►
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
What
has
happened
is
that
on
reviewing
the
matter
statement
submitted
by
miss
dukes
on
behalf
of
the
landowner,
there
was
a
query
around
the
site
area
and
what
we've
looked
at
is
the
the
application.
There
is
an
application
that's
currently
pending
on
that
site,
which
is
417
dwellings,
which
is
where
the
original
modification
came
from,
but
it
on
closer
inspection
it
actually,
the
site
area
relating
to
the
application
includes
land
which
is
not
part
of
the
allocation.
B
So
the
104
is
the
indicative
capacity,
as
it
relates
to
the
application,
excluding
the
properties
that
are
shown
on
the
part
of
the
site
that
are
not
within
the
allocation
boundary.
So
the
pit
the
bit
that
referring
to
specifically
is
immediately
to
the
south
of
the
site
and
depending
on
what
which
material
you're
looking
at
it's
shown
as
in
a
small
area.
That's
got
garages
on
at
the
moment,
so
that's
actually
excluded
from
the
allocation
site.
B
With
respect
of
the
site
area,
the
reference
in
the
planner
submitted
to
2.74
hectares
was
a
an
error
and
related
to
an
assumed
developable
area
because,
as
you
can
see
from
some
of
the
google
and
the
satellite
images,
there
is
quite
a
strong
and
thick
tree
belt
of
on
the
eastern
boundary,
which
actually
is
part
of
an
area.
That's
designated
on
the
policies
map
as
an
area
of
open
space,
so
that
the
whole
site
area
as
it
relates
to
the
allocation,
is
4.9
hectares
and
apologies
on
my
behalf.
B
B
B
B
C
C
And
I
go
back
to
the
plan
that
I
took
you
to
so
it's
pdf
page,
eight
of
our
appendix
and
you
will
see
it
sort
of
lick
around
down
now
this
plan
is
we're
talking
about
the
curvy
sort
of
finger
bit.
That's
precisely
that
you
say
yes
what,
once
you
look
at
cyc,
59d
page,
eight,
the
the
overview
plan
that
ms
bartle
referred
to.
C
C
So
your
page,
a
inner
boundary
section
five
and
the
number
10
is
the
boundary
that
we
are
looking
at
and
that
curved
finger
of
land
immediately
to
the
south.
So
the
gap
I'm
referring
to
is
essentially,
as
between
the
boundary
formed
by
numbers,
9,
10,
11
and
12.
On
the
western
side.
I'm
sorry,
which
page
page
8's
pdf
page.
C
C
D
D
It
doesn't
affect
the
ability
to
bring
forward
for
redevelopment
and,
yes,
there's
a
boundary
of
green
open
space
that
actually
incorporates
more
woodland
than
it
does
open
space.
But
we've
we've
made
best
of
as
past
the
application
and
excluded
the
woodland
and
just
then
focus
on
how
we're
going
to
provide
the
open
space.
D
And
what
you
see
in
the
feeling,
as
you're
walking
along,
is
that
you're
part
of
an
urban
environment,
because
you've
got
development
on
both
sides
of
you
in
a
corridor
and
the
narrowness
of
that
opening.
At
the
northern
end,
where
willowbank
takes
a
90
degree,
bend
between
chestnut
grove
and
pollard
close
on
the
other
side
of
the
river
frost,
it's
just
so
narrow.
D
You
stand
there,
you,
you
can
turn
around
in
a
circle
and
you
don't
feel
like
you're
part
of
you're
anywhere
near
the
open
countryside.
You
feel
like
you,
you
in
an
urban
environment
with
development
and
it's
just
a
nice
pleasant
place
to
be,
but
certainly
not
part
of
the
open
countryside,
because
basically
there's
a
bottle
mouth
at
the
top,
that's
completely
enclosed
by
woodland,
and
that
therefore
sets
the
defensible
boundary
to
where
you
might
reasonably
draw
a
green
belt
boundary,
which
is
why
we've
asked
if
that
slither
might
be
excluded.
