►
From YouTube: Local Plan 17.12.19 Day 4 (2 of 4)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Please
do
fire
away,
oh
right
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
so,
and
our
point
is
really,
under
the
exceptions,
I
think
part
of
the
discussion
that
we
would
want
to
make
and
basically
are
the
the
point
that
we
would
like
to
make
is
a
simple
one:
that
we
are
concerned
that
the
proposed
Greenbelt
boundary
will
be
set
to
tight
and
will
be
unsound
because
it
will
not
allow
for
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
needs
to
be
met,
and
gypsies
and
travellers
are
York's
oldest
minority
community
and
one
of
its
largest
minority
communities.
B
We
also
have
concerns
about
the
council's
needs
assessment
and
the
floor,
and
we
think
that
policy
age
5
is
it's
also
of
concern
to
us,
but
those
are
matters
that
we
want
to
deal
with
obviously
later.
But
what
we're
really
clear
is
that
there
is
a
very,
very
real
need
for
accommodation
for
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
community,
and
this
raises
profound
equality
issues,
because
we
know
that
gypsies
and
the
travelers
are
amongst
the
most
disadvantaged
essing
minorities
in
this
country
by
a
range
of
indicators.
B
And
we
have
provided
evidence
for
this,
which
has
been
provided
by
the
equalities
and
Human
Rights
Commission,
who
have
been
supporting
us
in
thinking
about
our
work,
the
local
plan,
and
we
think
that
a
plan
that
does
not
meet
the
needs
of
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
community
is
likely
to
be
contruct
to
the
public
sector,
equality,
duty
and
indirectly
discriminatory
country.
To
section
19
of
the
2010
Equality
Act.
A
It
might
help
mr.
Putin
for
you
to
know
that
in
Phase.
Two
of
these
hearings,
issues
relating
to
gypsies
and
travellers
is
something
that
we
will
be
looking
at
separately
in
detail
so
for
today,
I'd
ask
you
to
focus
entirely
on
the
green,
any
Greenbelt
matters
that
you
say
and
relates
to
to
that,
but
that
we
would
say
we
will
be
looking
at
the
needs
etc
in
in
great
detail
under
Phase
two.
B
Fine,
yes
and
and
I
do
appreciate
that
sir,
and
we
we
will
be
wanting
to
make
representations
there,
but
our
primary
concern,
then
in
terms
of
the
Greenbelt,
is
that
if
the
council's
plans
that
are
that
are
being
proposed,
that
the
site
allocations
is
done
through
the
big
development
sites.
But
the
council's
proposed
policy
is
also
to
allow
developers
to
actually
offer
alternative
sites
or
to
actually
pay
money
for
it.
B
So
there
is
the
concern
for
us
is
that
if
the
Greenbelt
bound,
the
inner
boundary
is
set
in
such
a
way
that
and
there
are
no
identified
sights
and
that
the
developers
actually
opted
for
the
process
which
they've
been
offered
through
the
Council
of
either
offering
alternative
sites
which
would
have
to
be
in
the
non
Greenbelt
land.
But
we
think
that
would
be
very
problematic
or
if
they
pay
the
money,
which
we
know
that
several
have
already
suggested
that
they
may
want
to
do.
If
the
green
belt
is
set.
D
D
D
D
D
We're
also
prepared
to
look
at
whether
policy
h5,
which
requires
provision
to
be
mids
within
the
strategic
sites
that
can
be
tightened
in
some
way,
so
that
developers
with
all
strategic
sites,
rather
than
simply
offering
an
alternative
site,
need
to
demonstrate
it's
not
viable
to
deal
with
in
the
strategic
one.
So
we
just
raise
those
as
illustrations
of
points
that
show
that
these
points
can
really
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
stage
2
policies,
rather
than
at
this
stage
saying
you
need
to
man
your
Greenbelt
boundaries
to
facilitate
that
need.
A
So
what
I
take
from
that
UMP
is
the
council
and
thinks
that
need
will
be
met
through
the
plan
as
submitted.
But
if
there
is
a
concern
on
our
part
in
that
regard,
then
it
may
well
be
that
the
council
puts
forward
modifications
to
policy,
including
the
policy
relating
to
and
rural
exceptions,
to
ensure
that
the
need
is
met
and
you
you're
putting
that
mark
that
down
now
as
a
marker
for
further
scrutiny
under
phase
2.
Yes,.
D
Sir,
we
say
that
the
strategic
allocations
have
been
poor.
Ch5
relating
to
provision
on
the
strategic
allocations
has
been
drafted
to
meet
the
need,
but
insofar
as
it
may
be,
any
concerns
about
me
rears
of
stage
to
a
mammoth
could
be
mere
despot
to
the
policies
upstaged
to
to
address
that
without
looking
at
Greenbelt
boundaries.
Yes,.
B
D
A
Then
I
will
return
to
question
her.
