►
From YouTube: Phase 4; 16/9/22; Day 8; Matter 4; Placemaking, Design, Heritage and Culture; PM (1/1)
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
B
If
we're
dealing
with
d11
through
to
D14
pups,
I
can
just
run
through
the
basis
for
the
the
policies,
d11
alteration
under
extension,
existing
buildings,
the
purpose
of
the
policy
to
ensure
a
high
quality
design
of
proposals
to
extend
or
alter
existing
buildings
and
a
part
of
the
broader
Suite
of
policies
that
were
intended
to
secure
at
good
design.
In
accordance
with
the,
in
accordance
with
the
framework.
B
Historic
England
supports
day
11
on
the
grounds
that
will
help
ensure
the
extensions
and
alterations
take
place
in
a
manner
which
safeguards
the
elements
which
contribute
to
distinctive
character
of
the
city.
And
it's
felt
at
a
specific
policy
confirming
the
approach
is
part
of
a
science
Suite
of
policies.
B
We
take
the
view
again,
a
specific
policy
to
appropriate,
because
survival
of
historic
shop
fronts
in
the
central
historic
area
is
particularly
high
and
they
can
make
an
important
contribution
to
the
streetskip
on
the
historic
interest
of
the
main
retail
area.
So
it's
important
to
clarify
expectations
of
the
council
regarding
their
retention.
B
B
The
policy
supports
the
use
of
suitably
designed
internal
see-through
shutters,
where
other
security
measures
have
been
demonstrated
to
be
an
adequate
and
then
in
Conservation
Area
or
in
Heritage
assets,
solid
or
external
C3.
Shutters
won't
be
supported,
except
under
certain
circumstances,
and
again
it's
another
specific
policy
drawn
from
experience
of
dealing
with
applications
in
the
city
center.
That's
not
appropriate
to
provide
some
specific
guidance
on
on
matter
which
accumulatively
could
have
an
impact
on
the
on
the
area.
A
C
We
were
hopeful
that
there'll
be
a
brief
mention
of
the
need
to
address
the
climate
change
imperatives
and
more
particularly
the
carbon
ready
standards
that
are
being
referred
to
in
the
updated
cc2
policy.
So
as
I
say,
we'd
appreciate
if
there
was
a
flag
in
terms
of
the
need
to
take
that
into
account
in
design
in
the
design
of
extensions
and
the
and
the
policy
cross
reference
at
the
bottom.
A
B
We
don't
think
it's
as
necessary
to
do
it
obviously
you'll
be
looking
at
cc2
next
week,
which
will
clarify
the
approach
to
be
taken
on
climate
change.
One
always
always
have
to
read
the
plan
as
a
whole.
We
don't
think
it's
necessary
for
science
purposes
to
put
the
cross
reference
in
to
the
extent
that
cc2
needs
to
be
applied.
That
should
be
clear
from
a
from
a
viewing
of
the
plan
overall.
C
C
A
B
Respect
it
was
a
case
of
being
consistent
across
the
policy,
so
we
need
to
Across
the
flowers
of
who,
rather
so,
we
need
to
consider
that
so
I
think,
ultimately
any
cross-reference.
We
died.
It's
critical
to
soundness
because,
as
I
said,
the
plan
needs
to
be
read
as
a
whole.
So
if
there's
a,
if
there's
a
decision
to
be
taken,
I
suspect
it
would
be
against
cross-referencing
in
the
sense
that
you
don't
need
it
to
ensure
the
assignments
of
the
plan.
D
C
Yes,
no,
thank
you.
Okay,
thank
you,
and
policy.
D12
is
probably
the
even
more
important
one
in
the
sense
of
the
sheer
amount
of
heat
and
energy
loss
comes
out
of
the
front
doors
of
open,
open
door.
Shops
is
massive
and
actually,
in
a
sense,
it
tends
to
be
the
sort
of
modern
buildings
that
have
that
approach.
If,
if
we
actually
had
a
consistent
approach,
it
would
actually
help
the
rest
of
the
shop
from
policy
which
is
aimed
at
preserving
the
character
of
existing
shop
fronts,
which
have
doors.