D
If
the
council
is
concerned
about
it
coming
forward
for
development,
then
actually
there's
other
there's
other
means
by
which
it
would
be
protected
from
development,
one
being
the
open,
the
green
belt,
but
the
open
space
designation.
That's
overlaid
the
green
belt
designations
that,
in
its
own
right
is
a
policy
means
controlling
development
which
which
I
think
is
more
appropriate
than
the
green
belt
designation,
and
I
think
that's
all.
I
have
to
say
thank
you,
sir.
A
D
So
that
it
excludes
the
green
slither,
so
you
have
on
the
proposals
map
the
southern
side,
the
southern
edge
of
age
46,
and
that
that
in
instead
of
the
green
slither
wrapping
round-
because
this
is
a
you've-
got
the
to
the
east
of
age.
46
you've
got
the
open
countryside
that
projects
northwards
and
actually
my
feeling
is
that
it
needs
the
green
belt.
Instead
of
it
then
coming
round
h46
before
it
heads
southwards,
in
in
its
hook.
D
A
C
C
C
A
B
B
And
the
capacity
as
proposed
in
the
plan
hasn't
or
isn't
we're
not
seeking
to
to
amend
that,
and
we
know
that
some
of
the
schemes
that
the
council
housing
team
have
been
considering
may
be
looking
at
higher
density
development,
but
that
works
still
underway.
So
at
the
moment
we
don't
see
it
reasonable
to
change
that,
but,
as
we've
said
consistently
that
it's
not
a
target
that
would
be
deliverable
within
the
context
of
the
policy
should
that
occur.
A
C
And
I
should
clarify
that
on
instructions
from
what
we
said
earlier,
some
of
the
council,
some
of
the
sites
in
the
council's
house
and
delivery
program,
are
actually
delivered
by
the
council
as
well.
So
it's
not
exclusively
third
party
developers.
The
council
will
engage
with
some
of
the
deliveries
on
some
of
the
sites
itself
and
it
has
a
track
record
of
doing
so.
So
it's
slightly
more
mixed
picture
than
what
we
portrayed
earlier,
but
just
to
clarify
that,
for
you.
B
B
B
And
we
haven't
had
any
indication
that
there
is
an
immediate
application
due
to
be
submitted,
though
that
said
the
likelihood
and
the
expectation
from
our
conversations
with
the
landowner
is
that
the
site
owner
would
bring
forward
development
once
the
local
plan
had
been
adopted,
and
we
subsequently
put
the
site's
deliverability
into
the
later
phases
of
the
five-year
supply.
On
that
basis,.
A
C
Well,
don't
worry
so
I
had
the
same
thought
as
responsible
went
through
it,
so
I've
pulled
up
paragraph
89.
Of
course
the
2012
nppf
limited
infilling
in
villages
is
potentially
appropriate
development
when
not
dealing
with
brownfield
land.
Those
that
would
be
the
penultimate
bullet
points
limited
in
finland,
villages
and
limited,
affordable
housing
for
local
community
needs
under
policies
set
out
in
the
local
plan.
So
I
think
we
would
probably
fall
within
that
limited
infilling
in
villages,
because
you
you,
you
have
the
comma
sorry.
This
is
a
sort
of
hyper
critical
scrutiny.
E
B
C
A
E
C
Well,
so
we
will
think
about
the
best
approach
there,
whether
that's
a
different
key
on
the
map
or
whether
that's
some
text.
I
have
in
mind
some
clarificatory
text
in
the
supporting
test
to
policy.
H1
probably,
is
the
clearest
point.
We
don't
need
to
put
it
into
policy,
but
we
should
probably
insert
a
paragraph
that
would
clarify
it
immediately
below
policy
h1.
E
A
A
B
Site
h55
is
a
brownfield
site
and
is
another
council-owned
site
which
is
currently
leased
out.