Yes,
we're
still,
on
the
first
question
of
the
day,
question
three
point:
one
and
I'm
going
to
insist
that
people
stay
strictly
within
the
parameters
of
this
question.
So
so
far,
yeah
fuzzy
edges
seems
to
be
a
theme
of
the
day
and
and
the
edges
of
question
three
point.
One
have
certainly
been
stretched
over
into
question
three
point:
two
and
I'm
going
to
insist
that
people
stay
strictly
to
three
point
one
now,
so
that
progress
can
be
made.
Mr.
right.
E
A
map
showing
right
some
quick
points
and
reply
to
what
was
said,
and
it
will
only
take
me
a
couple
of
minutes
at
most.
You
were
asked
about
the
value
of
PPG
in
in
the
process
and
and
my
submission
on
that
is
that
it
is
useful
evidence
and
can
be
regarded
in
that
their
light
mists.
Mr.
Nattrass
raised
an
issue
that
the
historical
matters
that
I
referred
to,
we
didn't
have
the
plans
and
so
forth
before
as
well.
E
We
do
it's
all
in
my
response,
original
response
and
that's
as
much
before
this
inquiry,
as
is
the
plan
itself
and
Katherine
juice,
gave
us
her
recollections
as
an
author
of
the
RSS
policy,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
that's
not
appropriate
to
interpretation
of
the
policy
at
all
and
that
was
agreed
by
mr.
Elvan
in
clear
terms.
The
policy
anyway,
is
not
that
of
the
RSS
in
2008.
It
is
the
policy
of
the
Secretary
of
State
in
the
revocation
order
of
2013
and
because
it
was
in
in
relation
to
mr.
E
E
E
A
E
F
G
As
far
as
the
RSS
goes
with
a
boundary,
an
outer
boundary
about
six
miles
and
then
an
indicative
boundary
inside
I
think
this
was
the
edgiest
thing
is
I.
Don't
think
that
that
boundary
I
don't
think
it's
open
to
actually
say
that
there
is
anybody
there
within
the
RSS,
because
it
would
conflict
with
the
actual
policy
of
the
RSS,
which
says
the
boundary
has
to
be
defined
through
the
local
plan
process.
G
So
I
think
the
static
position
has
to
be
that
all
of
the
land
inside
the
outer
boundary
is
considered
within
the
general
extent
of
the
Greenbelt,
and-
and
that's
that's
been
the
the
policy
in
the
RSS
which
has
been
adopted
since
2009
I.
Think
so
for
the
last
11
years
or
so,
and
within
that
time,
had
anybody
challenged
that
it's
been
the
legal
position
and
it
was
saved,
particularly
in
2013,
to
protect
the
legal
protection
of
the
green
belt.
G
Had
anyone
challenged
that
nobody
would
have
really
been
able
to
know
what
was
in
and
what
was
out
as
regards
the
inner
boundary.
So
the
only
real
sensible
position
is
to
say
that
every
scrap
of
land
inside
the
outer
boundary
is
considered
in
for
the
starting
points
and
I
believe
that
that
was
the
position
that
the
inspector
took
in
one
of
the
cold
in
application.
I
think
it
might
have
been
a
onedrive.
A
H
H
H
Listening
to
the
council's
response
this
morning
on
on
the
process
they've
taken
and
reading
the
evidence
basis,
it's
clear,
there's
an
inconsistent
approaches
and
taking
to
this
in
their
in
some
cases,
there's
an
assessment
of
the
value
of
the
green
belt
before
first
then
assessing
what
the
development
needs
are.
Our
client
is
one
of
those
which
is
not
on
the
inner
or
outer
boundary,
so
they
are
in
the
middle,
but
from
a
consistency
position
and
from
a
justification,
position.
I
think,
there's
a
requirement
for
the
council
to
look
at
this
holistically.
H
The
the
MPP
F
refers
to
defining
boundaries.
It
does
not
in
the
truest
sense
and
the
wider
sense
all
boundaries,
so
I
think
it's
incumbent
on
the
cancer
to
be
looking
at
across
the
green
belt,
and
it
may
be
first
say
that
when
you're
looking
within
the
areas
outside
of
the
the
inner
and
the
outer
boundaries,
it
may
be
a
quicker
task
or
maybe
be
able
turn
on
a
larger
scale,
but
the
absence
of
evidence.
It's
a
missing
piece
in
this
whole
process.
H
I
Thank
You
Sara,
having
spoke
on
the
matter
but
I'll,
be
relatively
brief
and
a
number
of
points,
if
you
don't
mind
me
making
them
firstly,
on
the
point
about
the
fuzzy
boundaries
plan,
I
think
very
briefly:
Kim
rook
look
at
the
figure
seven,
which
is
in
the
green
bell,
addendum
paper
and
tp1,
because
that
is
essentially
the
green
belt.
Fuzzy
boundaries
plan
are
not
supported
necessary
of
that
as
a
document,
but
it
gives
you
a
good
indication
as
to
where
the
council
will
go
if
it
was
asked
to
draw
a
plan.