A
C
B
That
exactly
I
think
the
the
pause
has
been
drafted
to
relate
to
the
installation.
If
I
can
put
it
in
that
Broadway
of
of
shop
fronts,
I
think
we
would
struggle
probably
with
how
to
frame
an
extra
sort
of
policy
requirement
that
sought
to
meet
Mr
merits
aspirations,
particularly
in
terms
of
High.
Any
proposals
might
be
enforced
and
I
think
that's
our
main.
Our
main
difficulty
with
it,
sir.
B
The
purpose
behind
the
policy
is
you'll,
seen
from
the
from
The
Suite
of
policies,
is,
is
really
really
about
the
contribution
that
well-designed
shop
fronts
make
the
character
of
of
an
area
and
our
immediate
reaction
to
that
suggestion
of
Mr
Emeritus.
That
is
getting
away
from
the
fundamental
purpose
of
the
of
the
policy,
and
it
would
be
difficult
to
enforce.
In
our
view,.
C
B
B
A
Only
one
thing
I
wanted
to
ask
was
again
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
devil's
advocate
question,
but
policy
D13
on
advertisements-
yes,
it
he's
probably
not
unexpected
I-
think
occasionally
do
advertisements
and
the
development
plan
is
a
material
consideration
rather
than
a
38
6
point.
Yes,
I
suppose
my
question
is
and
I
I
wanted
to
air
it.
Just
for
the
sake
of
having
aired
it
really
is.
Is
the
policy?
Is
the
policy
necessary
sorry.
B
We're
aware
there
is
obviously
the
separate
consent
process
on
the
2007
regulations.
I
think
it
would
raise
two
two
points
one,
even
though,
there's
a
consent
regime.
Under
those
regulations
there
will
be
circumstances
or
other
controls
such
as
listed
building
consent
and
soil
need
to
be
followed.
So
it's
worth
having
a
a
policy,
particularly
given
that
this
appears
in
a
suite
of
policy.
Who'd
have
a
Heritage
bent
to
them.
A
B
Consent
is
being
given.
You
should
have
regard
to
provisions
of
the
development
plan,
so
even
if
it
were
interpreted
being
for
that
limited
purpose
there
being
some
guidance
in
the
development
plan,
as
the
approaches
taken
could
be
useful
in
that
in
that
respect
too.
So
I
think
that
the
third
reason
is
that
obviously
the
mppf
anticipates
that
there
will
be
some
control
in
planning
terms
over
advertisements,
so
it
was
felt
for
a
combination
of
those
reasons
having
a
policy
would
be
there.
A
I
I
tend
to
agree,
I
think
having
some
some
experience
of
advert
consents
with
a
linked
listed
building
consented
it's
often
useful
to
have
something
to
fall
back
on,
even
if
it
only
is
a
material
consideration.
Even
if
it's
not
got
the
power
of
386
and
of
course
you,
the
the
council
does
need
some
control
over
adverts.
Okay,
so
yes,
I've
asked
the
question
for
the
sake
of
form
more
than
anything,
but
so.
A
Let's
deal
with
these
two,
these
two
allocations,
then
I
I
I,
wanted
to
ask
the
questions
about
these
allocations
in
this
session,
simply
because
I
think
they
bore
quite
heavily
on
the
the
sort
of
Heritage
or
place
making
title
I
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
few
things
about
them:
Mr,
Linus,
I,
don't
know!
If
there's
anything
you
wanted
to
say
in
introduction
to
them.
B
I,
don't
think
Castle
Gateway
is
being
considered
in
great
detail,
is
going
to
just
summarize
where
we
are
with
with
Council
Gateway,
as
you'll
have
seen
from
the
the
plan
and
potentially
walks
around
York.
If
you've
had
the
chance
to
to
do
so,
which
I'm
sure
you
have
it's
a
significant
regeneration
area
in
the
heart
of
the
city's
historic
Center
and
it
falls,
then
the
the
city
walls
obviously
incorporates
many
Heritage
assets
and
it
sits
partly
within
the
central
historic
core
Conservation
Area,
neither
Council
recognized
it.
