►
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
A
The
question
I
asked
was
whether
the
the
proposed
densities
in
in
the
policy
are
appropriate
and
whether
they'll
result
in
the
efficient
use
of
land.
I
suppose
I
should
add
to
that
addressing
this
to
the
council,
if
you
could
just
explain
to
me
where
those
how
those
figures
have
been
derived
or
where
they
come
from,
that
would
that
would
assist.
I
think.
B
Yes,
certainly,
sir,
the
I
think
taking
the
approach
generally,
the
the
council's
position
is
that
the
the
policy
remains
an
appropriate
one
in
the
in
the
context
of
seeking
to
make
efficient
use
of
land
and
the
paragraph
47
of
the
mppf,
which
gives
opportunities
for
local
authorities
to
apply
a
local
approach
to
housing
density
and,
and
that's
certainly,
what
the
city
is
seeking
to
do
here.
Those
density
requirements,
according
to
particular
areas
of
the
of
the
city,
were
founded
through
work
that
was
undertaken.
B
B
The
phrasing
is
deliberately
supportive
and
not
prescriptive
in
that
that
respect,
and
but
the
the
overall
emphasis
was
to
try
to
seek
to
make
sure
that
those
opportunities
are
captured.
Given
that
there
there
is
a
strong
existence
of
these
corridors
threaded
across
the
city
and
and
wanting
to
to
make
sure
that
the
right
development
comes
forward
in
those
locations
and.
B
There's
additional
flexibility
given
to
considerations
on
strategic
sites
and
those
sites
where
conservation
area
and
heritage
issues
may
come
into
play,
though
that
said,
that's
not
necessarily
a
kind
of
an
indication
that
lower
density
should
as
a
starting
point
be
considered
simply
because
of
those
that
location.
I
think
there's
good
practice
evidence
out
there.
That
suggests
that
you
can
achieve
high
density
in
historic
environments,
and
I
think
indeed,
there's
practice
guidance
notes
on
to
that
effect
as
well.
So
it's
really
recognizing
that.
A
A
C
You
can't
you
can't
just
create
family
homes
in
in
the
greenbelt,
because,
particularly
in
in
the
areas
that
we've
been
talking
about
this
morning,
that's
not
always
viable
for
people,
and
you
also
need
to
create
healthy
and
sustainable
communities
and
what
I
think
we
will
find-
and
I
think
there
was
much
reference
to
this
at
the
last
hearings-
were
that
we
see
these
properties
being
taken
up
by
airbnbs
by
the
short-term,
letting
market
and
not
necessarily
moving
into
that
sort
of
family
need
market
that
that
york.
That
york
requires.
C
C
D
Thank
you
and
I
would
agree
that
we
need
to
ensure
that
we're
creating
sustainable
communities
in
our
new
developments,
and
I
appreciate
that
the
council
are
trying
to
make
efficient
use
of
land
and
set
appropriate
policies.
However,
I
just
have
concern
in
relation
to
whether
the
flexibility
and
the
policy
goes
far
enough,
and
I
think
it's
just
worth
remembering
the
housing
requirements
that
are
coming
through
in
terms
of
this
plan
in
terms
of
its
policies
and
also
in
terms
of
emerging
government
guidance
in
relation
to
the
future
home
standards.
D
Things
like
biodiversity
net
gain
which
all
potentially
have
an
impact
on
the
density
of
development.
So
I
appreciate
there
is
some
flexibility
in
here,
but
I
just
think
potentially
it
needs
to
go
a
little
bit
further
to
ensure
that
we
do
get
those
sustainable
communities
and
that
they
do
have
the
ability
to
meet
all
of
the
current
proposals
in
the
plan
and
any
future
changes
to
policy.
D
I
think,
just
in
relation
maybe
to
the
final
paragraph
that
obviously
introduces
that,
in
terms
of
the
local
character
of
the
area
and
whether
it
could
just
go
a
little
bit
further
and
include
flexibility
to
ensure
that
the
immunity
and
sustainable
aspects
of
the
development
can
be
included
with
that.
It
just
is
to
reflect
current
and
emerging
policy
or
something
along
those.
B
I
think
our
feeling
is
that
it
it
there
is
sufficient
flexibility
there
to
do
that,
and
there's
also
other
policies
that
are
to
be
taken
into
consideration,
some
of
which
are
cross-referenced
at
the
bottom
of
the
policy.
