►
From YouTube: Phase 2; 18/5/22; Day 7; Matter 7: Approach to Setting Green Belt Boundaries; PM (1 of 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).
B
B
B
Turning
to
my
more
substantive
points,
sir
first
one
I'd
like
to
consider
is
the
land.
That's
needs
to
be
kept
permanently
open,
and
I
know
the
council
made
a
very
bold
statement
that
all
of
the
greenback
boundaries
have
been
assessed
and
as
a
matter
of
principle,
they
don't
include
any
land
that
isn't
necessarily
to
be
kept
permanently
open.
B
There's
no
evidence
of
that,
sir.
Rather,
the
evidence
that
we
do
have
at
cd,
13
and
xk
is
to
the
contrary.
There
are
a
number
of
examples
and
you
won't
be
surprised
when
I
say
h28,
sir,
which
cd
13
xk
informs
us,
was
not
taken
forward
by
members.
There's
no
indication
that
that
site
formed
a
green
belt
purpose.
B
Also
st
13,
sir
cd
13
nxk
informs
us
that
that
site
was
deleted
because
of
inverse
impact
on
a
suitable
access.
Again,
no
mention
of
its
greenbelt
purpose
and
I'll,
indeed,
answer
I'll.
Be
surprised
that
any
of
the
sites
that
the
council
proposed
to
allocate
for
development
in
all
their
iterations
of
their
plans,
whether
any
of
those
sites
had
any
significant
adverse
impact
of
including
land
within
the
greenbelt.
It
would
surprise
me
greatly
if
that
was
the
case,
so
I
think
the
council's
paragraph
7.2.1
is
well.
It's
not
correct,
sir.
B
Turning
to
the
council's
point
regarding
safeguarded
land,
I
note
paragraph
83
of
mppf
2012
says
that
refers
to
the
land
intended
permanence
in
the
long
term
and
that
they
should
be
capable
of
enduring
beyond
the
planned
period.
Paragraph
85
also
indicates
that
the
agreement
boundaries
will
need
to
be.
B
B
However,
we
were
also
informed
today,
sir,
that
to
ensure
the
greenback
boundaries
endure,
that
the
council
have
allocated
strategic
sites
which
will
be
developed
beyond
the
planned
period,
2032
2033
up
to
2037,
and
that
is
legitimate
for
the
council
to
look
at
such
matters
and
make
those
allocations
available
after
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
I
accept
that
so
I
think
that's
a
legitimate
response.
B
However.
Yesterday,
so
we
also
found
that
the
council
won't
have
a
five-year
housing
land
supply
in
2031
32
32
33.
So
it's
unclear,
sir,
how
the
council
will
ensure
that
the
boundaries
won't
be
amended
early
further.
Sir,
no
one's
mentioned
it
today
so
far,
but
the
council
will
need
to
review
their
plan
in
the
short
term
and
in
the
regard
to
that
review,
they
will
have
to
take
into
account
the
standard
methodology
which
will
significantly
increase
the
housing
requirement.
B
Moving
on
to
my
last
and
final
point,
sir,
which
is
quite
long-winded,
we
have
heard
today
that
openness
is
important
to
the
green
belt
assessment
made
by
the
council
accounts.
The
document
cd59
cyc
59
refers
at
various
paragraphs,
18
points,
8.18
and
8.27
criteria,
2,
etc
to
the
impact
on
openness
and
openness
of
settings.
B
B
What
certain
my
view
is
that
openness
is
not
one
of
the
tests
for
to
finding
the
green
belt.
Openness
is
something
that,
once
you
define
the
green
belt,
openness
is
a
concept.
This
land
should
remain
open.
It's
not
a
purpose
of
when
finding
the
green
boat.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
purpose
of
that
is
to
that
that
land
that
site
it's
got
to
be
judged
against
openness.
It's
going
to
be
judged
against
the
five
purposes
set
out
in
paragraph
80..
C
C
C
C
C
A
I
know
this
is
frustrating
for
you,
mr
hargroves,
but
can
I
ask
you
to
confine
yourself
to
issues
directly
and
I
mean
really
really
not
because
we
won't
discuss
them.
We
will
have
thorough
discussions
in
fact,
there's
a
bit
of
a
danger
really,
if
you
scatter,
gun
stuff
across
different
sessions
and
the
point
kind
of
gets
lost
so.
C
C
It
may
be
that
some
of
the
landowners
have
land
a
little
away
from
urban
extensions
or
the
like,
which
could
provide
this
type
of
site
for
travelers
to
develop
themselves
and
that's
what
the
demand
is
for
we'd
be
happy
to
talk
to
their
representatives
about
how
this
type
of
provision
could
be
made
to
work.