B
Over
recent
decades,
schemes
had
failed
to
regenerate
this
area
of
the
city
successfully
and
had
really
failed
to
respond
to
the
Public's
Ambitions
for
the
area
or
understand
the
Heritage
significance
in
the
history
of
the
castle
and
I
of
York
and
just
bear
with
me.
So,
as
the
hearing
statement
explained,
it
approved
a
high-level
vision
for
Council
Gateway
in
in
2017
there
was
a
council
Gateway
Advisory
Group
that
was
established
to
bring
together
local
business,
rep
Representatives
interest
groups,
landowners,
other
stakeholders
to
help
understand
the
area's
history,
how
to
shape
its
future.
B
B
And,
as
you
see,
the
policy
essentially
divides
the
overall
area
into
five
sub-areas
on
Set
Side,
key
principles
for
the
development
of
each
and
the
focus
or
the
starting
point
for
The.
Wider
Redevelopment
of
the
area
is
the
Redevelopment
of
the
castle
car
park
to
provide
a
public
space
right
in
the
heart
of
the
area,
which
is
Central
in
more
than
one
way
to
the
policy
and
then
spanning
out
from
that.
There
are
principal
set
out
for
each
of
the
the
five
at
sub
areas.
B
B
The
policy
supported
by
historic
England
in
their
representations
recognizing
that
it
would
assist
in
realizing
the
potential
of
this
important
part
of
the
the
city
and
to
provide
for
other
context.
There
are
a
number
of
different
sort
of
planning
proposals
which
have
either
been
approved
or
are
going
through
determination
if
I
can
just
run
through
them
briefly
to
to
help.
B
Sir,
within
the
castle
and
I
area,
which
you
can
see
in
the
proposed
modifications,
page
11
of
the
hearing
statement,
a
planning
application
was
submitted
in
February
this
year
for
public
realm
improvements
at
the
castle
in
the
eye
to
create
a
new
high
quality
public
space.
It's
been
extensive
consultation,
that's
been
carried
out
on
those
proposals
through
events
and
blogs
and
that
application
is
awaiting
determination.
B
B
B
B
E
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
and
firstly,
I'd
say
I'm.
The
Civic
trust
I,
remember
of
the
Strategic
Advisory
board
for
a
custom
Gateway,
and
a
really
strong
supporters
of
the
aspirations
of
the
Regeneration
of
that
area,
particularly
in
the
way
that
Mr
Linus
has
outlined,
and
the
point
we'd
like
to
make
where
we
are
now
in
terms
of
the
development
is
a
much
more
broad-based
approach,
and
this
line
has
refer
to
the
consultation.
That's
gone
on
in
terms
of
how
we
Define
heritage
as
part
of
it.
E
When
you
look
when
you
look
at
policy
D7,
you
know
it
stresses
the
significance
and
non-herity
designated
Heritage
assets
and
mppf
recommends
that
La
is
taking
into
considerations
significance
of
all
Heritage
assets,
including
intangible,
and
we
feel
that
ss5,
because
it's
so
focused
on
Clifford's
Tower
in
particular,
and
the
introduction
within
the
purpose
of
the
generation
is
to
radically
enhance
the
setting.
Cliff's,
Tower
and
other
features
seems
to
be
a
little.
The
other
really
truly
internationally
significant
aspects
of
Heritage
in
this
particular
area.
E
I,
wouldn't
particularly
say
we
need
to
think
about
other
allocations
coming
forward,
but
the
castle
Gateway
is
such
a
significant
Heritage
area.
I.
Think
actually,
the
way
it's
described
in
ss5
doesn't
really
do
it
justice,
it's
it's
far
too
narrow,
I.
Think
when
you
take
into
consideration
the
inaccuracies
that
are
also
appear
in.
So
if
you,
if
you
look
at
330,
for
instance,
it
says
quite
a
small
point,
but
it
says
that
you
know
the
area
contains
a
mix
of
private
land
ownership
and
substantial
amount
of
public
estate
with
three
museums
and
attractions.
E
Well,
actually,
there's
four
to
five,
depending
how
you
describe
museums,
Three,
core
buildings,
many
listed
structures
and
air
schedule,
Asian
monuments.
