►
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
Water
past
one-
and
so
I
resume
the
hearing
before
I'm
going
to
mr
good,
who
I
suspect,
is
going
to
take
us
on
a
on
a
little
detour
slightly
slightly
off
the
path
we've
been
following
so
far,
yeah
two
two
questions
and
the
first
one
sort
of
follows
from
a
point
that
mr
beaulie
made
earlier
and
that
is:
has
consideration
been
given
to
retaining
from?
Well
that's
not
quite
the
right
way
to
put
it,
but
keeping
within
the
plan
h,
59
alone,.
A
B
C
Well
simply
this
it
seems
to
us.
The
logic
must
be
that
if
you
are
not
satisfied
for
the
reasons
you've
just
intimated,
I
appreciate
that's
exploring
ideas
that
age
59
needs
to
go
on
the
evidence
you've
seen
and
then
you
shouldn't
recommend
that
deletion.
Now
what
then
has
to
happen
in
terms
of
hra
I
pass,
but
but
if
you're
not
satisfied
with
that,
then
you
shouldn't
recommend
the
deletion
of
869,
because
it
would,
it
can
only
be
appropriate
to
delete
it.
If
you're
satisfied,
it
would
be
inconsistent
on
the
evidence
of
impact.
C
B
I
think
I
I
I
do
think
we'd
have
to
do
a
screening
and
a
an
appropriate
assessment,
if
necessary,
to
be
absolutely
sure
and,
as
I
said,
we'd
have
to
consult
natural
england
on
it.
As
a
standalone,
I
mean
I
I'm
not
saying
that
it
couldn't
be.
I'm
just
saying
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
confirm
that
it
can
be
on
the
existing
material.
A
Yeah
we're
wondering
whether
or
not
to
be
honest,
that
puts
us
in
a
slightly
sticky
position,
because
they
they
are.
I
couldn't.
I
couldn't
fully
understand
the
reasons
why
they've
been
looked
at
together,
and
that
makes
logical
sense,
but
nonetheless
they
are
separate
allocations
and
you
know
in
effect
sort
of
separate
parcels
of
land
and
it's
slightly
worrying
because
I,
I
suspect,
you're
right,
mr
elvin,
that
we
probably
can't
reach
a
conclusion
on
age
59
by
itself
on
the
basis
of
the
current
hra.
B
B
A
Yeah,
I'm
not
going
to
push
you
for
a
time
scale
either,
because
for
a
start,
I'd
rather
that
you
spent
the
time
necessary
on
on
the
hra,
because
I
think
it's
all
about
doing
a
separate
hra.
Aren't
we
for
age
59
I'd.
Rather
that
time
was
taken,
it
was
done
properly
and
also
I'm
conscious
that
it
would
also
involve
consulting
natural
england.
Out
of
that-
and
I
think
I'd
be
hard-pressed
to
put
a
timetable
on
that.
A
Grateful
for
that,
thank
you
and
just
the
the
second
and
then
of
the
two
questions.
I
I
don't
know
mr
elvin,
if
you'll
be
in
a
position
to
answer
this
one
or
not,
and
if
it's
unfair,
please
do
let
me
know
but
yeah.
We
were
interested
to
know
if
we
were
with
mr
bewley
on
the
issues
that
we've
just
been
talking
about,
and
we
did
not
recommend
the
deletion
of
the
two
sites
from
the
plan.
B
You're
right,
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question.
I
think
we'd
be
in
a
difficult
position,
given
natural
england's
advice
and
that
had
quite
a
significant
effect
in
them.
Why,
in
case
we'd
need
to
think
about
it,
I
think
is
the
answer.
I
mean.
Obviously
it's
it's
your
decision
as
to
what
is
required
to
make
the
plan
sound,
but
we'd
have
to
consider
that
I
mean
we.
It
was
the
only
reason
for
deleting
st35
and
h59.
C
Don't
think
I
can
speculate
about
what
the
council
will
do
by
definition.