Thank
you,
sir.
D
D
Sir,
when
we
discussed
this
earlier
in
the
week,
I
couldn't
point
to
anything
within
printed
minutes
of
local
plan
working
groups,
meetings
that
refer
to
the
exception
circumstances,
but
certainly
in
the
meetings
that
I
attended,
the
local
planner
working
group
meetings
up
to
the
submission
of
the
plan
and
others,
I'm
sure
as
well.
But
we'll
remember
this.
D
There
was
certainly
a
view
amongst
members
that
that
were
trying
to
minimize
release
of
land
from
the
green
belt
and
I've
managed
to
I've
come
across
a
press
article
I
saved
from
2015
and
the
date
sir
tony
is
around
june
2015
I
haven't
got
a
precise
date.
It
was
a
front
page
article
in
the
york
press,
and
so
it's
imp.
It's
in
2015
in
the
period
between
the
withdrawal
of
the
draft
2013
plan,
which,
as
you
have
been
told,
had
much
greater
provision
for
development
needs.
It
also
identified
safeguarded
land.
D
D
So
the
decision
was
taken
to
remove
safeguarded
land
from
the
plan
and
reduce
housing
requirement
and
that
ultimately
fed
into
decisions
later
on
in
the
process,
particularly
for
in
relation
to
the
january
2018.
Local
planned
working
group
meeting,
which
I've
referenced
previously,
where
members
were
strongly
advised
by
officers
to
make
greater
provision
for
development
needs
in
order
to
produce
a
more
sound
plan,
and
so
the
article
I've
managed
to
turn
off
in
2015
was
the
context.
D
So
my
pointer
is
that
when
members
then
came
to
make
decisions
on
the
shape
of
the
local
plan
and
particularly
when
they
were
advised
to
increase
our
increase,
the
land
for
development
needs
in
2018.
That
was
the
underlying
advice
or
the
thinking
that
they
were
the
context
in
which
they
were
operating.
D
Consultation
document
july
2016,
page
14,
on
the
paragraph,
2.5
green
belt,
and
so
what
that
consultation
document
says
is
council's
latest
advice
on
the
issue
of
green
belt
permanence,
john
hopson
qc
january
2015
refers
to
mppf
guidance,
in
particular
the
need
for
consideration
to
be
given
to
the
development
needs
of
the
area,
but
within
the
planned
period
and
the
longer
term
if
land
is
left
within
the
green
belt.
That
would
be,
I
think,
there's
a
comma
missing
here.
D
That
raises
another
interesting
point
which
I'm
not
sure
we
want
to
go
on
to
today,
maybe
consider
later,
which
is
what
is
now.
What
now
is
the
plan
period
because
we're
five
years
into
the
planned
period
and
if
the
plan
is
not
adopted,
let's
say
till
next
year,
it'll
be
six
years
into
the
plan
period,
and
we
now
can
see
that
some
of
the
strategic
sites
within
the
local
plan
would
not
be
will
not
be
delivering
houses
until
10
years
into
the
planned
period.
D
So
if
the
plan
was
to
be
adopted,
let's
say
next
year
with
a
end
date
of
2032-33,
it
would
in
effect
be
a
10-year
plan
and
five
years
beyond.
That,
would
would
give
you
a
15-year
green
belt
boundary.
That's
clearly,
in
our
view,
not
an
adequate
permanent
green
belt
boundary
and
we're
clearly
not
setting
green
belt
boundaries
that
will
endure
well
beyond
the
planned
period.
D
strategic
sites.
Delivery
has
been
pushed
back,
as
I've
just
said,
and
that
therefore
means
that
change
is
therefore
the
the
ability
of
the
plan
to
adequately
meet
all
of
the
housing
needs
of
the
city
within
the
planned
period,
because,
of
course,
many
of
those
strategic
sites
are
key
to
the
delivery
of
family
housing
and
affordable
housing.
D
Other
sites
that
could
fill
the
gap
left
by
some
of
the
strategic
sites
in
the
early
years
of
the
planned
period
could
therefore
be
considered
if,
if
the
exception
of
circumstances,
rule
is
not
followed
and
we'll
just
make
this
point
in
in
the
way
in
relation
to
things
have
changed.
So
since
we've
made
our
representations
in
2018.
E
G
Just
to
get
back
to
some
previous
points
from
mr
knackers
really
just
in
terms
of
clarifying
one
or
two
things,
I
think
it's
come
up
a
number
of
times
in
terms
of
landmark
monuments.