I
Now,
on
the
point
about
the
inner
boundaries
and
broadly
in
agreement
with
mr.
Knapp
kiss
and
slightly
in
disagreement
with
mr.
Tucker
on
the
basis
that
if
you
took
a
salmon
colored
pen
and
drew
the
inner
ring
road
or
the
outer
ring
road,
as
you
would
call
it,
you
wouldn't
broadly
come
up
with
that
same
dotted
line.
So,
in
my
view,
is
that
that
land
inside
the
Ring
Road
is
very
much
a
question
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
new
green
belt
or
not.
And
on
that
particular
point
on
policy,
why
h9c?
I
The
council
are
taken
a
slightly
different
approach
to
what
I
think
is
what's
advocated
in
the
RSS
under
that
policy
yh9
see,
then
this
was
a
matter
raised
by
Katherine
juice.
If
you
go
to
that
particular
policy,
it
sets
one
clear
step
is
that
you
establish
your
growth
requirements
at
the
same
time.
Is
that
you're
setting
the
green
boundary
to
preserve
your
historic
setting?
So
what
you
don't
do
is
that
you
don't
take
a
precautionary
approach
by
making
it
all
green
belt
first
and
then
setting
the
development
areas.
I
You
actually
do
it
at
the
same
time,
because
in
that
RSS
it
required
a
housing
requirement
for
York
of
850
dwellings
per
annum.
So
in
setting
the
inner
boundary
in
the
RSS
policy,
it's
a
one
step
process,
not
a
two
step
process
and
step
warned
is
very
clear.
Is
that
you're
you're
establishing
at
the
very
same
time
as
setting
your
boundaries,
your
development
areas
now
I'm
very
pleased
in
that
respect.
I
Now,
at
the
Council
of
Road
back
a
little
bit
with
respect
to
st8
and
recognize
the
fact
that
st8
in
itself
and
I'm
not
going
into
the
detail
of
that,
probably
is
one
of
those
areas
where
you're
not
necessarily
having
to
identify
the
exceptional
circumstances.
The
point
about
the
precaution
approach:
you
won't
find
the
precautionary
approach
in
the
MPP
F
I.
I
Think
what
you'll
find
in
the
MPP
F
is
the
significantly
boost
in
the
housing
land
supply
approach,
so
I'm,
not
necessarily
an
agreement
with
the
counselors
to
stage
on
that
and
as
referenced
by
minister
cause
here
about
the
secretary
state
decisions
as
reference
to
spy.
Mr.
right
there
is
that
the
Secretary
of
State
in
1678,
so
it
section
73
appeals
that
systems
is
that
they
would
take
a
precautionary
approach
because
there
was
no
Greenbelt
boundary
for
them
to
work
with
and
I
think
in
this
case,
we're
not
needing
to
follow
the
Secretary
of
State's
position.
I
If-
and
this
is
strained
very
slightly
23.2
if
the
council
were
to
take
a
precautionary
approach,
as
advised
under
the
policy
in
the
RSS
I,
think
you
need
to
look
no
further
than
figure
3.1
of
the
actual
document
itself
of
this
local
plan,
because
three
point
one
shows
you
the
historic
character
and
setting
of
York
areas
inside
the
Ring
Road
and
therefore
the
starting
point
for
the
precautionary
approach
will
be
to
make
those
areas
Greenbelt,
but
that
doesn't
include
all
of
the
land
inside
the
the
Ring
Road
itself.
Thank
you,
sir.
J
You,
sir,
we've
heard
a
bit
today
about
the
white
land
within
the
Outer
Ring
Road
I.
Think
it's
just
worth
dwelling
on
what
policy
why
one
of
the
RSS
says
it
actually
says
in
the
City
of
York
LDF,
defying
the
detailed
boundaries
of
the
outstanding
sections
to
the
outer
boundary
of
the
York
Greenbelt
about
six
miles
from
the
city
centre
and
the
inner
boundaries
in
line
with
the
policy
took.
J
L
Thank
you
and
just
to
endorse
what
mr.
Johnson
said
about
the
land
on
the
edge
of
the
urban
area.
I,
don't
think
they
call
in
decisions
over
the
years
can
help.
You
I've
been
a
fair
few
appeals
on
the
edge
of
York
over
quite
a
lot
of
years,
where
the
decisions
have
been
made
by
inspectors.
Very
senior
inspectors,
known
to
a
few
of
us
here,
have
taken
the
view
that
land
can't
be
treated
as
being
in
the
Greenbelt
on
the
periphery
of
York.
L
Until
it's
positively
put
in
in
an
adopted
plan,
the
Secretary
of
State
has
taken
a
precautionary
approach,
as
mr.
Johnson
says,
and
the
phrase
that
has
come
out
in
numerous
decisions
over
many
many
years
on
calling
cases
is
the
Secretary
of
State's
different
to
Secretary
of
State's
over
the
years,
of
course,
have
said
phrases
like
until
the
detail.