The
only
observation
I
suppose
I
would
make
is
that
in
the
nature
of
that
situation,
the
council
would
have
the
benefit
of
your
considered
views
on
the
point
and
they'd
been
tough
to
rely
on
them
and
I'm
sure
they'd
accept
that
doesn't
mean
they'd
have
to
agree
or
but
they'd
have
that
situation
they
would
in
that's
in
that
regard,
they'd
be
in
a
materially
different
situation
from
the
one
they're
now
in
so
yeah.
B
D
Hey
sir,
we'll
start
by
saying,
obviously,
whilst
whilst
we're
here
for
this
session,
we
don't
actively
support
the
dio
in
in
their
proposals.
But
we
do
find
ourselves
with
some
similarities
and
some
points
of
interest.
You'll,
be
aware
of
my
client's
interest
and
I'll.
Try
I'll
try
and
keep
away
from
those.
Sir,
because
I
recognize
in
a
mission
site.
D
D
D
They
too
have
a
heathland
called
wilden
down
there,
and
the
council
and
natural
england
in
that
case,
have
come
to
a
reasoned
mitigation
for
sites
within
400
metres.
Of
that,
sir,
now
I
haven't
put
those
submissions
in,
as
I
was
only
sat
there
last
week
and
I
didn't
think
it
was
appropriate
to
do
so,
but
it's
worth
it's
worth
you've
been
aware
of
that,
sir.
D
D
As
you
know
where
it
is
a
while
ago,
we
did
raise
a
fact
as
to
why
the
council,
at
that
stage,
hadn't
considered
other
sites
that
fell
outside
that
400
meter
cordon,
specifically
because
of
the
issue
with
regards
to
the
size
of
strenzyl,
the
lack
of
other
allocations
within
that
area
and
the
impacts
there
on
on
on
the
on
the
common.
As
I
said,
sir,
I
won't.
I
won't
stray
into
my
client's
side,
but
you
will
see
it
within
our
hearing
statements.
If,
if
you
are
interested
in
seeing
what
other
alternatives
there
may
be.
D
B
E
B
The
proximity
to
the
sac
would
require.
We
didn't
have
to
screen
it
at
the
very
least,
that's
helpful.
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
about
it
and,
if
you-
and
if
you
think
that
the
evidence
we've
got
to
date,
is
showing
people
traveling
from
the
existing
settlement
50
and
many
traveling
from
over
over
seven
and
a
half
kilometers,
it's
it,
we
couldn't.
We
couldn't
not
do
that.
D
D
I
suppose
my
only
comeback
to
that
said
I
don't
want
to
prolong
this
would
be
most
hras,
have
have
various
distances
so
up
to
400
meters,
then
it's
usually
400
meters
to
a
few
kilometers,
etc,
etc.
Now,
I'm
aware
that
some
other
allocations
within
these
plans
that
haven't
been
through
that
process
but
may
well
be
within
those
kind
of
distances.
B
I'm
afraid
I'm
afraid
this
is
confusing
two
things:
it's
confusing
the
need
to
screen
for
an
hra
with
zones
which
are
imposed
by
policy
around
a
particular
site
and
where
sites
are
permitted
or
that
sorry
there
may
be
general
policy
restraints
as
they
are
thames,
based
in
heats,
the
various
authorities
and
dorset
and
ashdown
forest
in
mid-sussex,
where
development
is
presumed
against
within
certain
zones,
400
meters
and
then
some
have
additional
zones.
So
it's
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
hra.
It's
it's.
A
A
F
Thank
you.
The
proposed
green
belt
boundary
for
stressful
is
described
in
alex
iv.
The
green
belt
addendum,
which
is
excyc
59f,
and
the
assessment
notes
that
the
previous
allocations,
the
two
that
we've
just
been
discussing,
have
been
removed
and
there
were
no
further
allocations
in
strength
and
so
that
green
belt
boundary
is
set
out
on
page
268
of
annex
4..
F
In
terms
of
the
boundary,
the
proposed
boundary
follows
defined
features
which
are
recognizable,
many
of
which
have
been
established
for
a
significant
period
of
time.