So
I
think,
on
the
whole
and
as
the
plan,
if
you
take
the
plan
as
a
whole,
there
is
that
flexibility
there.
I
think
the
point
around
the
challenge
that
might
come
with
delivering
it.
B
E
E
So
just
as
three
examples:
we've
obtained
planning
permission
in
the
last
18
months
for
three
schemes
as
a
housing
department.
All
of
those
are
matching
or
above
the
standards
set
out
in
this
policy.
All
of
the
homes
are
m42
or
m43
the
army
national
space
standards.
They
all
enhance
the
biodiversity
of
the
site.
They
all
deliver
above
planning
policy
level
of
community
open
space.
E
So
I
I
don't
see
any
issue
or
challenge
with
achieving
these
densities
alongside
alongside
those
wider
kind
of
social
and
environmental
aspirations
and
then
outside
of
our
project,
the
one
of
the
most
significant
projects
that's
come
through
planning
in
the
last
year,
or
so
is
redevelopment
of
the
nestle
south
side
by
clarion,
which
is
56
dwellings
per
hectare.
That's
a
302
home
scheme.
A
Thank
you.
I
suppose
that
that
is
always
the
the
kind
of
question
isn't
it
that
are
you
making
the
best
use
of
what
is
a
limited
resource
and
that's
why
it's
worth
setting
identities
in
this
way,
but
but
at
the
same
time
it
needs
to
be
flexibly
applied
because
there
will
be
some
sites,
some
places
where
you
probably
don't
want
to
don't
want
to
set
it
too
high.
There
will
be
other
sites
other
places
as
you
as
you've
got
here
near
public
transport
corridors
where
maybe
you
want
to.
F
Yes
speaking
on
behalf
of
york
environment
forum
this
afternoon,
we,
the
environment
forum,
strongly
supports
denser
development
for
a
number
of
reasons.
One
obviously
is
making
less
use
of
a
limited
commodity
in
terms
of
land,
but
also
for
some
of
the
reasons
we
outlined
earlier
in
phase
two
in
terms
of
creating
sustainable
communities
that
are
dense
enough
to
provide
adequate
basis
for
commercial
public
transport
that
are
compact
enough,
so
that,
in
effect,
you
can
create
15-minute
communities
with
all
the
appropriate
services
within
reasonable
walking
or
cycling
distance.
F
F
And
ought
to
be
increased
in
in
terms
of
trying
to
create
more
sustainable
communities,
not
simply
dormitory
dormitory
villages
and
that
you
know
comes
back
to,
as
I
say,
some
of
the
other
points
we
made
about
also
having
certainly
in
the
new
settlements,
local
employment
and
not
not
just
housing,
big
enough
to
generate
a
or,
in
effect,
all
the
services
that
you
need
on
a
day-to-day
ordinary
day-to-day
basis.
Thank
you.
G
B
I
think,
on
balance,
we
would
accept
that
point
which
is
valid,
and
I
I
see
no
reason
really
why
that
shouldn't
be
expanded
to
allocated
sites
rather
than
just
strategic
sites,
but
noting
that
the
master
planning
agreements
wouldn't
necessarily
apply
with
the
the
housing
allocate
the
non-strategic
housing
allocations,
because
they're
there's
no
specific
requirement
for
them
to
do
that.
The.
B
The
approaching
would
remain
flexible
and
would
would
ensure
that
and
through
negotiation
and
those
design
conversations,
an
appropriate
density
was
reached,
but
note
the
point
about
specifying
that
master
planning
agreement
when,
in
some
cases
as
strategic
sites,
don't
prescribe
that.
I
think
a
modification
could
be
advanced
to
just
alter
that
and,
if
necessary
and
widen
it
to
all
allocated
sites.
If
it
was
necessary.
I
think
that
the
the
priority
is
is
really
the
strategic
sites
because
of
the
scale
of
those.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
probably
does
need
to
be
made
clear
just
so
there's
no
there's
no
question
mark
over
what
densities
on
strategic
sites
should
be
allocated.
Sites
were
the
smaller
sites
that,
I
don't
know,
is
the
honest
answer,
but
because
one
would
need
to
approach
smaller
sites,
probably
with
a
bit
more
flexibility,
but
maybe
I'll
leave
that
with
you
for
now.
H
Just
on
one
very
minor
minor
point
so
h,
the
operation
of
h2
relies
on
figures,
5.2
and
5.3,
just
taking
figure
5.2.