Boundaries
are
defined
in
an
adopted
local
plan.
L
A
K
Lucas,
thank
you
and
there's
two
themes
that
have
come
forward
as
I've
listened
this
morning.
First
of
all,
in
terms
of
the
inner
boundary,
we've
been
told
that
we
are
setting
it
for
the
first
time
and
it's
slightly
different
to
the
outer
boundary
in
the
the
area.
Beyond
the
Ring
Road
and
we've
been
saw
that
a
precautionary
approach
is
going
to
be
be
applied
and
that's
where
the
exceptional
circumstances
come
from
and
as
mr.
Johnson
says,
that
there
isn't
a
test
for
a
precautionary
approach,
you
know
it's
either
we
need
exceptional
circumstances.
Are
we
don't?
K
We
can't
do
something
just
because
it's
a
preference
that
wouldn't
be
sound
because
it
wouldn't
become
polite
with
national
policy
and
going
out.
Then,
let's
say
beyond
the
Ring
Road.
The
general
view
was
that
exceptional
circumstances
are
not
required,
however,
with
the
disclaimer
that
they
might
be
on
the
biggest
sites,
and
maybe
we
should
apply
them
to
the
bigger
sites.
But
again
we
can't
pick
and
choose
st
15
was
mentioned.
K
Also,
my
client
sites
at
st
14
was
referenced
to
say
well,
actually
that
one
probably
wouldn't
need
show
exceptional
circumstances,
but
others
wouldn't
and
again,
there's
no
provision
for
that
whatsoever.
In
policy.
We
have
to
apply
either
a
test
of
exceptional
circumstances
to
all
of
those
sites
or
a
test
of
defining
the
boundary
for
the
first
time,
which
is
the
position
that
that
we
believe
should
be
taken
in
terms
of
the
council's
position.
K
The
first
one
talks
about
establishing
in
a
plan
and
then
altering
in
exceptional
circumstances
through
a
review
of
a
plan
so
because
we're
not
reviewing,
we
shouldn't
be
looking
at
the
exceptional
circumstances
test
so
in
terms
of
st
14.
Mr.
Karos
points
absolutely
relevant
to
this
in
terms
of
paragraph
85,
which
looks
at
the
strategic
aims
and
says
that
when
we
are
defining
the
boundary,
we
should
look
at
meeting
identified
requirements
for
strategic
development
for
sustainable
development.
K
So
and
yesterday
we
had
the
discussion
on
the
strategy
and
we
had
the
discussion
that
identified
through
the
strategy.
There
is
a
requirement
for
these
sites
to
take
place,
so
that's
been
done
so,
therefore,
we
should
be
applying
the
boundaries
and
define
them
to
those
areas.
We
should
be
looking
at
the
boundary
for
the
first
time.
Look
at
the
strategy,
look
at
the
council's
approach
to
delivering
homes
and
then
release
that
land
from
the
well
so
not
released,
not
included
in
the
Greenbelt
when
we
define
it
and
that's
exactly
what
Pope
f85
tells
us.
K
M
That
I
also
feel
that
the
council's
approach
has
failed
to
address
because
RSS
yh9
paragraph
C
actually
says
that
there's
an
expectation
that
the
plan
should
endure
beyond
the
plan
period
and
also
the
MPP
F
it
states.
You
know
it
should
be
stretching
well
beyond
the
plan
period
and
in
both
regards
that
there's
an
expectation
about
safeguarding
land.
N
Thank
you,
sir,
very
quickly,
just
in
response
to
what
Michelle
de,
not
to
say
a
few
moments
ago.
The
suggestion
is
that
the
process
of
the
council
was
to
identify
what
land
on
the
edge
of
the
urban
area.
Fulfills
Greenbelt
functions,
purposes,
forgive
me,
and
if
they
are
identified
as
doing
so,
then
one
applies.
The
exceptional
circumstances
test
I
understand
that
to
be
a
reference
to
the
extensive,
the
exhausting
I
mean
exhaustive.
N
Forgive
me
exercise
annex
three
of
the
addendum
paper,
where
you've
got
a
little
red
line,
which
you
can
fall
around
identify
where,
where
it
would
be
drawn
to
show
where
the
council
would
think
the
boundary
should
be
so
you'll
see
repeatedly
through
that
to
exercise
in
that
annex
the
reference,
the
words
this
boundary
has
been
established
for
a
significant
period
of
time.
That's
wrong.
N
The
establishment
of
the
boundary
is
this
process,
so
the
process
of
establishment
is
the
point
that
this
plan
gets
adopted
and
that's
the
point
of
the
trigger
in
paragraph
83
of
MPP
F,
there
is
no
intermediate
trigger
of.
We
have
assessed
land
as
fulfilling
a
Greenbelt
purpose
and
then
assume
that
it
is
within
the
Greenbelt
to
apply
the
test
within
the
second
sentence
of
paragraph
83.