We
still
expect
the
site
to
be
disposed
of
and
capable
of
being
delivered.
You'll
perhaps
have
noted
from
our
submitted
matter
statement
at
8.3.4,
where
we
recognized
that
we
had
included
the
site
in
the
revised
trajectory
that
we'd
put
forward,
but
actually
on
further
interrogation,
given
the
the
remaining
time
scale
on
the
lease
and
the
lead
in
time
for
an
application
that
actually,
it
should
sit
outside
of
the
five-year
supply.
B
A
F
F
I
mean
the
one
thing
I
would
point
out
is
that
the
the
planning
permission
it
this
this
land
is
located
within
a
green
wedge.
It's
part
that
the
h
6056
allocation
is
part
of
a
green
wedge
and
the
development
is
part
of
h56,
so
it
leaves
a
substantial
area
of
open
space
left
of
which
there's
other
open
space.
F
That
is
not
part
of
h56.
That
should
still
be
considered
in
that
contiguous
that
space.
Now
that
that
open
space
is
shown
on
the
the
the
draft
local
plan,
the
2005
draft
local
plan,
it
it
incorrectly,
doesn't
show
it
as
green
belt,
but
it
does
show
it
as
open
space.
So
you
can
see
the
area
of
that
and
it's
referenced
within
the
hazlington
village
design
statement
as
being
a
green
wedge
that
prevents
coalescence
of
of
hazlington.
F
Now,
we've
heard
from
other
villages
about
the
importance
of
preventing
coalescence
with
those
villages.
Now
a
lot
of
these
villages
have
got
quite
hefty
areas
of
land
between
them,
but
heslington
has
the
university
inside
of
heslington
it's
it's
the
university
of
hezlington,
not
the
university
of
york
effectively
it's
inside
hezlington.
It
makes
up
a
big
deal
of
the
the
boundary
between
the
hezlington
and
the
the
york
area
and
then
there's
this
this
wedge
as
well.
F
It's
not
justified
and
it's
not
in
accordance
with
the
policies
of
that
plan.
So
there's
only
one
true
boundary
up
to
this
date
and
that's
the
boundary
in
the
1995
post-modification
greenbelt
local
plan,
and
that
should
be
our
starting
point
really,
along
with
the
fact
that
we
know
that
this
land
is
in
a
green
wedge.
Now.
F
But
I
don't
necessarily
think
that
that
should
be
the
reason
why
this
is
automatically
removed.
I
I
also
want
to
point
out
as
well
I
mean
the
council
has
crossed
through
here,
so
I
assume
the
councils
felt
they
just
said
that
they're
planning
on
removing
this
as
an
allocation,
but
in
actual
fact
it
never
was
an
allocation.
It
was
simply
a
mistake.
F
The
council,
the
councillors,
told
us
that
the
allocations
are
assessed
against
the
site
selection
methodology
and
therefore
an
allocation
has
a
meaning.
An
allocation
is
a
site.
That's
been
assessed
against
the
site.
Selection
methodology
and
past
this
site
was
selected,
was
assessed
against
the
methodology
and
failed.
F
Basically,
they
just
refused
to
deal
with
it
and
said
it
had
to
be
in
because
they
had
a
planning
permission,
and
now
they
say
it
has
to
be
out,
because
that
was
planned
permission.
It
was
never
in
to
start
with
because
it
was
never.
It
was
assessed
against
the
site,
selection
methodology
and
failed
it's
in
a
green
wedge.
It
should
be
protecting
the
rural
character
of
it,
and
this
prevents
york
from
merging
with
heslington
and
hessington
merging
from
york.
F
Okay,
that's
very
enough!
Thank
you,
sir.
