years
ago
and
we're
still
not
we're
still
some
way
off
and
and,
as
have
been
pointed
out
in
terms
of
jilly
gate.
G
G
Air
pollution,
you
know,
contributes
to
tens
of
thousands
of
deaths
a
year
now
that
is
declining,
but
that
is
still
an
enormous
volume
of
death
plus
there's.
You
know
large
amount
of
ill
health,
a
deteriorating
quality
of
life
in
the
years
before
people
die.
That
is
related
to
this.
You
know,
and
the
casual
approach
of
the
council's
council
on
this
matter
when
it's
actually
people's
lives
at
risk
are,
I
think,
is
very
disappointing.
A
D
So
I
thought
I'd
finished
earlier,
but
mr
linus
challenged
me
on
a
point,
so
I
I
feel
I
need
to
respond
to
the
degree.
I
think
the
mr
merged,
that
he
said
what
I
was
going
to
much
of
what
I
was
going
to
say.
First
of
all,
and
unfortunately,
don't
have
to
reference
it,
but
the
note
dealing
with
greenhouse
gases,
major
point
to
make
is
yes,
is
that
of
course
in
that
is
showing
that,
although
in
nox's
it
will
be
a
significant
decline.
City-Wide
that,
like
there
is
very
small
decline
only
in
particulates.
D
D
City-Wide
information
is
of
little
use
to
saying,
because
obviously
most
of
this
air
pollution
is
from
traffic
and
it's
the
traffic
along
the
radial
routes
on
the
inner
ring
road
which
is
causing
the
problem,
and
that
has
to
be
related
to
the
projections
of
traffic
increase
and
delay
on
those
small
areas.
So
that's
why.
A
C
Thank
you,
sir
I'll
ask
mister,
so
I've
come
to
provide
some
further
comments
on
that
information
in
the
context,
first
of
all,
of
the
at
the
pm,
2.5
and
pm
10
material
before
he
does
that
just
pick
up
in
a
couple
of
points,
essentially
what
has
been
raised
by
the
housing
parish
council?
Mr
merit
has
been
covered
already.
I
think
in
reality,
what
mr
merritt
is
is
looking
for
is
akin
to
this
form
of
detail,
you're
going
to
get
a
detailed
application
stage,
which
we
say
is
not
necessary
for
this
stage.
C
It
is
not
that
I
or
the
council
minimizes
air
quality
concerns.
It
is
quite
the
opposite.
It's
introduced,
particularly
in
the
plan,
what
it
considers
to
be
a
robust
policy
and
v1,
which
we
can
debate
in
the
rest
of
this
afternoon,
alongside
what
we
consider
to
be
entirely
adequate
information
to
judge
the
cumulative
effects
of
the
plan.
C
We
say
that
is
inevitably
information
which
would
have
to
be
provided
as
part
of
any
planning
application
when
it
comes
forward.
As
we
see,
env1
requires
air
quality
assessment
work
to
be
carried
out
for
individual
proposals
of
at
particular
sizes,
and
that
would
need
to
be
taken
into
account
at
the
time.
So
there's
no
question
of
air
quality
impacts,
otherwise
being
forgotten
about
at
planning
application
stage.
The
policy
provides
for
that,
as
for
cyc
91
I'll
just
come
to
mr
sutton
to
see
if
he
can
explain
please.
C
H
I
think
I
think
mr
linus
has
covered
some
of
these
points
already,
but
obviously
those
two
approaches
there's
the
general
approach.
That
says,
let's
look
at
it
on
the
city-wide
basis,
and
I
guess
this
is
what
we've
heard
today,
but
then
there's
a
specific
approach
where
we
look
at
individual
planning
applications
and
their
impact
on
on
specific
roads,
etcetera,
etcetera,
because
that
will
be
dealt
with
through
the
planning
process.
H
Just
to
pick
up
on
a
few
of
the
comments
about
the
65
reduction
in
knox
versus
only
four
percent
in
pm,
2.5
most
knocks
most
nitrogen
dioxides.
I
said
safe.
Forgive
me
if
I
slip
into
the
jargon,
do
come
from
traffic.
Hence
there's
a
significant
potential
reduction,
but
only
four
percent
in
pm:
2.5,
only
a
small
proportion
of
pm
2.5,
that's
for
small
micro
particulates
that
have
the
most
significant
impact
on
people's
health.
H
So
we're
talking
about
the
local
transport
plan
today,
but
obviously
we
are
developing
air
quality
policies
all
the
time
and
our
policies
will
also
be
focused
focusing
on
air
pollutants
from
non-traffic
sources,
just
referring
to
the
who
guidelines.
As
mr
linus
has
already
said,
they
are
guidelines
and
not
for
law.
The
government
is
currently
reviewing
the
objectives
for
air
quality
and
they
are
due
to
publish
new
objectives
in
october,
so
we
look
forward
to
those
and
those
will
be
the
targets
that
legally
we
have
to
aspire
to.
H
H
Yeah
talked
about
mr
corsier
talked
about
historic
air
pollution
on
falford
road
forward.
Road
currently
has
very
low
air
pollution.
Obviously
it
was
part
of
an
air
quality
management
there.
At
one
time,
successive
council
policies,
as
well
as
emission
reductions
of
vehicles,
have
been
that
we've
been
able
to
evoke
we've
been
able
to
remove
the
air
quality
management
area
in
fulford.
I
think
the
highest
concentration
we
have
involved
now.
Nitrogen
dioxide
is
25
compared
to
40,
so
we
are
well
under
the
health
based
air
quality
objectives
at
this
time.
H
A
B
B
So
you
cannot
assume
that
a
given
reduction
in
emissions
in
cyc
91
means
a
given
reduction
in
concentration
in
a
site
like
jilly
gate
and
going
back
to
one
of
mr
southam's
point.