N
O
Thank
you,
sir.
In
response
to
the
council's
points
about
the
dotted
line
on
the
the
key
diagram
for
the
original
spatial
strategy.
We
say
that
it's
unsafe
to
reach
the
conclusion
that
all
the
land
within
that
the
lancôme
is
white
is
automatically
within
general.
Extensive
Greenville.
Mr.
Linus
also
talked
about
the
extensive
Greenbelt
that
needs
to
be
defined
in
order
to
protect
historic
character.
Well,
we
we
also
think
the
council
should
have
gone
through
paragraph
H
to
the
MPP.
A
C
C
P
It
does
suggest
that
it
would
have
been
very
helpful
if
the
council
had
produced
a
proper
Greenbelt
assessment,
showing
how
different
parts
of
the
land
within
the
area
were
assessed
against
the
five
main
purposes
of
the
Greenbelt.
Notwithstanding
that
the
historic
character
of
York
is
highlighted
is
one
of
the
particularly
important
areas
in
relation
to
York.
A
D
Thank
you,
sir.
Just
a
final
point,
mr.
Worthington's,
but
we
said
probably
more
a
question
of
methodology
that
is
better
suited
to
a
letter
question
mr.
Grundy
assent
to
the
repeater
points
that
have
been
made
before
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
why
we
have
not
treated
the
land
within
the
inner
the
dotted
line
as
as
new
Greenbelt.
We
just
don't
think
that
the
key
diagram
should
be
interpreted
as
strictly
as
he
suggests.
D
In
that
sense,
the
the
broad
point
that
was
rares
by
by
other
speakers
related
to
what
have
been
terms
as
a
precautionary
approach
taken
by
by
the
council
I
mean
we
accept
that
there's
there's
nothing
in
policy
which
says
you
apply
a
precautionary
approach.
It's
more
that
the
approach
to
take
in
the
particular
circumstances
of
this
case,
given
the
policy
in
the
RA
SS
limbs
room
for
interpretation
as
to
exactly
how
the
policy
should
be
applied.
D
And
we
say
that
the
approach
taken
by
the
council
hasn't
taken
into
account
the
fact
that
our
SS
does
not
say
anything,
though
about
housing
needs
being
taken
into
account
when
defining
the
boundary.
The
text,
any
text
that
might
have
been
included
within
the
previous
RSS
policy
was
deleted.
There's
no
reference
within
the
return
policy
to
what
you
do.
D
You
can
see
the
difficulty,
sir
and
that's
why
we
say
that
when
you
reach
it
as
a
matter
of
judgement,
bearing
in
mind
the
RSS
policy
and
a
broad
interpretation
of
NPP
F,
that
is
appropriate
to
apply
exceptional
circumstances
to
cases
in
particular
such
as
such
as
those
ones
I,
don't
think
we
said,
and
respective
s
T
it
that,
where
you
shouldn't
apply
the
exceptional
circumstances
test.
As
mr.
D
D
Really
it's
just
a
two
stage
approach
which
ends
up
with
boundaries
being
defined
through
the
local
plan
process,
which
includes
allocated
sites,
whether
they
be
on
the
edge
of
the
urban
area
or
further
right
under
s
T
under
s
T
15.
So,
in
summary,
sir,
we
understand
the
points
that
have
been
raised.
We
understand
that
there's
scope
for
legitimate
debate
on
this,
particularly
as
regards
the
urban
fringe
sites,
but
we
say
that
it's
appropriate
to
apply
exceptional
circumstances
test
for
the
reasons
we've
given.
D
A
Q
This
is
described
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
in
section
5
and
section
6
in
case
of
the
other
urban
areas
within
the
general
xn
that
that
we
intensity
björk
area.
The
criteria
which
informed
that
delineation
of
the
dieter
Braun
desire,
set
how
and
have
been
identified
on
the
basis
of
considerations
of
both
national
guidance.
Q
The
strategic
approach
of
the
core
strategy
and
the
MP
and
the
RSS
the
detour
on
has
been
they've
been
assessed
in
the
context
of
what
is
the
built
context
now
so
they've,
not
a
lot
of
people
have
said,
they've
been
retrospective
and
they
rolled
forward
previous.
They
haven't
we're
going
to
have
to
start
completely
afresh
and
looked
at.
Are
the
viennese
plan
process?
Where
should
these
boundaries
be
based
on
RSS,
the
NPP
F
and
the
current
plans
strategy.
Q
Q
Section
five
Libyan
brother
denim
sets
the
detail
criteria
for
assessment
through
criteria
to
a
we
set
out
the
consideration
of
local
openness
relating
to
protecting
the
local
historic
assets
and
character.
This
includes
consideration
for
locally
important
views
in
panoramas
characteristics.
That's
out
sorry!
Q
So
when
we're
looking
at
openness,
we
try
and
apply
that
to
the
five
purposes
of
Greenbelt.