I
think
just
to
maybe
make
this
point
already
that,
in
terms
of
the
heritage
topic
paper,
there
are
examples
set
out
in
there,
but
it
isn't
a
comprehensive
list.
It
is
set
out
as
examples,
so
the
local
assessment
work
that's
undertaken
following
the
detailed
assessment
questions,
allows
you
to
to
look
more
broadly
at
that
principle
characteristic.
G
There's
a
specific
point.
Sorry
excuse
me
made
around
the
the
nature
of
the
historic
city,
so
there's
a
point
made
that
that
the
historic
city
really
should
be
seen
as
just
the
the
area
of
the
city
within
the
city
walls.
I
think
really,
I
just
point
to
the
evidence
base,
particularly
the
heritage
topic
paper
and
and
really
in
terms
of
that,
clearly
york's
character,
his
historic
character
and,
importantly,
its
setting,
extends
beyond
that
central
area,
and
we've
been
talking
about
the
relationship
with
the
countryside
and
the
and
the
surrounding
area.
G
G
And
I
think,
on
the
other
points
in
terms
of
the
approach
we've
been
through
in
terms
of
you
know,
the
methodology
takes
you
through
an
approach
of
that
requires
you
to
assess
land
as
to
whether
it
meets
green
belt
purposes
and
that's
the
way
in
which
it's
determined
whether
land
serves
those
purposes
and
is
included
within
the
green
belt.
I
think
I'd
be
repeating
points
from
earlier
today.
I
was
thinking.
F
Thank
you,
sir.
Yes,
I
think
fundamentally,
mr
not
kurt
accepted
there
wasn't
any
sort
of
fundamental
flaw
and
approach.
It
was
really
a
question
of
looking
at
this.
In
the
context
of
certain
sites,
I
suspect
he'd
be
able
to
identify
at
least
one
where
he
wants
to
raise
some
issues
and
in
that
context,
there's
really
much
more
to
say
other
than
to
explain
that
any
complaint
about
the
boundaries
being
tightly
drawn
is
really
a
matter
to
be
able
to
be
debated
at
a
later
stage.
F
As
far
as
mr
lane
is
concerned,
I
think
he's
really.
He
was
really
repeating
a
point
about
heritage
assets,
listed
buildings
and
major
conservation
assets,
so
I
think
we've
explained
again
it's
something
that
can
be
dealt
with
as
part
of
individual
boundary
sessions,
but
we
haven't
simply
drawn
a
boundary
based
purely
on
individual
assets,
individual
historic
assets,
without
considering
that,
in
the
context
of
purpose
for
more
more
generally
as
for
safeguarded
land.
F
That's
ultimately
a
matter
of
judgment,
there's
nothing
in
the
policy
which
identifies
a
particular
time
period
beyond
the
end
of
the
plan,
which
needs
to
be
applied
when
reaching
that
judgment.
But
we
say
that
the
the
head
room,
as
explained
in
section
10,
is
sufficient
to
mean
that
permanence
can
be
achieved
under
allocations
can
achieve
that
without
the
need
for
for
safeguarding.
F
F
There
isn't
really
much
to
say
about
the
political
context
which
previous
decisions
of
the
council
have
been
taken.
The
fundamental
point
is
that
there's
nothing
in
the
documentation
before
you
now,
including
the
addendum
to
suggest
that
the
council
has
been
applying
the
exceptional
circumstances
test.
H
Thank
you,
sir
I'll
try
and
keep
this
brief
just
to
point
out
that
we
agree
with
the
points
made
on
the
methodology
in
terms
of
heritage
assets
and
retrofitting
retrofitting
sorry,
etc.
Also
that
there
are
many
sites
which
do
not
fill
the
role
of
greenbelt.
I'm
not
going
to
dwell
on
those
points
other
than
to
draw
you
to
our
statement
at
paragraph
2.17
and
previous
representations
on
that.
H
I
think
it's
all
well
and
good
to
say
that
the
strategic
allocations
provide
beyond
the
plan
period,
but
what
we
already
know
in
terms
of
standard
method
and
under
delivery
and
everything
else
that
there
is
a
huge
unmet
need.
Looking
beyond
this
plan
period
in
york,
and
I
simply
do
not
see
where
it's
going
to
go,
I
I
don't
believe
for
one
minute
that
the
greenbelt
boundaries
will
endure
beyond
the
planned
period.
H
Now
I
think,
drawing
that
to
a
close
that
puts
you
in
a
very
difficult
position
for
how
you
did
how
you
progress
the
plan.
There
were
suggestions
last
week
of
an
immediate
plan
review
policy,
which
I
said
last
week
I
can
see
the
merits
of.