Well,
there
are
three
schedule
range
monuments
within
that
area,
one
of
which
is
equally
significant.
Is
Clifford's
Tower.
If
you
look
at
if
you
use
the
map
of
a
three-point,
the
figure
3.4
as
a
description
of
the
area,
because
you've
got
the
merchant
adventurous
Hall
on
Piccadilly,
which
is
you
know,
an
internationally
famous
Guild
Hall.
E
Also
when
you
come
to
the
map
of
3.4
you'll
notice
that
Tower
Park
sits
without
areas
one
three
and
four,
so
it's
the
one
bit
that
the
dotted
line
goes
around.
Yet
when
it's
it's
referenced
within
the
principles
of
regeneration,
it's
actually
specifically
mentioned
as
an
area
that
will
actually
be
enhanced
through
regeneration.
So
what
we're
concerned
about
is
because
the
the
definition
of
Heritage
within
ss4
actually
is
quite
narrow.
E
There
is
a
risk
that
and
with
those
inaccuracies
which
I
might
admittedly
are
small,
there
is
a
risk
that
any
developers
coming
into
that
into
the
to
take
on
the
site,
won't
appreciate
and
understand
the
the
complexity
and
the
Nuance
of
Heritage.
In
this
particular
area
and
I
always
give
you
one
an
example:
if
you
look
at
the
program
of
1190
that
took
place
where
the
massacre
of
the
Jewish
people
totally
intangible,
there's
no
evidence
left
really
internationally
sensitive
event.
E
B
Thank
you,
sir
I
think
our
primary
responses.
We,
we
don't
think
that
change
is
strictly
necessary
for
science
purposes,
on
the
grounds
that
the
introductory
paragraph
identifies
the
significance
of
the
area
and
paragraph
three
three
one
also
was
at
the
significance
of
Heritage
assets
and
the
opportunities
for
improvement
offered
by
regeneration
are
key
priorities
for
this
area
of
opportunity.
So
the
policy
isn't
restricted,
but
we
take
the
point:
that's
been
made
by
Mr,
Morrison
and
subject
to
your
views.
B
Obviously
sorry
I,
don't
think
there'd
be
any
objection
onto
the
first
part
of
the
policy
where
it
sets
out
the
purpose
of
regeneration
and
adding
a
bullet
point
to
say,
recognition
of
the
significance
of
Heritage
assets
within
the
wider
area
of
opportunity.
So
that's
a
days
of
the
point
about
any
impression:
that's
restricted
to
Clifford's
tar
and
that
would
not
bullet
point
would
be
added
into
that
section
of
the
posting
hopefully
addresses
the
concern.
B
A
I
think
I'd
share
Mr
Morrison's
view
about
accuracy,
because
I
mean
it
does
give
anyone
looking
to
put
something
forward
using
this
policy,
a
proper
guide
as
to
what
they
should
be
thinking
about,
and
understanding
you've
also
well,
Mr
Morrison
was
there
anything
you
wanted
to
add.
Is
there
anything
else
you'd
like
to
raise.
A
B
B
I
think
the
the
rationale
for
doing
that
is,
it
was
felt
that
generally,
the
bullet
points
that
are
set
out
in
the
text
be
replaced
were
covered
when
one
looks
at
the
detailed
sections
later
later
on,
and
it
was
a
case
of
reviewing
the
policy
again
looking
of
looking
for
ways
of
tightening
it
up.
So
it
wasn't
repeating
text
in
general
terms,
and
it
was
covered
in
in
later
sections.
That
was
the.
That
was
the
main
thinking
behind
those
behind
those
modifications.
B
E
And
well
I
completely
take
Mr
Linus's
Point
around
duplication,
and
it
was
something
that
leading
on
to
our
next
question.
If
I
may,
sir
around,
we
were
when
we
considered
those
particular
deliverables
that
were
itemized
there
and
that,
with
a
with
a
view
to
providing
sufficient
guidance
for
development.