Yes,
so
the
only
thing
I
want
to
get
in
there
is
that
perhaps
what
I
think
is
that
by
treating
this
as
an
allocation-
albeit
one
that
they've
removed
now
is-
is
missing
the
points
because
I
think
yes,
there's
a
development
and
not
all
developments
are
allocations,
so
there's
no
reason
why
it
has
to
be
an
allocation.
The
site's
been
assessed
against
the
methodology
and
shouldn't
be
an
allocation,
fine,
they're,
removing
it
fine.
F
F
F
So,
although
it's
getting
less
and
less,
if,
if
it's,
if
it
goes
to
zero,
then
york
and
haslington
merge
and
then
you
have
to
deal
with
the
fact
that
you
know
there
isn't
any
separation
between
those
areas
and
the
plan
actually
does
treat.
There
is
being
a
separation
because
they're
separate
areas,
so
you
know
it's
the
whole
thing's
been
handled
wrongly.
It
should
never
have
been
allocation,
they
put
it
in
as
an
allocation
so
that
it
could
then
go
to
the
planning
permission
and,
like
councillor
walters
told
you
earlier.
F
They
then
told
the
council
as
well.
It's
an
allocation
just
to
prove
that
it
was
never
treated
as
greenbelt
was
never
very
special
circumstances
were
not
established,
but
that's
all
by
the
way
it's
happened
and
there's
nothing
you
can
do
about
it.
But
what
I
think
does
need
to
be
done
in
the
local
plan
is
to
put
aside
the
fact
that
it's
an
allocation
and
just
look
at
the
area
in
starting
off
from
where
the
current
green
belt
boundary
is
in
the
the
1995
plan
and
see
what
what's
left
of
it.
F
What
purpose
that
that
serves
to
to
keep
in-
and
the
other
thing
I
would
just
like
to
mention-
is
that
when
the
when
it
became
apparent
that
the
council
was
not
going
to
treat
this
land
as
green
belt,
the
community
got
together
now,
they're
not
perished
area,
but
they
formed
a
group
and
they
got
a
petition
and
they
petitioned
the
council
and
they
asked
them
to
allocate
this
land
as
local
green
space.
In
the
plan.
F
The
council
didn't
do
that,
and
it
was
called
in
by
the
local
councillor
to
the
scrutiny
committee,
and
it
was
then
supposed
to
be
passed
to
the
local
plan
working
group
to
make
the
decision,
but
they
just
submitted
the
plan.
It
was
never
never
dealt
with
so
at
the
moment.
As
far
as
I
can
say,
the
only
thing
that
this
is
close
to
being
an
allocation
for
is
local
green
space
because
it's
not
been
decided
if
it
shouldn't
be.
F
Well,
I
mean,
I
guess:
the
change
that
I'm
proposing
is
is
very
similar
to
the
change
that
the
council
themselves
are
wanting
to
make
that
this
site
should
not
be
an
allocation.
Now
they're
saying
it's
removed,
I'm
saying
it
was
never
an
allocation
in
the
first
place,
but
it
shouldn't
be
an
allocation
and
therefore
it
shouldn't
be
something
that's
discussed
through
the
allocations,
if
you
like,
it
should
simply
be
windfall
development.
F
Yeah
I
mean
that
that's
certainly
one
possibility.
I
I
think
that
there
is.
It
is
quite
a
difficult
problem
for
you
now,
because
the
the
options
that
you'll
ultimately
have
is
do
do
we
exclude
all
of
this
land
from
the
green
belt.
Do
we
include?
Do
we
continue
to
include
all
of
it
in
the
green
belt
or
do
do?
We
include
some
of
it
now,
if
you're,
including
in
the
green
belt,
there
isn't
really
much
points
having
it
as
local
green
space.
F
F
So
they
put
it
forward
as
a
much
larger
allocation.
So
it's
the
same
area,
but
they
said
they
were
going
to
get
loads,
more
houses
on
it
and
then,
when
it
actually
started
going
through
the
planning
process,
it
was
clear
that
they
would
never
get
that
number
of
houses
on,
because
the
whole
area
is
surrounded
by
a
bank
of
mature
trees
that
is
protected,
and
so
they
couldn't
get
past.