I
have
doubts
as
how
it
would
work.
I
think
my
my
concern
with
it
is
that,
as
soon
as
you
insert
such
a
policy,
you
immediately
accept
that
actually,
the
green
belt
policies
aren't
fit
for
purpose
and
don't
go
beyond
beyond
the
planned
period.
H
The
only
way
in
which
I
can
see
you
could
overcome
that
is
to
make
make
an
allowance
for
safeguarded
land
now.
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
appropriate
way
to
deal
with
the
plan.
There
are
many
sites
which
could
be
inserted
as
safeguarded
london,
and
I
would
like
to
think
would
provide
everyone
with
a
way
forward
with
this
plan,
but
yeah,
that's
all
for
now,
sir.
Thank
you.
H
I
think
it
has
been
said,
there's
no
clear
definition
within
any
version
of
the
framework,
it
does
say
beyond
the
plan
period.
My
interpretation
of
beyond
the
plan
period
is
that
you
would
be
starting
a
new
plan
review
and,
as
that
next
plan
review,
you
would
my
understanding
of
the
council's
position
is
that
the
next
plan
review
would
not
need
to
change
green
belt
boundaries.
I
just
don't
see
that
that's
a
reasonable
point
to
take
at
this
stage.
H
H
I
think
when
looked
at
in
the
future,
you
can
you
can
have
a
reasoned
estimation
on
it
by
looking
at
standard
method.
We
know
that
any
future
plan
review
would
be
based
on
a
different
methodology
to
that
now.
So
I
think
there's
a
reasonable
starting
point.
There
there's
not
a
definitive
figure,
but
there's
a.
I
I
That
wasn't
why
I
put
my
my
toblerone
up,
so
I
I
put
my
so
as
I
put
my
toblerone
up,
because
I'm
reminded,
of
course,
that
I
don't
just
act
for
york
university.
I
act
for
three
other
institutions
and
in
terms
of
statements
of
common
ground,
in
respect
of
need,
and
I'm
stressing,
particularly
the
tertiary
education
institutions.
I
I
am
instructed
to
say
that
we
are
very
keen
to
have
those
dialogues
with
the
with
this,
with
the
city
council,
behind
the
scenes,
with
a
view
to
agreeing
the
same
sort
of
thing
as
we
are
with
the
university.
For
example,
asking
brian
college
is
tied
up
in
terms
of
the
bio-yorkshire
approach,
which
the
university
is
also
tied
up
with,
which
you
will
have
seen
from
our
evidence
base
is
a
huge
project
for
technological
improvements
related
to
agricultural
issues.
F
A
Just
an
appropriate
way
forward,
it's
a
necessary
yes
way
forward,
and
frankly,
mr
griffiths-
and
I
are
sitting
here
wondering
why
this
hasn't
happened
before
that
this
is
very
late
in
the
day
and
as
a
consequence
of
that,
the
more
effort
that
can
go
into
it
and
the
more
detail
that
there
can
be
in
the
statement
of
common
ground,
both
about
agreed
areas
and
unagreed
areas.
Then
then,
the
better.
From
from
our
perspective,
yes,.
F
So
that's
understood,
of
course,
we're
here
to
help
you
both
and,
as
I
said
in
relation
to
the
university,
the
time
table
for
that
will
be
hopefully
to
agree
a
statement
of
common
ground.
That
will
then
allow
any
hearing
statements
to
address
any
areas
of
disagreement
to
be
drafted
on
an
informed
basis
of
all
parties,
including
yourselves
know
well,
in
advance
of
the
hearings
where
we
are.
I
I'm
I'm
very
grateful
for
learning
friends,
education
in
relation
to
that
and
we'll
obviously
try
and
progress
things
behind
the
scenes
as
much
as
we
possibly
can.
I
have
to
say
it's
slightly
ironic
that
I'm
looking
at
my
learner
friend
with
a
backdrop
of
a
huge
sign,
saying
a
new
life
and
a
new
beginning.
Maybe
is
a
new
beginning
in
terms
of
the
approach
of
the
city
council.
If
so,
I'm
grateful
I'll
ignore
the
messianic
bits
behind
muller
and
a
friend.
J
J
J
It's
quite
clear,
sir,
that
is
that
is
dealing
with
the
setting
of
that
individual
landscape
park
or
garden
just
a
matter
of
common
english,
so
he's
not
asking
does
that
contribute
to
the
overall
setting
of
of
of
the
historic
town?
So
that
is
a
question
solely
concerned
with
setting
of
the
registered
gardener.
The
same
same
point
applies
to
landscape
monuments.