E
Actually,
we
suggested
our
written
submission
that
there
should
be
an
addition
to
those
that
bullet
pointed
list
which
is
around
develop
inclusion
of
something
like
developing
a
clear
set
of
design
principles
to
inform
the
high
quality
development
of
public
realm
transport
infrastructure
of
new
buildings
on
Castle
Gateway,
and
if
we
remove
that
paragraph
entirely
I,
just
wonder
when
we
go
into
three.
Oh,
your
question
3.2.
E
So
whether
actually
we
think
there
is
a
sufficient
detail
within
the
sub
areas
to
actually
seriously
put
out
the
fact
that
we
would,
as
Iris,
have
a
very,
very
high
quality
set
of
designs
where
we
were
thinking
that
actually
at
that
high
level
and
suggesting
a
modification
that
is
inserted,
a
sentence
like
that
would
actually
be
a
good
thing
to
do.
So.
Removal
of
that
bit
would
negate
by
completely
my
point
on
3.2,
but
that's
absolutely
fine.
B
The
the
removal
of
this
text,
as
I've
mentioned,
isn't
intended
to
take
anything
away
from
the
policy.
It's
really
to
avoid
duplication
and
the
texts
then
goes
on
to
appear
in
the
supporting
text.
In
any
event,
so
we
don't
think
that
we're
taking
anything
away
from
the
policy
as
to
whether
more
needs
to
be
added,
as
I
said.
The
purpose
behind
the
policy
is
to
facilitate
a
wide
area
of
opportunity,
and
we
think
that
the
detail
within
the
individual
character
areas
is
sufficient
to
identify
the
key
principles
on
plainly.
B
Any
planning
application
that
comes
forward
wouldn't
any
event,
have
to
adhere
to
what
is
a
fairly
full
design
policy
under
under
D1
and
as
when
the
two
are
read
together.
We
set
up
provides
a
fairly
strong
commitment
to
high
quality
design,
allied
with
the
key
principles
set
out
under
the
subarius.
A
I
recognize
when
I
wrote
the
questions
that
things
might
have
moved,
moved
on
and
I
suppose
we'll
have
that
we'll
have
the
same
when
we
come
to
talk
about
York
Central,
but
I've
spent
some
time
in
in
that
area
and
I
can
see
the
see
the
need
and
understand
the
aims
of
what
is
what
is
said
here.
So
there's
nothing
else
in
particular.
I'd
want
to
raise
about
it.
I
can
see
the
see
the
sense
of
having
a
framework
for
what
goes
on
in
the
area,
but
is
there?
C
Yes,
I'd
refer
you
to
our
original
objection:
Sid
364.,
where
we
express
the
number
of
concerns
about
the
form
of
development
of
this
site,
and
particularly
the
balance
between
employment
and
housing
as
an
employment
site
sitting
right
next
to
the
existing
station
railway
station
and
City
Center.
Sorry
Mr
we're
moving
on
to.
A
B
Sir
you'll
have
seen
York
Central
both
on
the
ground
and
through
consideration
of
the
cited
earlier
stages
of
the
inquiry.
As
you
know,
it's
a
very
significant
brinefield
regeneration
site
and
the
Heart
of
the
City
next
to
the
station,
which
offers
the
potential
to
deliver
very
high
quality,
sustainable
development.
An
answer
to
your
question.
We
think
Paul
CSS
for
those
provides
sufficiently
comprehensive
guidance
setting
out
the
Quantum
of
development
for
residential
employment
users,
appropriate
mix
of
uses
on
the
site
and
then
a
series
of
development
principles
to
guide
development
within
the
the
proper
setting.
B
B
That's
essentially
where,
where
we
are
in
anticipation
of
points
that
we
know
Mr
Merit
has
raised
before
we
understand
that
there
may
be
some
concerns
with
the
nature
of
the
outline
planning
permission
that
the
important
point
is
we're
looking
at
the
policy
here,
not
any
concerns
with
the
actual
permission
that's
been
granted
in
itself.
Under
that
context,
we
say
that
the
policy
is
drafted
is
appropriate.