That
and
the
whole
site
was
playing
plane.
F
Pictures
which
brought
england
objected
to
the
loss
and
there
was
a
deal
with
the
local
sports
centre
that
they
could
use
one
of
them
and
ultimately,
they
had
to
agree
to
keep
some
open
space.
I
think
they've
designated
children's
play
area
as
part
of
the
planning
application,
so
you
know
I'm
not
sure
the
exact
percentage.
I
think
it
was
about
50
51,
developed
49,
not
or
something
round
about
that.
So
there's
a
good
portion
of
the
land.
F
But
if,
if
you
know,
if
there's
any
decision
about
greenbelt
boundaries
from
the
fact
that
it
was
an
allocation,
then
that's
not
being
considered,
and
I
think
that
the
remaining
open
space
within
within
h56,
as
well
as
open
space,
that's
outside
of
h56
but
in
the
green
wedge,
still
is
within
a
green
wedge.
It
still
fulfills
green
pot
purpose,
the
fourth
purpose
of
green
belt
and
amongst
others,
and
and
that
that,
like
any
land,
that
fulfills
going
by
purpose,
is
land
that
should
be
allocated
as
green
belts.
C
E
Looking
at
the
looking
at
the
proposed
policies,
matt
the
policies
map-
this
we've
talked
about
that
mr
griffith
yeah.
I'm
sorry,
I
apologize
there's
a
there's
a
this,
the
green
wedge
that
you're
talking
about
runs
east
west.
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly
and
parts
of
that
green
wedge
are
designated
on
the
on
the
map
as
public
open
space
they've
got
that
sort
of
cross
hatching
on.
So
what
I
think
you're
suggesting
is
that
that
might
extend
in
that
designation
might
extend
into
the
site.
So
it's
it's
red
as
a
red
as
a
whole.
F
E
F
Oh
no,
they
they
don't
intend
to
designate
it
as
greenville,
but
they
should.
The
point
is
that
in
the
1995
greenback
local
plan,
the
greenbelt
boundary
goes
along
one
side
of
this
site
and
it
includes
this.
This
area
and
the
2005
draft
local
plan,
the
greenbelt
boundary
in
that
plan,
in
accordance
with
the
policies,
is
the
same
as
the
1995
plan.
F
But
the
boundary
they've
drawn
on
the
proposals
map
is
wrong
and
it's
the
boundary
that
that
boundary
on
the
proposals
map
has
caused
a
lot
of
problems
because
they've
removed
land
from
the
green
belt.
On
the
basis
of
that
which
rests
upon
the
2003
greenbelt
appraisal,
which
the
multiple
planning
inspectors
found
should
not
be
used
to
remove
any
land
from
the
green
belt.
But
that's
exactly
what
they've
done.
F
They've
they've
removed
some
land
on
the
proposals
map
on
the
boundary
they've
drawn
on
the
basis
of
the
2003
greenbelt
appraisal,
which
isn't
justified,
and
we
know
that
they're
removing
the
land
in
the
green
wedge
and
the
green
wedge
is
supplementary
planning
guidance.
Supplementary
planning
guidance
can
only
be
approved
if
it's
in
accordance
with
the
plan
that
it's
being
approved
with,
and
therefore
we
know
that,
in
accordance
with
the
policies
of
the
2005
draft
local
plan,
with
the
force
of
changes,
this
land
is
in
the
green
belt.
C
So
that's
not
a
question
of
adding
or
removing
from
the
green
belt,
we're
undertaking
a
boundary
set
in
exercise
and
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
everything
you've
heard
about
the
nature
of
that
society,
mr
elve
and
mr
linus.
So
I
don't
accept
that
as
the
prism
through
which
we
need
to
be
looking
at
this
site.