J
J
So
in
terms
of
the
extent
of
changes,
sir
and
mr
lion's,
quoting
the
figure
0.7
percent,
so
that's
not
really
relevant
to
you.
I
I
suggest
we
give
you
the
list
of
changes.
You
you'll
obviously
have
them,
and
so
yourself
on
the
composite
modifications,
but
they
include
some
very
major
changes.
I'll
give
you
just
two
examples,
sir.
J
J
So
I
can
just
correct
a
point
about
field
work,
my
what
I
was
actually
saying.
I
think
mr
lyons
misunderstood
what
I
was
saying
in
terms
of
field
work.
I
agree,
those
being
knew
we
feel
work.
In
effect.
What
seems
to
happen?
Is
the
council
has
gone
out
since
submission
sir
and
donna
and
basically
done
a
full
review
on
the
ground
of
the
green
belt
boundaries?
J
J
J
Hia
and
so
just
dealing
with
strategic
allocations,
this
point
it's
very
difficult
so
about
taking
you
to
the
document
with
a
particular
example
to
show
you
what
the
council's
actually
done,
but
I
think
his
comment
would
be
common
ground.
The
questions
only
been
addressed
to
the
boundary
proposed
and
that's
without
the
strategic
site.
J
K
Mr
cosia,
can
I
can
I
ask
I
I
do
this
with
a
little
trepidation,
because
experience
tells
me
that
once
you
start
delving
into
questions
of
setting
of
heritage
assets,
you
you
often
set
yourself
a
task
which
might
last
days
or
weeks.
So
I
want
to.
I
want
to
put
this
quite
shortly
and
it
addresses
a
number
of
other
points
that
have
been
made.
J
You
would
need
to
look
very
you
need
to
distinguish
between
that.
It
would
be
very
important
that
you
distinguish
between
the
two
sir
and,
for
example,
like
there
could
be
open
land
around
a
a
listed
building
so
which
is
important
to
remain
open.
There's,
not
a
reason
why
I
should
go
in
the
green
belt.
J
I
I
appreciate
the
force
where
you're
trying
to
say
there
could
be
overlap,
sir,
but
that
isn't
whether
or
not
a
building
forms
part
the
setting,
whether
a
piece
of
open,
landforms
part
of
a
setting
of
a
particular
heritage
asset
is
not
a
reason,
or
it
is
not
even
a
question.
You
should
ask
yourself
when
considering
the
setting
of
the
town
overall,
what
is
a
clearly
important,
sir,
is
that
settings
of
monuments
such
as
terries
or
the
race
course
or
or
the
minister.
They
are
clearly
very,
very
important.
J
They
should
be
protected
indeed,
as
indeed
there
should
be
protection
of
views
out
towards
the
walls
or
the
herwardian
hills.
Those
are
very
important
features
which
go
to
the
setting
of
york
as
a
historic
town,
but
I
don't,
I
don't
think
I
think
council
misdirects
itself,
if
it
asks
yourself,
does
that
piece
of
land
form
part
of
a
setting
of
an
individual
heritage
asset.
K
G
G
I
think
from
a
perspective
of
views
and-
and
it's
really
the
heritage
topic
paper
is
driving
the
approach
that
is
then
done
through
the
annexes
and
in
the
actual
assessment
work
that
you
need
to
actually
sort
of
be
on
site
and
assess
what
there
is
and
draw
on
all
the
different,
evidence-based
documents
and
see
what
views
are,
I
think,
to
go
beyond
doing
the
views.
That's
been
done
for
the
for
the
central
historic.
G
I
think
it
would
probably
be
an
endless
exercise
that
you'll
be
undertaking
in
terms
of
trying
to
establish
all
of
the
views
across
the
city.
So
I
think
it's
a
realistic
approach
that
we
take
the
guidance
from
the
heritage
topic
paper
on
key
ones,
but
when
you're
out
on
site,
you're
looking
at
boundaries
and
looking
at
these
issues,
be
very
mindful
of
that,
from
the
evidence
and
from
your
site
work
to
then
identify
those
assessors
and
see,
if
they're
relevant
and
take
them
into
account.
G
F
And
just
to
pick
up
and
a
couple
of
other
points
which
appeared
to
be
touching
on
safeguarding,
I
think
the
the
council
has
still
set
out
the
approach
that
it
is
taken
and
allowed
for
had
room
in
the
in
the
supply,
reaching
a
judgment
as
to
how
far
beyond
the
the
plan
period
should
be
should
be
catered
for,
insofar
as
points
are
made
about,
whether
being
a
huge
unmet
need
or
needing
to
safeguard
land.