First,
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
the
language
used
in
the
legend
quite
matches
up
with
the
language
and
the
policy
itself.
So
on
the
legend,
you've
got
a
city
center
and
city
center
extension
zone,
whereas
the
policy
just
refers
to
the
city
center.
I
think,
then
the
policy
refers
to
strategic
sites,
but
the
legend
refers
to
new
settlements
and
large
urban
extensions,
which
I'm
guessing
is
what
the
strategic
sites
reference
is.
H
I
mean
it's
a
minor
point,
but
I
think
it
is
a
point
of
sadness
because
it's
about
effectiveness,
really
yeah.
I'm
probably
gonna,
regret
mentioning
this,
but
you
know
I
do
wonder
we're
looking
at,
for
example,
figure
5.2
how
wide
some
of
those
thick
black
lines
around
some
of
the
colors
are
and
whether
one
can
be
sure
which
which
of
the
density
zones
one
is
in
it's
just
about
the
scaling
of
the
map.
B
B
B
A
B
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I'll,
then
yeah
I'll
refer
to
the
the
proposed
modifications
and
then
invite
mr
forgotten
to
talk
a
bit
more
about
the
or
mr
gardner
one
of
my
colleagues
to
talk
about
the
mix
in
the
context
of
the
updated
evidence
and
the
local
housing
needs
assessment.
But
just
in
terms
of
the
the
modification
that
we've
advanced,
it
was
really.
Whilst
it
seems
a
significant
one.
It's
not
changing
the
fundamental
basis
of
the
of
the
policy.
B
So
that
was
really
the
basis
for
the
first
modification
to
the
the
policy.
There's
additional
modification
at
the
the
final
clause,
which
seeks
to
better
express
and
tie
in
the
evidence
that
was
already
before
us
and
and
referred
to
in
paragraph
5.23
in
terms
of
the
needs
for
not
just
older
our
older
population,
but
those
across
the
demographic
that
require
additional
needs
within
their
their
homes
and
around
wheelchair
accessibility
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
what
we
did?
B
What
we've
sought
to
do,
which
was
on
response
to
the
housing
needs
assessment
which
qualified
that
these
needs
are
prominent
and
are
continuing
to
to
rise
within
the
planned
period.
We
haven't
sought
to
introduce
a
prescribed
target
for
those
types
of
of
accessible
homes
being
brought
forward
on
developments.
We've
simply
sought
to
just
strengthen
the
encouragement
to
do
that.
The
appendix
to
the
hearing
statement
provides
our
viability
appraisal
that
had
run
that
just
to
make
sure
that
we
were
not
encouraging
something
that
wasn't
going
to
be
deliverable.
I
You,
okay,
so
one
just
in
terms
of
some
of
the
evidence
sitting
behind
that,
so
the
proposed
modification
now
notes
the
local
housing
needs
assessment,
which
is
the
recently
completed
piece
of
work
or
alternative.
You
know
other
evidence
as
as
may
be
the
case.
There's
a
few
things
within
that
document,
which
is
what
cd92
from
memory.
I
I
think
you've
already
been
taken
to
table
1.1
of
that
document,
which
sets
out
a
suggested
mix
of
housing
for
different
tenure
groups,
identifying
a
potentially
slightly
larger
mix
within
the
market
sector,
smaller
homes
and
affordable
housing,
which
is
as
much
about
the
way
that
affordable
housing
gets
allocated,
particularly
rented,
affordable
housing.
I
think
just
to
highlight
we've
updated
that
piece
of
work
using
a
similar
method
to
the
2016
shmar.
I
I
J
Yeah,
I
think
I
think,
if
I
may,
sir,
I
think.
First
of
all,
we
welcome
the
change
but-
and
he
said
I
know
we
appreciate
it
for
some
11th
hour,
so
we're
all
just
coming
to
grips
with
it,
and
if
there
was
an
opportunity
to
come
back
on
the
point
of
m42
and
m43
in
in
writing
later,
then,
maybe
that's
something
I
need
to
consult
with
my
client.
J
F
F
If
you
go
back
to
herm's
report,
the
pr
the
the
previous
estimated
affordable
need
to
the
one
that
was
originally
submitted
was
much
much
higher
in
terms
of
family
housing,
and
that
perhaps
raises
the
question
as
to
what
you
know.