C
C
As
greenbelt
as
to
the
open
space
designation,
we
would
need
to
assess
that
I
mean,
as
we
sit
here
today.
We
have
reservations
about
that.
It's
a
developed
site
there
will
inevitably
be
open
spaces
amenity
and
the
light
one
expects
that,
whether
it's
an
urban
area
and
open
space
or
simply
an
urban
area
at
the
minute.
We
certainly
wouldn't
agree
to
that
as
a
modification.
C
All
we
could
do
I'm
happy
to
do
this
is
to
take
it
away.
Look
at
that
and
we
will
put
in
a
note
as
to
whether
we
accept
that
would
be
an
appropriate
modification
to
make
that
open
space.
But
if
you
push
me
on
it
today,
the
answer
is
no,
it's
not,
but
given.
This
is
a
new
point.
I'm
willing
to
be
flexible
and
to
look
at
it
and
come
back
to
you
in
writing,
but
but
no
no
more
than
that.
A
C
I
think
the
same
answer
would
have
would
apply
if
you,
if
you
push
us
to
say
no,
we
wouldn't
accept
it
as
that
it
develops
sight.
Yes,
there
may
be
some
areas
within
that
that
are
developed,
but
that's
because
they
are
part
and
parcel
of
every
developed
site
which
has
immediate
spaces.
It
has
parking
space,
it
has
turning
spaces.
It
has
all
those
bits
that,
just
because
it
doesn't
have
a
house
on
it
or
dwelling
on
it,
we
won't
protect
and
don't
consider
it
appropriate
to
protect
such
small
areas
there.
C
So
in
a
manner
which
is
disjointed
in
some
distance
from
the
green
belt
and
the
other
areas
that
you
see
on
the
policies
map
that
are
designated,
it's
just
not
appropriate
to
do
that,
and
there
is
no
clear
justification
either.
What
is
the
threat
that's
been
identified?
Where
is
the
evidence?
The
analysis
to
show
you
that
that
needs
to
be
protected?
We
don't
see
any
of
it.
We
don't
think
it
is
justified.
A
A
Yes,
so
is
there
the
possibility,
then,
that
we
do
have
within
this
site
land
that
might
perform
an
open
space
function
which
had
it
existed
at
the
time
that
you
undertook
the
work
you
might
have
identified
it
as
such?
I
mean
you
know
we
haven't
been
here.
We
don't
know
what
it's
like.
So
I'm
looking
to
you
to
help
us
out
a
bit.
B
B
The
policy
itself
does
not
make
that
or
doesn't
require
that.
Specifically,
the
explanatory
text
makes
clear
that
there
is.
There
are
designated
areas
on
the
policies
map,
but
that's
not
set
out
in
the
policy
itself,
so
it
could
therefore
be
that
it
would
be
capable
of
widening
out
to
undefined
and
other
areas
that
are
open
space
which
have
not
been
identified
on
the
map.
Perhaps.
A
A
C
A
F
Well,
I
I
think
so
I
mean,
I
think,
that
I
think
just
to
address
something
that
mr
henderson
said
there
about
it,
not
being
near
the
green
belt
that
that's
not
been
established.
Yet
that's
really
what
the
purpose
of
this
this
plan
is.
It
is
near
the
green
belt
as
far
as
the
last
hearings
were
in
1995
and
about
the
plan
there.
That
was
the
plan
that
got
the
furthest
way
through.
So
if
they
want
to
take
that
out,
they
have
to
justify
it
now.
F
A
Yeah,
I
think
probably
the
bottom
line
is
that
the
council
does
not
consider
that
this
any
land
within
that
site
should
be
identified
as
green
belt.
So
and
they're,
not
I'm
pretty
sure,
they're
not
going
to
change
their
minds
about
that
which
you
know
is
usual
in
in
local
plan
hearings.
We
don't
expect
people
to
go
away.