Therefore,
providing
a
degree
of
permanence
and
the
range
of
factors
that
are
considered
there,
including
carriageways
property,
cartilage
and
hedges,
trees
fence
lines.
A
C
E
F
E
Can
can
I
just
just
to
press
that
a
little
further?
Can
I
just
for
just
so
that
I'm
absolutely
clear,
because
the
colorations
on
the
plan
don't
don't
help,
but
the
way
I'm
reading
this
is
that
the
majority
of
st
35,
the
built
up,
if
I
can
put
it
like
that
part
of
it,
would
not
would
be
outside
the
green
belt,
but
parts
of
it
playing
field
playing
fields
and
so
on
would
be
in
the
green
belt.
E
F
E
F
F
You've
then
got
the
largely
open
and
playing
fields
and
other
sport
and
recreation
uses
up
to
the
south,
which
extends
to
where
the
st
35
boundary
had
had
previously
been
proposed,
which
would
be
in
the
green
belt.
You
then,
beyond
that
further
south
have
the
residential
development
of
strength
park,
which,
in
the
amendment
would
be
retained
in
the
green
belt.
E
C
That
would
be
slightly
overstating
it,
but
I
hope
I
can
do
it
quite
quickly.
So
there
are
two
questions:
5.3
and
5.4.
One
is
what
do
we
do
about
greenbelt
if
the
allocations
are
removed
and
the
other
is
what
do
we
do
about
it?
If
the
allocations
remain
to
see
the
ambitious
dispute
can
we
can?
I
just
refer
you
to
our
our
matter
statement
our
hearing
statement
in
particular
page
15.,
and
it's
got
some
plans
on
it.
C
So
at
the
bottom
of
the
page
is
what
the
council
was
proposing
until
this
morning,
as
we
understood
it,
if
the
if
the
allocations
are
retained
and
that's
what
appeared
in
the
plan
as
originally
submitted
now,
we've
dealt
we've
now.
We've
now
got
the
clarification
that
the
kink,
which
is
on
the
on
the
right
hand,
side
goes
back
out,
comes
back
out
of
the
green
belt,
that's
the
cadet
facility.
So
if
you
look
at
the
top
of
the
page,
that's
what
it
should
look
like.
A
C
C
C
F
A
slight
clarification
there
that
that
the
plan
that
you
can
refer
to
on
page
14
retains
what
I
refer
to
the
legacy
of
the
king,
because
it
doesn't
have
the
bottom
section,
but
that
would
still
be
within
the
boundary
would
of
the
green
belt
would
mean
that
that
would
not
be
in
the
green
belt.
So
that
would
be
an
amendment
to
the
boundary.
C
C
Now
so
what
you
have
then
on
the
bottom?
Leaving
aside
the
point
about
the
king,
which
we
can
forget
about
now,
because
that's
all
agreed
what
you
have
then,
for
example,
at
the
bottom
of
page
15
is
the
green
belt
boundary
as
proposed
in
the
submitted
plan,
and
that's
the
green
belt
boundary,
which
the
council
invites
you
to
adopt
if
the
allocations
are
retained.
C
What
they
say
about
that
in
their
hearing
statement
for
today
is
as
follows:
it's
paragraph
5.4.4,
the
previously
proposed
greenbelt
boundary
around
h59
follows
clearly
defined
and
recognizable
features,
including
mature
tree
belt,
woodland
and
the
cartilage
of
properties.
These
features
offer
permanence
and
provide
a
clear
distinction
between
built-up
areas
and
open
land.
C
C
C
So
the
question
for
the
council,
which
we
suggest
is
simply
not
answered
first
of
all,
is
why
do
you
get
a
different
result
at
all?
Just
because
the
allocations
are
deleted
answer
there
can't
be
one
in
principle,
because
it
should
be
the
same
question
that
you're
answering
further
and
in
any
event,
if
you
go
now,
please
back
just
back
to
page
14
which
of
our
hearing
statement.
C
C
That's
the
strengthel
park
housing
estate,
which
is
a
significantly
built
up
area.