So
we
have
the
strategic
approach
and
then
we
look
at
the
more
localized
detailed
approach,
so
figure
seven
does
not
define
what
should
or
should
not
be
considered
Greenbelt
at
a
local
boundary
level.
That
is
done
through
that
local
assessment.
The
local
assessment
follows
the
criteria
set
out
in
five
C
in
the
blue
boxes.
It
first
looks
at
openness.
Q
A
Q
H
A
A
A
And
when
I
look
at
paragraph
80
of
the
MPP
F,
that
says
that
one
of
the
green
belts
five
purposes
is
to
preserve
the
setting
and
special
character
of
historic
towns
and
I.
Think
what
you're
saying
is
that
that
was
the
purpose
of
primary
importance
in
the
council's
consideration,
of
where
the
inner
boundary
should
be.
Is
that
right?
It.
Q
D
A
Q
Q
2003
study,
SD
107,
that
sets
out
was
the
first
attempt
we
made
to
understand
what
I
start
character
and
setting
could
mean
for
York.
That's
how
I
think
is
8
or
6
principal
characteristics
that
include
things
like
the
importance
of
the
open
approach,
roads,
the
importance
of
the
rural
setting
the
importance
of
specific
village
setting.
Q
We
have
updated
that
as
times
gone
on
and
reviewed
it,
but
in
2014
we
well
gradually
through
time
our
understanding
of
the
historic
environment
has
evolved.
That
is
why
there
is
additional
evidence
listed
under
0.2
a
on
page
31,
because
these
are
other
localised
considerations
to
start
character
and
setting
in
2014.
Q
There
was
the
publication
of
the
heritage
topic
paper
which
significantly
moved
forward,
not
only
how
we
understand
this
direct
setting
of
the
city,
but
also
how
we
can
analyze
and
appraise
that,
so
the
heritage
topic
paper
again
looked
at
what
were
the
important
characteristics
that
York
needed
to
preserve.
In
this
instance,
the
only
identified
six
primary
broad
principles,
but
within
those
broad
principles,
are
many
more
detailed
characteristics.
Q
They
reconfirm
the
earlier
2003
SD
107
work.
They
still
agree
that
it
is
important
to
preserve
open
approach
roads.
It
is
important
to
preserve
the
opens.
The
rural
setting
is
important
to
preserve
village
setting,
but
they
go
further
than
that
and
help
us
understand
more
detail
about
how
they
can
be
interpreted
and
applied.
However,
they
start
a
heritage
topic
paper.
Q
Not
all
of
the
elements
in
that
document
are
able
to
be
mapped
out
as
long
to
keep
permanently
open
so
and
not
only
that
the
approach
council
has
taken
is
that
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
useful
to
use
that
document.
In
that
way,
he
would
be
very
restrictive,
because,
essentially,
what
that
document
says
is
that
all
the
land
in
New
York
countries,
in
some
way
to
the
historic
character
and
setting
of
the
city.
Q
Therefore,
in
inline
with
that,
we've
tried
to
take
the
principles
in
that
document
and
apply
them
through
this
facial,
especially
that
says
we
will
seek
to
conserve
and
enhance
the
the
historic
character
Cissy
assessing
of
city
while
still
accommodating
growth.
So
we've
devised
a
mechanism
within
that
which
has
been
approved
by
historic
England,
where,
when
one
needs
to
be
released,
it
is
assessed
through
a
heritage
impact
appraisal.
D
A
A
D
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Set
out
in
paragraph
5.4
for
how
we
think
the
purposes
of
openness
link
to
the
pivot,
the
criteria
of
openness
and
permanence
then
link
to
the
purposes
of
Greenbelt.
So
in
paragraph
five
point
four
four:
we
have
a
table
which
sets
out
each
one
of
the
purposes
of
Greenbelt
and
how
we've
applied
that
to
the
openness
criteria.
Q
A
A
Q
We
look
at
the
essentially
it's
looking
at
the
land
use
and
how
that
land
is
used.
Is
it
performing
a
rural
function
or
not
so,
for
example,
school
playing
fields
are
more
urbanized
land
use,
whereas
semi
natural
natural
semi-natural
open
space
is
more
Congress
with
the
countryside.
So
it's
to
understand
the
different
land
uses
and
whether
they
were
performing
a
countryside,
function
or
essentially
form
part
of
the
urban
area.
D
Okay,
sir
I
think
just
as
I've
sort
of
been
reading
through
this.
If
you
look
at
page
31
32
that
you've
been
taken
to
which
set
out
these
criteria,
one
Luke's
on
the
openness
criteria,
the
strategic
assessment.
First
of
all,
does
the
boundary
mark
the
edge
broad
areas
of
land
identified
to
be
kept
permanently
open.
That
is
basically
drawing
for
words.
The
work
that
took
place
in
Section
four,
the
same
document
where
one
looked
at
a
strategic
level.