A
A
They
perform
open
space
functions,
so
the
council's
intention,
I
think,
is
to
make
sure
that
those
those
parcels,
those
areas
that
aren't
shown
as
open
space
on
the
policies
map,
are
given
the
same
level
of
policy
protection
as
those
that
are,
or
at
least
that's
what
the
council
is
going
to
consider
in
the
run-up
to
the
phase.
Four
hearings.
F
F
A
F
Yeah
yeah,
no,
no
okay,
I
mean
I.
I
appreciate
that
you're
gonna
try
and
give
it
some
protection,
but
I
do
think
that
the
wider
question
as
to
whether
it's
green
belt
is
it's
being
it's
being
belittled
in
a
way
because
we're
looking
only
at
this
and
then
only
at
the
little
bit
of
land
in
there.
That's
that
the
part
of
that
land.
That's
still
open.
It's
not
looking
at
the
land
in
the
wider
green
wedge
and
in
fact,
in
the
land
on
the
adjacent
university
campus
which
we
can't
discuss
today.
F
I
don't
think
it's
something
that
can
be
rounded
off
today,
because
you
know
I
I've
put
in
arguments
in
relation
to
that,
and
I
know
they
can't
be
heard
yet
because
of
other
disagreements
and
stuff,
but
they
are
relevant
to
this
because
it
it
means
that
other
land
would
be
in
the
green
belt
as
well.
That's
next
to
this
land
and
there's
reasons
for
that.
F
F
That's
around
about
that
that
area
and
yes,
if
the
council
goes
and
does
some
more
work
and
then
brings
it
back,
I
think
that
would
be
useful,
but
I
I
just
think
if
this
is
not
an
allocation
at
all,
then
it's
windfall
development
that's
occurred
and
the
actual
position
of
the
greenbelt
boundary
would
be
something
that
I
think
is
discussed
later.
Isn't
it
whether
that
section
of
the
boundaries
correct.
C
C
We
will
go
away
in
respect
of
open
space
and
check
the
point
that
you
have
made,
but
we
won't
go
any
further
because
that's
simply
going
to
be
abortive
work
in
life.
What
we've
heard
from
mr
wedgewood,
if
and
in
so
far
as
he
wishes
to
persist
with
the
argument
that
this
should
be
greenbelt,
we
don't
agree
but
phase
four.
We
have
a
session
on
inner
boundaries
and
that's
the
place
to
have
that
discussion
unless
you
say
differently.
So
that's
essentially
where
we're
going
to
leave
it
for
today,
no.
F
Can
I
just
say
I
I
don't.
I
don't
agree
with
one
point.
You
said
about
something
what
I'm
saying
that
it's
the
only
designation,
because
I
did
mention
local
green
space,
but
the
local
green
space
is
secondary.
If
it's
green
belt,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
local
green
space,
but
I
haven't
said
that
it
shouldn't
be
local
green
space,
but
I
do
agree
with
you.
Your
final
point
that
we
should
have
this
discussion
at
a
later
date
in
in
the
section
four
about
where
the
boundary
should
be.
F
B
Yes,
her
site
h58
is
another
of
the
council's
sites
in
its
housing
delivery
program.
It
is,
or
has
currently
I've
recently
been
subject
to
member
approval
for
part
of
the
wider
site
that
it's
related
to.
So
this
is
apologies.
This
is
a
section
of
former
junior
school
site
which
has
a
a
number
of
former
school
buildings
on
it.
B
The
the
council
is
looking
to
dispose
of
the
site
to
a
registered
provider
later
this
year,
probably
worth
pointing
out
the
education
use,
ceased
back
in
2014
so,
and
the
requirement
for
the
secretary
of
state
consent
for
its
disposal,
disposal
and
appropriation
or
change
expires
or
later
this
month.
So
that's
not
an
issue
that
is
concerning
us
brown
fields
out,
but
no
significant
constraints
to
delivery.