It
includes
housing
existing
housing.
I
mean
we
struggle
to
understand
why
that
is
going
back
into
the
green
belt
just
because
you're
deleting
these
site
allocations
and
they're,
not
part
of
the
site
allocations.
That's
a
consistency
point!
It's
not
really
a
point.
C
I
care
about
itself,
it's
just
a
consistency
point,
but
in
any
event,
in
relation
to
the
area
that
we
are
concerned
about,
which
is
the
qeb
site,
you
now
have
a
green
belt
boundary
which
includes
within
the
brewing
belt
back
within
the
green
belt.
Significant
air
significantly
built
area
up
areas,
and
we
summarize
it
in
paragraph
2.2
here
this
is
land
that
contains
spread
out,
but
it
contains
buildings,
roads,
hard,
standing,
open,
storage
on
a
significant
scale
contains
an
assault
course
fixed
plant
security,
fencing
formal
landscape
areas.
C
You
can
read
it:
it's
all
land
that
contains
that
kind
of
material.
It's
not
part
of
the
common,
it's
just
part
of
the
base.
Now
it's
true
it
includes
within
it
some
green
areas,
playing
fields
and
the
like,
but
they're,
largely
surrounded.
For
example,
the
pla
the
playing
fields
in
the
south
west
corner
of
the
qeb
site
are
immediately
adjacent
to
the
housing
estate
that
I've
just
drawn
your
attention
to
so
they're,
surrounded
on
all
sides,
and
all
of
it
is
currently
within
the
fence
line
of
the
base.
C
C
This
is
following
a
clearly
defined
recognizable
features
of
the
land.
We
agree,
whereas,
as
miss
brown
acknowledged
a
moment
ago,
5.3.5
of
their
hearing
statement
acknowledges
that
the
alternative
green
boundary,
the
one
you
get
if
you
delete,
isn't
following
clearly
defined
features
of
the
land
and
so
forth.
Now
in
5.3.5,
that's
put
in
this
way.
C
This
assessment
acknowledges
that
there
are
very
short
stretches
of
linking
boundary
with
no
clear
definition
on
the
ground,
but
of
course,
that's
in
the
context
of
boundary,
five
seen
as
a
whole,
which
is
a
longer
boundary
than
just
this.
In
fact,
the
bits
that
aren't
defined
are
the
very
bits
we're
arguing
about.
They
haven't
got
a
clear
definition
and
there
is
a
very
obvious
clearly
defined
boundary,
which
is
one
that
council
is
itself
in
a
different
context.
F
F
F
Towards
the
end
of
the
statement,
it
was
suggested
with
reference
to
5.3.5
of
the
matter
statement
where
we
can
affirm
that
the
boundary
is
sound
but
acknowledge
there
are
very
short
stretches
of
linking
boundary
without
clear
definition
on
the
ground.
It
was
suggested
that
that
is
written
in
the
context
of
boundary.
Five
as
a
whole.
That
is
not
correct.
That
statement
is
written
in
answer
to
your
question,
say
of
5.3,
which
relates
to
this
particular
area.
So
I
just
want
to
get
confirmation
on
that
point.
F
F
So
stressful
park
is
proposed
for
inclusion
within
the
greenbelt.
The
greenbelt
will
wash
over
that
area.
It
is
through
the
landscape
assessment.
That's
been
carried
out
on
that.
It's
recognized
as
very
low
density
in
a
parkland
setting
and
thereby
contributes
to
the
openness
of
the
greenbelt,
and
even
more
so
when
seen
in
context
of
the
playing
fields,
which
are
also
proposed
to
be
retained
in
the
green
belt
and
together
and
individually,
they
contribute
to
the
openness
of
the
greenbelt.
A
F
My
understanding
is
that
was
in
the
context
of
the
allocation,
so
it
would
be
adjoining
that,
which
would
also
mean
the
playing
fields
were
removed
from
the
green
belt.
So
the
combination
of
the
two
of
the
playing
fields
and
of
the
strengths
of
park
and
the
openness
that
they
provide
when
it's
when
an
st-35
is
not
set
as
an
allocation.