Instead.
F
I
think
your
point,
sir,
was
it
was
a
good
one
in
the
sense
that
adopting
a
standard
methodology
as
a
basis
for
that
it's
not
a
secure
approach,
because
one
does
not
know
now
exactly
what
is
going
to
happen.
So
the
approach
has
been
taken
by
the
council,
which
is
to
indicate
the
supply
having
regard
to
the
requirement
as
it
stands,
and
allowing
for
a
headroom
to
achieve
permanence.
F
For
someone
can't
take
the
specific
reference,
there's
anything
in
the
landscape
and
say
well
we're
only
looking
at
drawing
boundaries
by
reference
to
designated
landscapes
alone.
A
proper
application
of
the
question
suggests
that
there
are
broader
questions
being
considered,
and
it
may
be
that
aiding
the
understanding
or
significance
of
a
of
a
designation
assists
in
allowing
you
to
answer
the
broader
question,
but
it's
not
being
treated
as
a
as
a
definitive.
F
The
reference
to
failed
work-
and
it's
almost
as
if
mr
kershaw
is
complaining
that
we've
actually
gone
out
onto
the
field
and
checked
whether
the
judgments
that
were
reached
before
can
be
maintained
following
the
application
of
the
new
methodology.
It
was
entirely
right.
The
council
did
so,
and
it
has
led
to
some
amendments,
some
of
which
were
actually
prompted
by
conclusions
that
were
reached
in
your
original
letter,
sir,
particularly
about
hazington.
F
F
Views
will
generally
have
been
taken
into
account
when
one
is
adopting
the
the
criteria
as
a
whole,
but
in
any
event,
the
compactness
criteria
is
identified
in
heritage
topic.
Paper
doesn't
simply
look
at
views
into
the
historic
core,
it
looks,
it
looks
views
out
and
so
far
as
he
refers
to
st15
in
the
hia
saying,
a
full
appraisal
of
reviews
is
required.
F
That
shouldn't
be
taken
to
mean
that
the
exercise
carried
out
in
the
hia
simply
sort
of
ignored
views.
It's
simply
suggesting,
as
you
would
with
any
case,
that
an
appraisal
of
views
is
inevitably
going
to
be
required
at
a
later
stage
as
development
comes
forward,
it
doesn't
mean
that
there
has
been
no
consideration
given
to
the
green
belt
purposes
or
views
as
part
of
any
assessment
of
st
15..
L
L
L
Which
goes
into
the
appraisal
of
impact
of
development
on
greenbelt
purposes
and
says
it's
going
to
appraise
the
impact
of
potential
sites
against
a
spatial
strategy.
Second,
one
is
appraise
the
impact
of
potential
sites
against
the
principles
of
the
heritage
topic
paper
and
within
the
sustainability
appraisal
and,
thirdly,
defining
a
clear,
defensible
boundary,
applying
the
boundary
methodology
against
greenbelt
purposes.
L
This
this
hasn't
been
done
in
a
logical
manner
at
the
present
time
and,
and
the
council's
evidence
actually
underlines
the
fact
that
it
hasn't
been
carried
out
in
that
logical
approach.
There
might
be
a
way
of
sorting
that
out,
but
at
the
present
time
the
evidence
provided
by
the
council
doesn't
set
that
out
properly.
M
Thank
you,
sir,
for
the
opportunity
I've
been
listening
patiently
and
hearing
everyone's
thoughts,
so
I'll
also
try
and
be
focused
to
points
of
methodology.
Here,
sir,
and
we've
heard
a
number
of
answers
to
some
of
these
questions
already,
but
I'd
like
to
really
mainly
focus
on
7.1
c
and
really
the
differences
from
what
you
had
before
and
what
you've
got
now
and
make
some
comments
on
that.
Obviously,
you've
you've,
one
of
the
key
changes
is,
and
the
accounts
say.
M
M
I
just
want
to
make
two
specific
points
so
about
the
approach
the
council
has
taken.
One
relates
to
the
fifth
purpose,
which
hasn't
been
mentioned
today,
of
the
green
belt
in
relation
to
existing
brownfield
sites,
and
the
council's
approach
has
been
to
that
they've
referenced
it
in
the
greenbelt
assessment,
paragraph
5.8
of
exclc
59,
and
they
in
effect,
say
this.
The
setting
of
the
boundary
or
the
purpose
is
purpose.
M
5
is
considered
to
be
achieved
through
the
overall
effect
of
the
york
green
belt,
rather
than
through
the
identification
of
particular
parcels
of
land,
which
must
be
kept
permanently
open
and
so
on.