C
C
C
We
were
also
concerned
at
what
we
saw
as
the
over
development
of
the
rest
of
the
site
in
terms
of
housing,
and
we
would
specifically
like
to
see
a
policy
Amendment
that
the
allocation
is
reduced
to
the
1700
dwellings
rather
than
the
two
and
a
half
thousand.
That's
for
a
number
of
reasons.
One
one
is
to
ensure
that
there's
actually
some
opportunity
for
the
site
to
accommodate
a
range
of
housing
types.
C
For
the
city,
plus,
the
the
scale
of
the
development
will
push
the
development
the
scale
of
those
apartment
blocks
to
actually
pretty
substantial
buildings,
relatively
High,
which
will
make
them
fairly
expensive
to
to
deliver
and
and
therefore
also
compromise,
the
element
of
affordable
housing.
That
is
that
that
will
be
provided
as
part
of
it.
C
The
other
aspect
obviously
is
also
a
a
large
site
such
as
this,
with
very
high
apartment
blocks,
will
be
a
very
dominant
impact
on
the
scale
you
know
on
the
scale
and
massing
of
the
city
relative
to
the
city
center
and
its
relatively
low
rise
scale,
with
the
exception
of
the
Minster,
so
I
think
there
are.
There
are
a
number
of
issues
that
we
are
concerned
about,
as
I
say,
I
would
like
that
Amendment
to
the
ratio
of
employment
to
housing.
C
E
Thank
you,
sir
I'll
repeat
what
Mr
merch
said,
but
we
do
have
similar
concerns
around
two
and
a
half
thousand
units.
Presidential
units
means
you
know
and
I'll
use
that
word
abruptly.
Squashed
into
that
site,
we're
resulting
in
in
the
height
of
buildings
and
the
densities.
I
think
is
an
issue,
so
we
share
those
concerns
in
that
particular
area.
E
There
was
one
point
I
would
like
to
make,
which
is
slightly
outside
of
the
point
to
Mr
was
making,
and
actually
it's
just
a
single
point
around
the
cultural
provision
within
York
Central,
because
you
know
fundamentally,
York
Central
is
one
of
those
fantastic
opportunities
for
the
city.
Civic
trusts
sit
on
the
Strategic
board
for
York
Central,
and
your
question,
sir,
is
around
comprehensive
to
that
guide
for
redevelopment.
E
We
get
the
fact
that
the
national
museum
is
a
significant
cultural
player
and
an
anchor
tenant
on
the
site,
but
actually
I,
think
D3
and
the
way
this
the
city
would
like
to
see
York
Central
as
a
community
to
develop.
Actually
cultural
provision
should
be
throughout
public
realm
and
through
all
of
those
developments,
how
evident
they
are
so.
My
points
there
was
just
really
was
to
to
draw
your
attention
to
principle.
Three
and
I:
don't
think
it
contradicts
D3,
particularly,
but
I
think
actually
the
way
it's
written
does
contradict
the
center.
B
But
in
any
event,
again
next
point
is
that
it
doesn't
really
recognize
that
planning
permission
has
already
been
granted
on
on
the
site
and
20
affordable
housing
with
a
part
with
a
split
of
80,
so
she'll
rent,
a
20
intermediate
housing
has
been
secured
with
a
viability
review
mechanisms.
So
the
permission
is
already
seeking
to
deliver
a
range
of
housing
on
the
site.
But
beyond
that,
the
broader
point
I
can
deal
with
it
very
briefly
because
it's
been
dealt
with
before.
B
If
the
concern
is
about
allowing
for
a
range
of
housing
Types
on
the
site,
it's
better
making
the
most
of
the
site
in
terms
of
housing
numbers
rather
than
artificially
suppressing
them.
So
having
a
higher
number
of
houses
on
the
site
is
offers
the
best
Prospect
of
of
providing
for
a
range
of
housing
types.
B
As
for
concerns
about
the
design
implications
of
that
number
again,
we
don't
accept
that
proposals
that
that
level
of
housing
provision
are
going
to
inevitably
cause
unacceptable
impacts
and
design
terms
on
the
rest
of
the
on
the
rest
of
the
the
city.