D
You've
been
taken
to
figure
three
point,
one
already:
the
historic
character
in
areas
plan
that
looked
at
a
strategic
at
a
strategic
level,
which
was
then
going
to
influence
what
you
did
at
the
boundaries
of
the
local
level.
So
that's
what
point
one
is
about
and
that
took
into
account
the
purpose
of
the
green
belt
out
that
stage
of
the
fatigue
level
that
under
two
local
assessment,
the
explanation
for
that
appears
from
pages
37
through
to
42
and
I,
will
split
into
openness
and
permanence,
and
we're
dealing
with
openness
here.
D
So
think
we
would
say
that
the
localized
assessment
takes
into
account
the
purposes
as
part
of
this
wider
consideration
of
openness
and
then
defines
those
through
separate
criteria
relating
to
local
historic
assets
and
character
and
land
serving
accomplish
sides
at
functions.
So
the
purposes
of
the
greenbelts
that
permeate
that
openness
approach
that
vehicle
at
the
local
level,
as
explained
in
those
pages,
think
out.
The
overall
structure
at
to
the
approach
that
was
at
the
approach
has
been
taken.
D
Q
I
think
we
set
out
in
in
paragraph
five
point:
seven
one
that
setting
that
permanent
boundary
is
important
in
preventing
sprawl
and
coalescence,
as
well
as
protecting
the
countryside
from
encroachment
and
encouraging
urban
regeneration.
So
again,
terminus
right
here
we
felt
related
back
to
the
five
purposes.
A
Don't
you
to
a
decision
about
what
land
should
be
in
the
Greenbelt
and
what
land
shouldn't
be
and
to
inform
that
judgment.
You
look
at
the
extent
to
which
parcels
around
the
as
you
call
it
I
think
urban
fringe
do
or
don't
serve
the
extent
to
which
those
parcels
do
or
don't
serve.
One
or
more
of
the
five
Greenbelt
purposes
am
I
right
so
far,
so.
Q
A
Q
D
D
You
know
that
you
have
got
a
special
strategy
running
alongside
this,
which
is
based
on
protecting
this
torrid
character
of
York,
and
that
aligns
with
the
approach
to
setting
the
dinner
boundary
in
particular.
So
section
4
of
the
addendum
carries
out
the
task
of
saying
what
are
the
purposes
of
the
green
belt
at
a
strategic
high
level
that
gives
you
broad
areas
of
land
where
development
should
be
avoided
in
a
way
that
allows
you
to
define
your
local
localized
boundaries,
inner
and
outer
at
a
at
a
localized
stage.
D
Three
we've
looked
at
already
dealt
with
purpose
for
preserves
a
setting,
a
special
character
of
historic
times,
so
section
four
was
identifying
those
broad
areas
in
in
York
which
met
the
purposes
which
were
then
to
be
taken
into
account
at
the
detailed
boundary
setting
stage,
both
inner
and
outer
boundaries
in
the
intersections
of
this
documents.
So
that
was
that
that
was
the
starting
point.
D
37,
it
says
when
applying
the
openness
criteria,
which
is
a
fundamental
aspect
of
working
out,
whether
or
not
land
falls
in
the
right
side,
the
boundary.
The
greenbelt
purposes
are
relevant
to
that,
and
the
box
on
page
37
sets
out
how
those
purposes
influence
the
question
of
whether
it's
necessary
to
include
land
within
the
green
belt,
which
ought
to
be
kept
permanently
open.
D
So
that's
criterion,
2
on
criterion,
2a
and
2b
provide
more
detail
about
how
judgments
were
really
judgments
were
made
about
whether
or
not
land
should
lie
in
or
outside
the
boundary.
Applying
the
question
of
whether
it
needed
to
be
kept
open
on
those
pages
provided
more
detail
at
the
refinement
of
the
approach
that
was
taken
summarized
in
page
30
32,
so
that
the
document
is
essentially
setting
out
hi.
D
So
if
you
look
through
on
x3,
the
methodology
that
was
satellites
in
section
5c
was
fold
for
discrete
parts
of
the
boundary,
so
that
council
asked
when
looking
at
openness
at
a
local
level
and
permanency
at
a
local
level,
shoot
land
be
included
or
excluded
and
where
the
boundary
should
therefore
lie
and
that
dealt
with
the
methodology.
That's
been
set
out
in
section
5c
and
it
went
through
the
same
process.
D
Looking
at
the
criterion
of
permanence,
which
is
drawn
from
the
NPP
F
as
well,
and
the
permanence
criteria
is
explained
at
pages
41
to
42
and
then
applied
by
reference
to
detailed
elements
of
land
around
the
boundary
and
on
x34,
the
inner
boundary.
So
I
think
you
need
to
look
at
down
x3
as
well
service.
It's
clear
when
you
look
at
that
that
these
judgments
have
been
applied.
Walking
around
the
boundary
applied
to
particular
parcels
of
land
following
the
methodology
has
been
down
to
find
the
judgments
or
settle
down
and
on
x3.