The
displacement
of
families
from
york
is
artificially
depre
dis,
reducing
the
figures
that
we
are
being
catered
for
in
the
future
plan.
K
K
In
that
first
paragraph,
so
we've
got
the
council
will
expect
developers
to
provide
housing
solutions
that
contribute
to
meeting
york's
housing
needs,
as
identified
in
the
latest.
Housing
needs
assessment
and
other
appropriate
local
evidence.
That's
quite
clearly
about
looking
at
what
york's
housing
needs
are
and
then
responding
to
that
need.
K
That
would
then
allow
families
to
move
in.
That
was
about
balance,
balancing
the
community
and
trying
to
address
across
the
broad,
the
the
mix
of
the
community,
because
it
was
felt
it
was
too
heavy
towards
older
people,
and
there
wasn't
enough
accommodation
for
younger
families
in
particular,
because
the
school
was
starting
to
become
underpopulated.
K
The
latest
application
for
willow
bank,
which
is
site
age
46,
is
completely
different.
There
we've
looked
at
housing
need
that
is
about
addressing
the
need
for
two
and
three
family
bedrooms
and
some
single
flats
single
occupancy
flats
for
smaller
households,
two
completely
different
propositions
with
two
completely
different
objectives,
and
it
feels
like
that
first
paragraph
is
getting
itself
confused
with
those
two
matters.
In
my
mind,
it's
just
that
thing
of
I've.
Just
read
it
for
the
first
time,
I'm
going!
Oh,
hang
on
a
minute.
K
B
B
B
B
And
then
absolutely
that's
all
of
them
at
once,
and
that's
a
deliberate
use
of
con
of
the
word
to
make
sure
that
it
it
it's
contributing
in
a
in
a
way
that
is
appropriate
for
the
site
and
is
not
an
expectation
that
the
exact
mix
of
of
housing-
that's
that's
identified
in
that
needs.
Assessment
is
delivered
strictly
in
accordance
on
every
single
site.
B
A
I
I
I've
got
flicked
off
that
now
but
effectively
we
said
we've
slightly
boosted
them
larger
market
homes
to
reflect
competitors.
We've
run
a
model.
That's
come
up
with
a
certain
estimate
of
a
need
for
larger
family
homes.
We've
just
boosted
that
slightly
in
our
conclusions
to
take
account
of
of
home
working.
I
The
other
point
was
around
family
housing
and
and
the
the
possibility
there's
been
some
flight
from
yorker
families
and
certainly
would
seem
as
if
the
census
data
that
came
out
after
we
drafted.
The
report
does
certainly
show
a
lower
level
of
population
growth
and
lower
numbers
of
of
children
and
people
of
working
age.
I
But
I
think
just
to
note
that
again,
the
local
housing
needs
assessment
is
linked
to
the
822
per
annum.
Housing
requirement
figure
which,
as
as
was
discussed
this
morning,
would
include
an
element
of
an
increased
migration
back
into
york
to
to
provide
a
sufficient
population
to
fill
that
number
of
homes.
I
Migration
profiles
tend
to
be
focused
very
strongly
on
people
of
working
age
and
and
their
associated
children.
So
again
the
mix
we've
come
up
with
should
should
at
least
to
some
considerable
degree
reflect
you
know,
you
know,
reflect
a
continued
growth
in
in
family.
You
know
family
households
and-
and
you
know,
the
accommodation
sizes
they're
likely
to
need.
A
A
B
Indeed,
yeah.
Thank
you,
sir.
The
the
approach
that
that
we've
taken,
we
think,
does
provide
adequate
or
will
lead
to
an
adequate
level
of
of
custom
and
self-built
housing
plots
coming
forward
and
recognizing
that
there's
no
specific
requirement
through
the
mppf
for
the
council
to
to
make
provision
through
its
local
plan.
But
as
you've
seen
in
the
hearing
statement,
we
recognize
that
there
is
a
level
of
demand
which
is
drawn
through
the
the
council's
register.
B
L
Yeah
so,
as
laura
said,
the
need
is
set
out
in
the
matter
statement
and
as
per
the
ppg.
This
is
based
on
the
custom
and
self-build
register,
which
is
also
published
on
the
government
website,
so
it's
freely
available
for
anyone
who
wishes
to
see
it
in
terms
of
the
planning
practice
guidance.