Of
course
we're
here
talking
not
about
the
assessment
of
individual
development,
but
the
assessment
of
that
set
of
developments
in
the
plan,
and
we
remain
of
the
view
that
is
yet.
D
I
think
the
council
is
trying
to
confuse
the
purpose
of
planning
applications
with
the
purpose
of
local
plans,
so
the
local
plans
are
in
fact
operated
as
a
decision
imprints
in
principle
which
the
detail
is
then
obviously
looked
at
at
the
application
level,
and
so
I
would
remind
the
council
that,
of
course,
paragraph
124
of
mppf
refers
to
planning
policies,
I.e
local
plans,
and
so
the
key
wording
in
that
sentence
is
that
you
they
should
take.
The
planning
party
should
take
into
account
the
cumulative
impact
on
air
quality
from
individual
sites.
F
So
my
my
point
was
really
about
starting
with
what
we
have
now
the
kind
of
air
quality
that
we
enjoy
now
and
not
each
time
saying.
Well
it
what
it
it
was.
It
was
okay
for
that
development
and
this
development
is
a
little
bit
worse
and
now
this
development
is
a
little
bit
worse,
but
we
still
haven't
breached
the
regulations,
so
we're
okay,
you
would
you
would
never
know,
then
how
far
you
drifted
from
what
the
original
air
quality
had
been.
C
Sir,
can
be
very
brief,
I
think
in
response
to
mr
kershier.
Our
point
is
that
that's
reading
far
too
prescriptively
paragraph
one
two,
four
of
the
of
the
framework
to
suggest
that
that
is
indicating
that
you
must
carry
out
impacts
on
specific
local
areas
within
a
local
administrative
area.
We
just
don't
consider
that
the
policy
is
intended
to
be
as
prescriptive
as
that,
it's
entirely
consistent
to
look
at
local
areas
in
the
way
that
the
council
has
done.
That's
the
first
point.
C
Secondly,
in
any
event,
the
sustainability
appraisal
does
look
at
strategic
sites
individually
and
reaches
a
view
on
cumulative
impacts
in
that
in
that
context,
and
thirdly,
at
mpp
at
g
on
air
quality,
we
say
again
doesn't
have
any
prescriptive
approach
to
how
air
quality
is
considered.
As
part
of
the
local
plan
process
is
entirely
opposite
to
produce
a
sustainability
appraisal
which
looks
at
our
quality
objectives
and
and
then
drawing
on
monitoring
data.
Consider
what
the
prospect
is
for
trends
in
a
holistic
basis
across
across
the
city,
so
we
we
reject
mr
kersier's
approach.
C
As
for
ms
hilton
again,
I
do
we
do
understand
the
difference
between
local
plan
making
and
development
management,
but
the
concerns
that
she
is
at
raising
are
matters
that
are
entirely
appropriately
dealt
with
at
a
planning
application
stage.
On
the
basis,
the
local
plan
process
has
been
followed
adequately.
A
C
Modified
so
you'll
see
the
modifications
at
the
appendix
to
the
hearing
statement.
The
general
rationale
behind
suggesting
those
changes
was
to
be
absolutely
clear
about
what
was
going
to
be
expected
in
terms
of
different
categories
of
of
development
and
having
a
clearer
relationship
between
the
text
within
the
policy
and
the
under
supporting
text.
The
fundamental
point
is
is
designed
to
be
a
robust
policy
which
ensures
that
air
quality
is
properly
considered
in
relation
to
proper
categories
of
development
at
planning
application
stage.
C
A
G
I'll
just
briefly
say,
I'm
sorry
dealing
with
all
the
other
stuff.
I've
just
done
the
chance
to
to
read
it,
but
refer
you
to
our
original
comments,
where
we
made
the
point
that
the
problem
was
the
existing
policy
in
in
the
main
is
that
quite
often
for
producing
development,
although
they
have
a
significant
impact,
it's
not
normally
enough
to
take
them
up
over
the
guideline
locally
and
that
and
they're.
G
So
you
know
the
existing
policy
actually
does
nothing
other
than
ensure
that
if
there
is
a
local
problem,
a
particular
premise
gets
appropriate
window
and
other
ventilation
treatment
to
stop
the
problem
in
the
particular
premises.
It
does
nothing
to
contribute
to
solving
the
overall
problems,
which
is
why
the
discussion
that
we
had
on
7.3
is
so
important
that
you
actually
you've
only
got
the
one
place
where
you
can
effectively
deal
with
the
cumulative
effect,
and
that
is
at
the
local
plan
policy
stage.
C
Very
very
briefly,
the
way
the
way
the
policy
is
drafted
is
intended
to
apply
to
all
development
proposals.
So,
although
there
is
a
requirement
to
submit
a
detailed
air
quality
assessment
for
particular
applications
that
are
identified
there,
the
first
paragraph
is
still
an
overarching
requirement,
which
means
that
development
will
be
permitted
if
the
impact
on
air
quality
is
acceptable,
and
so
in
so
far
there's
a
concern
about
developing
proposals.
Maybe,
for
example,
outside
aqma
is
not
being
caught
by
any
of
the
policy
principles.
C
A
Okay,
it's
been
a
it's
been
a
long
day,
but
thank
you
for
for,
for
I
mean
these.
These
matters
do
require
proper
consideration.
So
I'm
grateful
on
both
sides.
Tomorrow,
9
30
start
it's
green
belt
boundaries
again.
Isn't
it
so
I'll
see
some
of
you?
Then
I
shall
look
forward
to
it.
Have
a
pleasant
evening.
Everyone
thanks
very
much.