They
are
then
more
isolated,
which
is
where
it's
more
comparable
to
the
washing
over
of
a
small
village
or
settlement.
C
We
don't
know
whether,
and
it
would
be
helpful
if
the
council
could
clarify
whether
and
if
so
when
they
surveyed
the
site,
because
the
last
point
that
was
just
made
was
that
their
assessment
of
the
site
of
that
part
of
the
site
is:
is
that
it
doesn't?
It
has
an
open
character,
but
we
don't
understand
that
to
have
been
based
on
any
physical
presence
of
sites
just
based
on
google
maps.
If
that's
wrong,
then
please
tell
us.
C
G
C
That's
not
on
the
face
of
it
green
belt
land.
At
any
rate,
the
consistency
point
is
that
you
go
back
and
you
because
this
is
an
analysis
that
the
exercise
that
the
examinations
and
negotiations
as
follows:
it's
not
of
deciding
whether
to
take
something
out
of
the
green
belt.
That's
definitely
in,
and
it's
not
of
taking
something
into
the
green
belt.
That's
definitely
out.
You
need
exceptional
circumstances
and
so
forth.
C
It's
a
question
of
defining
more
precisely
the
green
belt
boundaries
in
circumstances,
whether
your
the
current
plan
simply
has
indicative
areas.
So
the
exercise
one
has
to
do
is
to
look
at
what
is
there
now
not
not
at
what
is
proposed,
but
what
is
there
now
decide
whether
it
does
or
doesn't
have
the
characteristics
of
green
belt?
C
It's
the
correct
answer.
We
agree,
it's
the
correct
answer
and
they
agree.
It's
the
correct
answer,
at
least
in
one
context,
if
they're
going
to
take
a
different
view,
because
the
sites
are
deleted,
they
have
to
explain
what
the
difference
is
by
reference
to
something
and
in
principle,
I'd
say:
that's
impossible,
because
it's
got
to
be
by
reference
to
something
other
than
the
future
planning
intentions
for
the
science.
That's
the
simple
problem.
So
that's.
C
F
I
feel
I've
got
two
very
boring
points
in
response
to
that
now.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
visit
the
site.
Mr
burley
listed
a
number
of
features
that
are
on
there
at
the
moment.
Most
of
them
are
appropriate
development-
the
green
belt,
but
you
can
take
a
view
for
yourselves
as
to
whether
you
think
that
that
constitutes
green
belt
appropriately,
and
the
second
point
you
made,
I
think,
is
a
repetition
of
what
was
said
previously.
F
C
Can
I
just
tell
you
about
mention
a
practical
point
effectively.
This
same
issue
arises
again
for
info
barracks,
so
it
would
be
pretty,
and
it
may
well
be
that
the
same
conclusion
be
reached
and
be
sensible
have
a
visit,
in
which
case
it
may
be
sensible
to
make
those
arrangements
together.
But
that's
a
purely
pragmatic
point,
I
think,
is
that
being
heard
next
week
next
week,.
E
Yeah,
I
think
all
that's
left
is
to
to
to
deal
with
5.5
5.6
5.7.
I
mean
to
a
large
extent.
These
questions
are
a
rehash
of
what
we
talked
about
yesterday
in
relation
to
the
other
age
sites,
the
non-strategic
housing
sites,
on
the
basis
that
age
59,
it
remain
remains
in
the
plan.
Let
me
get
that
right,
so
if,
if
we
take
the
view
that
it
can
remain
in
the
plan,
leave
aside
all
the
other
discussion
that
we've
had
yeah,
I
understand
all
that.
E
E
E
B
E
C
E
Good
that
was
a
useful
reminder,
though,
just
to
make
sure
it's
on
the
on
the
miqs.
Is
there
anything
else
we
have
to
deal
with
today,
in
which
case?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
The
hearing
is
adjourned,
and
I
think
you're
you're,
all
resuming
or
most
of
you
are
resuming
next
monday-
is
that
right
have
a
nice
holiday.