The
council
are
required
to
permit
housing
for
the
number
of
new
entries
onto
the
register
within
three
years
at
the
end
of
each
base
period.
L
L
L
The
target
will
in
effect,
change
each
year
when
the
base
period
finishes
and
then
subsequently
becomes
the
target
three
years
heads
looking
at
how
the
council
have
approached
this
in
terms
of
seeking
five
percent
of
housing
on
strategic
sites
or
large
sites.
This
is
not
an
uncommon
approach
to
dealing
with
meeting
the
needs
for
custom
and
self-built
households,
cambridge
district
council,
for
example,
who
were
described
by
the
national
custom
and
self-build
association
as
being
trailblazing,
of
course,
a
very
similar
policy
in
their
local
plan,
which
was
adopted
in
2014.
L
L
There
is
a
degree
of
flexibility
within
that
where
plots
marketed
for
a
minimum
period
of
12
months
and
in
the
case
of
cambridge
they
after
that
12
months
of
marketing,
if
they
remain
unsold,
then
they
can
either
remain
on
the
open
market
for
custom
and
built
self-built
plots
or
be
offered
to
the
council
and
housing
associations
before
being
built
out
by
the
developer.
Now
york's
not
seeking
that
you're
seeking
something
slightly
different
and
that
after
a
12-month
period
of
marketing
and
if
it's
been
marketed
unsuccessfully,
then
the
plots
would
actually
revert
back
to
the
developer.
A
F
The
policy
was
originally
introduced
when
I
had
a
different
role
and
we
were
aware
of
potential
demand
at
the
time
when
the
issue
was
first
discussed
nationally.
So
the
five
percent
really
was
a
bit
of
a
stab
in
the
air
at
the
time
it
when
it
first
went
into
one
of
the
local
plan
versions
the
2014
plan,
given
that
we
now
actually
have
evidence
from
waiting
lists
which
suggests
the
numbers
are
four
times
the
actual
potential
provision.
F
Solid
evidence,
so
perhaps
that's
something
the
council
ought
to
consider,
but
equally
the
point
that
that
was
made
about
other
plan
versions
and
the
cambridge
one.
What
happens
in
terms
of
reversion
if
the
sites
aren't
all
taken
up
given
the
affordable
housing
need?
I
wonder
whether
it
will
also
be
appropriate
for
the
council,
when
it
reconsiders
how
it
can
provide
additional
affordable,
perhaps
looks
at
whether
the
reversion
should
be
to
affordable
housing.
G
Apologies
yeah.
We
we
made
comments
on
this
with
regard
to
the
the
five
percent
on
the
strategic
sites,
because
it
just
feels
a
bit
of
a
blunt
tool
just
to
put
five
percent
on
all
of
them,
without
any
evidence
as
to
what
the
waiting
list
suggests
where
those
people
want
to
live,
the
type
of
locations
they
want
to
live.
And
your
question
was:
does
this
policy
sort
of
adequately
meet
it
and
it
just
feels
like
it
almost
needs
a
development
management
section
in
it?
G
If
people
want
to
apply
to
provide
a
self-build
home
where
it
just
seems
to
be
that
they
will
just
be
put
five
percent.
However,
it
then
says
that
there'll
be
a
requirement
subject
to
appropriate
demand
being
identified,
which
almost
seems
to
put
the
onus
on
the
applicant
to
then
start
to
go
through
and
establish
if
there
is
a
demand
for
self-build
within
the
area
where
the
strategic
site
is
and
then
establish
what
that
demand
is
and
then
put
an
application
in
presumably
somewhere
between
north
and
5.
G
So
I
think
partly
it
probably
needs
to
have
further
clarification
for
people
who
want
to
apply
for
custom-built
plots,
but
equally,
I
think
it
just
needs
to
be
clarified
what
the
mechanism
is
when
an
application
comes
in
on
on
one
of
the
strategic
sites.
Is
it
five
percent,
or
is
it
actually
that
a
demonstration
has
to
be
shown
somewhere
between
naught
and
five
percent,
and
it
just
seems
quite
onerous
for
that
to
be
on
the
applicant
to
do
where
the
council's
evidence
to
back
up
this
policy
should
be
saying.
G
Actually
there
is
a
requirement
in
these
different
locations?
Again,
we've
never
mentioned
the
site
before,
but
weldrates
got
mentioned
twice
today.