So
in
effect,
the
green
belt
boundaries,
as
set
out
that,
in
effect,
would
support
that
purpose,
and
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
so
if,
if
the
drawing
up
of
boundaries
will
will
automatically
enable
that,
because
if
you
do
have
a
brownfield
site
and
part
of
it,
is
the
other
side
of
the
boundary,
it
doesn't
particularly
work.
M
So
it's
important
and
it
you
know,
we
say:
we've
got
issues
with
the
boundary.
We've
got
two
examples
of
brownfield
sites
and
the
boundary
has
drawn
sort
of
cuts
them
off.
So
how
has
that
purpose
been
considered?
It
hasn't
been
considered
in
the
methodology.
At
the
start,
but
we
say
it's
important
that
it
is
considered
when
the
boundaries
are
actually
drawn:
they
don't
sort
of
carve
up
a
site,
that's
a
brownfield
site,
otherwise
they
they
might
miss
some
of
that
purpose
or
achieving
that
purpose.
M
M
When
we
say
you
know,
a
different
alignment
should
be
drawn
and
I
think
in
phase
three
that
issue
can
be
addressed,
but
it
it's
important
to
raise
that
now
and
we
have
two
examples
of
that:
queen
elizabeth
barracks
and
info
barracks,
where
that
boundary
has
been
drawn,
we
would
say
through
some
of
those
brownfield
sites.
So
we
think
it's
important
to
to
note
that,
and
at
the
moment
the
council
has
taken
an
unsound
approach
and
it
can
correct
that
in
phase
three.
M
M
We've
made
a
comment
in
our
reps
about
the
starting
point
for
the
first
three
criteria
is,
you
know,
almost
starts
from
the
position
of
saying
the
land
is
autumn
or
open
already,
when
the
land
might
not
be
particularly
if
it's
brownfield
land.
So
that's
a
a
query
we
had
have
they
used
the
right
starting
point
there.
I
don't
want
to
go
into
repeated
points
about
you
know
the
special
you
know,
villages
and
and
the
special
character
of
historic
towns.
M
I
think
that
point
has
been
made
and
made
so
I'll
move
on
from
that,
but
just
finally,
what
you
have
in
the
green
belt
assessment
is
no
real,
clear
explanation
as
to
how
the
answers
enable
the
council
to
form
conclusions,
and
it's
not
clear
whether
certain
parts
of
the
boundary
are
absolutely
fundamental
to
the
green
belt
purpose
and
compared
to
other
boundaries
as
well.
Other
assessments
and
considerations
might
indicate
that
certain
boundaries
or
areas
have
a
very
significant
impact.
M
M
Obviously
we
need
to.
This
is
more
for
phase
three
and
I
won't
go
there,
sir,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
actually
we
we
think
you
know
it
is
a
sustainable
location.
The
council,
obviously,
for
other
reasons
that
have
influenced
them,
have
removed
the
site
and
the
greenbelt
boundary
has
almost
followed
suit.
But
now
we've
got
a
bit
of
a
hybrid
approach
in
the
latest
iteration
and
we
say
in
terms
of
green
belt
on
its
own
merit.
We
say
actually,
sir.
M
It
comments
on
the
sustainability
of
strensel,
but
I
won't
go
into
the
detail
here,
sir,
and
I
think
you
don't
want
me
to
go
through
every
boundary
here
so
we'll
we'll
leave
that
for
later,
but
I
think
it's
an
important
point
to
make
that
you
know
we
don't
think
they
have.
The
current
position
is
sound
in
that.
E
Thank
you.
It's
just
really
to
concur
with
a
couple
of
the
points
that
have
already
been
raised
really
around
the
table
with
regards
to
safeguarded
land,
providing
some
additional
flexibility
to
the
plan.
Obviously
I
appreciate
the
comments
that
have
been
raised
by
the
council
with
regards
to
there
being
headroom
in
the
supply
we
were
provided
with
yesterday,
but
obviously
there
are
a
couple
of
queries
over
that
that
were
raised,
and
obviously
there's
also
the
fact
that
the
supply
does
drop
later
within
the
planned
period.
N
Yes,
thank
you,
mrs
winters,
just
said
quite
a
lot
of
what
I
was
going
to
say,
so
I
can
miss
that
out.
Certainly
I
I
do
see
the
the
absence
of
safeguarded
land
as
providing
as
a
safe,
a
straight
jacket
rather
than
giving
it
might
give
certainty,
but
it's
a
bad
sort
of
certainty.