That's
an
end
principle,
a
point,
nothing
to
do
with
the
drafting
of
the
policy,
but
fundamentally
this
is
a
highly
sustainable
site
where
you've
got
to
make
the
best
use
of
Brownfield
land
that
lies
in
a
sustainable
location
and
any
further
proposals
that
come
forward
beyond
the
planning.
Permissions
already
been
granted.
A
That's
helpful
can
I
just
be
clear.
I
think
I
took
Tookie
to
say
earlier
that
outline
planning
permission
has
been
granted
for
up
to
two
and
a
half
thousand
dwellings.
I
mean
up,
two
is
important,
but
two
and
a
half
thousand
dwellings,
so
the
expectation
I'm
sure
the
developers
expectation
will
be
up
to
two
and
a
half
thousand
yes
having
been
granted
outline
permission
for
that.
So
even
if
we
did
change
the
policy
to
say
1700
well,
the
policy
can't
overtake
the
permission.
No.
B
Exactly
and
obviously
you
know
under
the
prospect
of
having
to
deal
with
the
different
scenarios
that
were
we've
seen
relatively
slim
at
the
moment
so
but
to
deal
with
the
to
deal
with
the
principal
Point
Mr
Merit
is
made
as
I
said.
There's
a
planning
permission.
That's
already
been
granted,
but
in
any
event,
there's
nothing
to
suggest
that
at
this
can't
be
achieved
satisfactory
on
the
site.
A
D
No
they're,
not
as
yet
there
is
a
process,
that's
underway,
a
procurement
process
with
the
developer,
which
is
being
sorted
at
the
moment
and
isn't
anticipated
to
to
then
follow
with
a
reserve
matters.
Application
perhaps
just
worth
also
pointing
out,
say
you
weren't
in
the
session
for
the
Strategic
site
policy.
D
D
Yes,
that's
correct
also
worth
noting
that
the
outline
planning
permission
covers
the
vast
majority,
but
not
the
whole
entire
of
the
allocation
as
set
out
on
the
policies
map.
There
are
some
areas
of
the
site
as
allocated
that
fall
outside
the
area.
That's
subject
to
the
outline
planning
permission.
So
there
is
scope
for
additional
development
there,
which
could
contribute
to
those
quantums
that
fall
within
the
policy.
D
A
What
I'm
driving
at
is
that,
if
the,
if
the
council
got
something
through
reserved
matters
that
was
masked
or
arranged
or
in
a
way
that
it
was
felt
to
be
too
high
or
too
dense
or,
however,
you
put
it
that
there
is
scope
within
this
within
this
policy
for
it
to
be
and
other
policies
in
the
plan,
obviously,
for
the
council
to
resist
it.
Even
though
outline
planning
permission
has
been
granted,
is
that
I've
got
that
right,
I
hope.
A
C
You
know
we
we've
struggled
for
decades
in
terms
of
attracting
new
office,
employment
and
other
types
of
employment
to
to
the
city
center
because
of
the
poor
quality
of
existing
premises
very
limited
amount
of
space,
and
it
is
therefore
vital.
You
know
also
for
sustainability
reasons,
because
it's
the
easiest
location
to
get
to
by
public
transport
and-
and
you
know,
minimizes-
for
the
city
as
a
whole,
the
cycling
and
for
those
people
who
walk
distances.
C
So
you
know,
besides
the
attractiveness
as
I
said
in
terms
of
its
proximity
to
the
National,
Rail
and
Network,
so
you
know
we.
It
is
really
important
that
we
protect
the
employment
opportunities
of
this
of
the
part
of
the
site
near
the
station
for
the
maximum
benefit
of
the
city's
economy,
for
the
long
run,
medium
and
long
run.
So
that's
why
we
would
you
know,
wish
to
remove
the
flexibility
in
the
policy
and
then
clearly
any
future
applications
will
have
to
be
then
judged
in
the
new
context.
B
Plainly,
any
side
of
this
of
this
size
and
importance,
there
will
be
a
balance
to
be
struck
over
dwellings
and
employment
space,
but
there's
nothing
and
I
think
that
Mr
Meredith
said
to
suggest
that
the
balance
hasn't
been
struck
properly
and
it's
been
reflected
through
the
decision
on
the
planning
application.