Well,
drake's
up
eight
miles
out
of
york
city
center
right
on
the
edge,
and
is
there
really
huge
demand
for
people
with
self-built
plots
wanting
to
move
over
to
that
area
if
they
live
in
other
parts
of
the
city
and
have
ties
to
other
parts
of
the
city?
So
I
think
that
just
has
to
be
clarification.
J
Yeah,
thank
you,
sir.
More
or
less
the
same
point.
We've
got
the
like
this
requirement
on
st
8,
we're
not
objecting
to
it.
But
what
I
would
point
on
the
point
about
who
identifies
the
need
is
that
I'm
just
looking
at
the
adopted
harrogate
policy,
which
is
exactly
the
same
in
effect
it's
five
percent
on
strategic
sites
and
what
it
says.
J
The
council
engages
with
the
developer
to
identify
where
this
need
and
demand
is
coming
from,
because,
ultimately,
I'm
not
100
convinced
is
that
those
people
who
want
to
build
self-build
necessarily
want
to
build
it
on
the
strategic
housing
sites.
However,
there
will
be
some
people
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
involve
the
council
in
the
process
of
identification
in
the
policy,
so
I
have
no
objection
to
the
policy,
but
I
think
that
the
harrogate
policy
is
perhaps
a
little
bit
more
useful
in
that
respect.
D
Thank
you,
sir.
I'd
agree
with
the
points
raised
there
by
mr
johnson
and
miss
anakis.
I'd
also
just
say
that
demand.
So
what
we've
mentioned
about
that?
It's
identified
on
the
register,
we
haven't
had
any
details
in
relation
to
the
existing
permissions
that
have
been
granted
or
any
monitoring
of
any
of
delivery
of
self-built
homes
already,
and
so.
Presumably
that
is
happening
to
some
extent
already,
so
the
demand
might
not
actually
be
reflective
of
that.
D
That
may
be
more
preferable
to
most
self-build
developers,
rather
than
potentially
trying
to
put
them
onto
larger
strategic
sites,
with
all
the
practical
issues
that
come
with
that
and
set
those
out
in
our
hearing
statement,
but
obviously
timing
of
construction
and
obviously,
as
we've
heard
earlier,
issues
in
relation
to
the
affordable
housing
contribution,
potentially
all
add
to
the
issues
around
developing
as
part
of
a
larger
site,
and
that
is
presuming
that
people
want
to
be
in
those
locations
and
on
those
sites.
In
the
first
place,.
C
A
A
E
For
those
six
self-built
parts
we
had
100
expressions
of
interest.
We
had
50
viewings
and
20
bids
for
those
plots
so
significant
interest
in
terms
of
our
self-build
register.
It's
probably
a
little
bit
of
an
art
rather
than
a
science
at
the
moment
in
terms
of
assessing
demand
and
need.
I
don't
think
that
I
would
state
that
every
single
person
on
the
self-build
register
intends
to
build
a
self-build
during
the
planned
period,
but
likewise
we
haven't
widely
publicised
the
self-build
register.
E
E
The
final
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is
the
city
of
york.
Council
has
a
dedicated
self
and
community
build
officer
who
works
in
the
housing
delivery
team,
so
his
role
is
to
both
bring
forward
council
owned
sites
for
self
build
which
we're
currently
doing,
but
his
role
is
also
to
work
alongside
developers
and
the
planning
team
to
facilitate
how
it
happens,
to
support
the
process
to
create
those
connections
between
identified,
need
and
demand
and
and
the
proposals
coming
through.
So
we
already
have
a
resource
in
place
that
can
support
that
process.
A
Appropriate
demand
being
identified
by
the
council
or
something
to
that
effect
just
to
make
it
absolutely
clear
who
who
the
onus
is
on
to
identify
the
demand,
because
I
think
I
take
the
point
that
the
developer
probably
won't
know
to
the
extent
that
the
council
would
know.
So
that
might
be
a
useful
thing
to
add.
In.
A
H
A
If
we,
if
we're
going
to
be
that
forensic
about
it,
I
might
also
ask
about
about
about
the
word
all.
What,
because
you
could,
you
could
be,
you
could
be
in
conformity
with
most
of
the
development
plan,
not
with
others.
It's
the
whole
point
about
development
plan
as
a
whole,
so
yeah
that
might,
if
other
relevant
local
policies
with
relevant
local
policies
would
work.
I
think.