It
provides
a
a
straight
jacket
for
development
in
the
future,
takes
away
options
who
knows,
for
example,
what
strategic
requirements
will
be
in
25
years,
working
from
home,
new
transport
initiatives,
etc,
let
alone
making
provision
for
to
meet.
N
N
Is
that
pending
determination
of
detailed
green
belt
boundaries
in
an
adopted
local
plan,
I
seem
like
that's.
The
secretary
of
state
see
no
reason
why
this
site
should
not
be
treated
as
is
it
as
if
it
were
in
the
greenbelt.
That's
a
very
different
position
from
the
land
being
in
the
green
belt
and
being
taken
out.
N
N
I
agree
with
mr
corsi
that
there
are
inconsistencies
in
the
application
of
the
criteria
to
the
determination
of
green
belt
boundaries,
obviously
to
be
discussed
later,
just
a
point.
He
made
recently
about
the
the
designation
of
the
retreat
previously
from
memory.
I
think
it
was
in
a
previous
iteration
of
the
plan.
It
was
described
as
an
important
part
of
a
green
wedge.
So
that's
that's
a
fundamental
change
in
an
important
element
of
green
belt
considerations.
N
G
Thank
you,
I
guess
just
to
try
and
deal
with
a
few.
Mr
collard's
points
try
not
to
repeat
points
made
earlier.
It
is
a
clarified
methodology.
We
have
taken
the
spatial
shape,
as
others
clearly
explained.
I
go
back
again
to
table
five
in
section
11
of
the
addendum
very
clear
on
the
points
that
have
been
acknowledged
and
the
changes
made.
So
I
appreciate
made
that
point
already
same
again
on
on
heritage
assets
point
made
about
previously
developed
land.
A
G
So
the
the
further
points
were
made
about
the
sort
of
the
starting
point
that
there's
a
presumption
that
the
land
is
open.
The
the
the
key
questions
for
all
of
the
criteria
are
posed
as
questions,
so
if
land
isn't
open,
then
the
answer
will
be
no.
It's
very
clear
on
that
and
then,
in
terms
of
this
issue
about
clarity,
whether
it's
19
17
16
50.
G
Whatever
number
of
questions,
I
think
the
point
I
would
make
is
that
those
questions
are
very
clearly
set
out
in
the
methodology
they're
set
out
whether
you
agree
or
disagree
with
them.
But
in
terms
of
the
approach
that
we've
taken,
you
then
turn
to
the
annexes
and
for
all
the
the
sections
of
the
green
belt
boundaries.
G
You
see
the
answers
to
those
questions
on
a
yes,
no
basis,
and
you
also
see
commentary,
and
I
appreciate
it
will
be
views
about
the
actual
responses,
but
in
terms
of
a
natural
methodology
that
can
be
applied,
it's
been
a
very
sort
of
robust
approach
and
particularly
that
approach
has
been
important
so
that
you
can
get
that
consistency
in
the
annexes
in
the
actual
assessment
work.
So
again
I
accept
there
will
be
differences
of
views
about
the
content
of
that,
but
as
a
process
and
a
methodology,
we
don't
think
that
could
be
much
clearer.
F
Thank
you.
I
think
that
probably
picks
up
ms
worthington's
point,
mr
collard,
I'm
not
sure
need
to
say
anything
more
beyond
to
say
that
clearly,
he's
interested
in
strengthening
that'll
be
something
we
can
cover
at
a
later
stage.
As
for
the
point
missed
by
ms
winter,
on
the
figures,
we're
not
entirely
sure
where
those
figures
have
come
from
and
looking
at
the
addendum,
it's
clear.
Obviously
the
trajectory
that's
being
identified
in
the
addendum
has
been
updated.
F
Since
then,
I'm
just
wondering,
sir,
if
it's
going
to
be
useful
for
us
to
effectively
recalculate
the
the
figures
that
are
included
in
the
addendum
based
on
the
current
trajectory,
because
basically
it'll
help
deal
with
this
point
about
safeguarding
on
the
time
beyond
the
planned
period.
That's
catered
for
in
the
head
room.
O
Sir,
I've
spoken
to
mrs
crooks
about
the
plans.
She
acknowledges
that
when
I
sent
the
hearing
statements
to
a
by
email,
I
said
there
was
a
letter.
She
says
that
the
letter
goes
to
a
po
box
and
it
appears
that
material
might
not
have
been
collected.
So
what
I
have
done
is
that
I
have
delivered
them
to
the
architect
shop
up
the
road
here
who
are
copying
them
now,
but
I
don't
think
they'll
be
ready
by
this
evening,
so
I
don't
know
how
to
deliver
them
after
that,
because
I
don't
want
to
send
them.