At
any
event,.
D
B
B
And
with
a
fresh
application
came
in,
it
would
have
to
be
determined
according
to
the
policy
as
written
as
Ms
Bartles
said,
there's
an
allocation
for
1700
two
and
a
half
thousand
dwellings
and
approximately
100
square
thousand
Square
hundred
thousand
square
meters
of
of
Office
Space.
So
there
is
a
degree
of
flexibility
built
into
the
built
into
the
policy
will
have
to
be
considered
as
a
possible
to
say
in
the
abstract,
because
at
the
moment
we're
just
dealing
with
an
outline
planning
permission.
A
B
Obviously,
the
wording
of
the
pause
which
says
approximately
a
hundred
thousand
square
meters
will
be,
there
will
be
limits
to
the
extent
to
which
proposal
will
come
before
will
be
approximately
100
000
square
meters.
That
would
be
a
matter
of
Judgment
at
the
time
any
application
comes
in,
but
it's
quite
clear
that
the
pause
is
is
directing
the
achievement
of
a
of
a
of
a
Quantum
of
office
space.
Otherwise
the
figure
wouldn't
be
appearing
in
the
in
the
policy
at
all.
B
We
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
to
change
the
the
policy
to
address
this
point,
as
he
recognized
the
the
rationale
for
Criterion
three
was
to
recognize.
There
was
particular
Focus
around
the
National
Railway
Museum
as
far
as
cultural
provision
was
concerned,
but
if
one
looks
at
the
rest
of
the
the
policy
first,
paragraph
refers
to
being
an
Exemplar
mixed
use,
development
that
will
include
new
Central,
Business
districts,
expanders
new
cultural
and
visitor
facilities,
and
everyone
looks
at
D3
as
well.
B
Another
part
of
the
plan
and
it's
quite
clear
that
cultural
provision
has
encouraged
is
encouraged.
Generally,
we
don't
see
any
inconsistency
between
the
policy
in
York
Central
and
on
D3,
so
we
don't
think
it's
necessary
for
the
soundness
of
this
policy
to
add
in
an
extra
reference
as
Mr
Morrison
suggests,
we
think
article
support
is
there
across
the
areas
in
the
policy.
A
B
A
C
B
Thank
you,
sir,
and,
as
we
understand
the
complaints
Mr
merits
are
making
about
transport
matters.
We
must
bear
in
mind
that
are
instructed
that
the
reserve
matters
application,
which
has
already
been
approved
in
November
2020,
provided
for
the
construction
for
the
main
vehicle
routes
and
Associated
infrastructure
and
alterations
to
existing
roads
networks.
B
There
are
other
parts
of
the
policy
which
require
high
quality,
sustainable
development
to
be
carried
out
and
as
you're
aware
of
sustainable
development
as
a
social
arm
to
it.
So
if
there
were
concerns
about
those
matters,
they
would
plainly
be
considered
in
the
determination
of
any
application
coming
forward
to
the
extent
that
they
were
relevant.
So
we
don't
think
the
sign
is
the
plan
requires
that
addition
to
it.
A
A
A
B
Sorry
I'm
just
being
asked
if
you'd
like
to
see
the
Secretary
of
State
stopping
up
order
as
well.
I'm,
not
sure
you
need
it
perhaps
or
I
mean.
If,
if
you
look
at
the
outline
planning
permission
on
the
reserve
matters,
approval
that
may
well
be
sufficient.
But
if
there's
anything
arising
out
of
thoughts
by
all
means,
you
can
ask
for
the
stopping.
A
Okay,
let's
leave
the
stopping
reporter
for
now
they're
they're,
an
interesting
area
of
of
planning.
Yes,
I've
done
a
couple
likewise,
sir
good.
Well,
unless
there's
anything
else,
then
I'll
I'll
bring
this
this
hearing
to
a
close
and
bring
this
week
to
a
close
and
see
you
all
or
see
some
of
you
at
least
on
on
Tuesday.
Thank
you
very
much
until
next
week,
then.
Thank
you
both.
Thank
you
thanks.
Everyone.
Until
next
week,.