M
A
A
J
Apologies,
I'm
assuming
we're
on
h9
now
I
was
just
chatting
with
mr
napkins
next
to
us,
because
we
were
just
looking
through
the
specific
requirements
of
the
large
sites
where
we
don't
think,
there's
necessarily
a
requirement
for
all
the
persons
housing
in
the
site
specifics
on
the
strategic
sites,
but
in
which
case
just
to
be
clear
on
this
with
the
council,
we're
assuming
that
we're
addressing
policy.
Other
matters
such
as
accessibility
under
m42
and
m43
accessibility,
we're
not
being
asked
to
actually
put
older
persons
care
home
units
on
the
strategic
sites
of
this
policy.
J
We
are
already
looking
at
accommodating
self
build,
but
I'm
not
certain
that
this
policy
is
asking
us
to
put
a
specific
care
home
facility
on
the
city
on
the
strategic
site.
But
clarification
on
that
point
would
be
welcome
because
we're
not
we're
not
in
dialogue
with
with
care
home
providers
on
the
strategic
sites.
I
think
we've
got
flexibility
such
that
we
don't
need
to,
but
some
clarification
will
be
useful.
B
B
What
the
council's
intention
was
notwithstanding,
that
it
hasn't
sought
to
identify
specific
requirements
on
strategic
sites
was,
was
really
an
emphasis
of
considering
where
there
might
be
opportunities
to
bring
particular
types
of
housing,
specialist
housing
forward,
recognizing
that
we're
dealing
with
quite
a
wide
spectrum
of
potential
housing
that
would
fill
that
type
of
of
use
and
recognizing
that
there
are
opportunities
quite
possibly
will
be
opportunities
on
strategic
sites
where
they
wouldn't
otherwise
exist
on
other
sites.
To
consider.
B
A
I
mean
just
for
my
understanding
is
the
suggestion
where
you
say
strategic
sites
over
five
hectares
should
incorporate
the
appropriate
provision
of
accommodation,
types
for
older
persons
within
their
site,
master
planning,
that's
a
reflection
of
what
h03
asks
about
in
terms
of
housing
mix,
so
there
will
be
some
provision
for
the
elderly
on
a
strategic
site,
but
the
question
mr
johnson's
asking
is
is
to
what
level
of
accessibility
I'm
understanding
that
right.
I
think
I
hope.
J
Yeah,
I
I
mean
at
the
moment
there's
a
cross-reference
to
the
new
housing
needs
assessment
on
accessibility
standards,
and
it
is
quite
common,
this
day
and
age,
to
put
accessibility
standards,
in
effect
for
those
needing
accessibility
standards
to
various
percentages
within
the
larger
strategic
sites,
and
we're
absolutely
fine
with
that.
I
just
think
I
think,
as
I
re
as
I
read
in
understanding
it
now,
is
that
I
think
the
strategic
side
should
incorporate
the
appropriate
provision
of
accommodation
types
for
older
persons.
J
That
is
the
m4
requirement
and
I
think
that's
a
cross-reference
back
to
policy
h3.
I
don't
think
there's
a
problem
with
with
that.
I
think
as
long
as
as
long
as
as
long
as
we're
not
then
taking
it
is
that
you
then
should
also
provide
the
sheltered,
an
extra
care
accommodation.
As
part
of
that,
I
think
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
that
the
sheltered
and
extra
care
accommodation
actually
should
sit
within
that
paragraph.
B
B
G
Thank
you.
So
it's
just
a
point
of
clarification
because
again
the
wording
says
within
their
site
master
planning
and
again,
when
you
look
at
this,
the
strategic
sites,
the
larger
ones,
require
site
master
planning
and
I
think
the
larger
ones
are
probably
the
ones
that
are
more
likely
to
accommodate
this
way.
You're
affected
in
the
new
garden
villages,
where
some
of
the
ones
that
are
almost
just
over
five
hectares,
you're
not
going
to
have
the
scene
and
you
don't
have
to
mast
upon
them.
G
So
if
that
just
needs
clarifying
that
it
is
only
on
specific
strategic
sites
rather
than
all
of
them,
because
I
think
it
as
I
read
it.
It
is
just
effectively
the
larger
ones
that
explicitly
require
master
planning,
as
opposed
to
those
smaller
ones
like
st
33
and
the
one
at
kotlin
thought
I
think,
as
well,
which
probably
don't
have
a
tip.