A
D
And
that's
illustrated
by
page
37,
so
the
fundamental
question
that's
been
asked
is:
is
it
necessary
to
keep
land
permanently
open
and
working
out?
How
exactly
you
answer
that
question
there
are.
A
range
of
matter
is
to
take
into
account
with
your
satellite
and
pages
38
to
40,
as
well
as
in
the
box
of
page
32,
but
the
approach
taken
recognized
that
the
five
purposes
must
feed
into
that
broad
question
in
some
way
and
that's
the
purpose
of
the
table
on
page
37.
D
So
the
fundamental
question,
as
you
walk
around
the
boundary
is:
is
it
necessary
to
keep
this
land
permanently
open,
but
it
was
recognized
that
the
purposes
were
were
relevant
to
that
overall
judgment.
So
I
think
it's
not
quite
accurate
to
say,
overlay
and
I
think
the
fundamental
question
that
was
asked
was:
is
it
necessary
to
keep
the
land
permanently
open,
but
the
council
family
couldn't
simply
ignore
the
purposes
when
reaching
a
judgement
on
that.
A
Yes
gone
around
where
the
boundaries
might
be
assessed,
the
land
in
relation
to
those
two
things,
and
in
so
doing
asked
yourself
the
question:
well:
is
it
necessary
for
openness
for
the
purpose
of
checking
unrestricted
Sports,
Bra,
printing,
printing
neighborhood,
neighboring
towns,
merging
safeguarding
the
countryside,
etc?
To
have
a
permanent
boundary
right
here?
Is
that
it
in
a
nutshell,.
D
D
I
think
so
it
goes
back
to
the
debate
that
was
hard
before
the
brick.
The
key,
the
key
diagram
was
recognized
as
far
as
inner
boundary
was
concerned
in
telling
the
council
of
needed
to
set
the
inner
boundary,
but
it
didn't
provide
beyond
identifying
that
we
thought
that
was
land
was,
in
the
general
extent
of
the
Greenbelt.
It
didn't
provide
enough
detail
to
assist
with
the
detailed
boundary
setting
at
the
local
level
and
as
far
as
the
outer
boundary
was
concerned,
so
just
bit
just.
Q
What
we
interpreted
from
the
RSS
key
diagram
in
terms
of
the
inner
boundary,
is
it
when
we're
talking
before
about
the
dotted
line?
We
can't
be
show
us
to
to
what
that
implied,
but
we
can
see
that
there
is
a
definite
urban
area
in
the
sense
of
that.
Some
interpreted
that
to
mean
that
the
built
of
urban
area
of
York
was
not
part
of
the
general
extent
and
we
needed
to
define
what
the
edge
of
that
was.
A
A
Q
We
reviewed
the
boundaries
to
identify
what
lund
did
not
need
to
be
kept
permanently
open.
In
some
instances
we
did
identify
land
where
it
didn't
need
to
be
kept
permanent
open
and
therefore
there
was
room
for
development
such
as
SD
and
SD,
for
what
we
didn't
want
to
do
is
identify
land
without
understanding
the
potential
harm
that
land
could
have
on
the
historic
character
and
setting
of
York
I.
Q
Who
ever
see
had
regard
to
the
the
key
diagram
in
that
is
a
belt
of
brown
of
land
around
York?
But
we
again
took
the
wording
of
the
policy
in
that
we
needed
to
establish
the
extent
to
which
the
land
is
necessary
to
protect
the
historic
character
setting
of
the
city
and
also
regards
to
MPP
F
as
to
the
purposes
that
that
lad
fulfils.
A
Q
A
Q
Q
When
we
look
at
the
heritage
topic
paper,
it
says
it's
not
only
the
main
urban
area
of
York,
which
is
important,
but
it's
countryside
setting
and
the
satellite
villages
around
it.
And
this
and
the
setting
of
those
village
as
I,
think
we
say
in
Section
four
undecenoic
Erikson
setting
about
nested
historic
assets
and
their
settings.
Q
D
So
the
point
we've
made
before
is
the
reference
to
bite.
Six
miles
gives
flexibility
and
there
had
been
previous
appear
decisions
where,
as
we've
recorded,
land
further
away
than
six
miles
had
been
regard
as
being
within
the
general
extent
of
the
Greenbelt.
So
there's
flexibility
in
terms
of
what
about
six
miles
means
and
if
you're,
then
moving
on
from
that,
you
have
general
conformity
with
the
with
the
RSS.
D
So
this
about
six
miles
gives
flexibility,
but
you
you
would
overlay
onto
that.
If
I
can
use
that
term,
I
need
to
assess
the
land
according
to
the
purposes
of
the
Greenbelt,
including
historic
character
of
York.
Under
that
assessment,
justified
moving
beyond
six
miles,
then,
is
entirely
appropriate
to
draw
the
boundary
accordingly.
Q
A
G
A
A
Q
We
have
looked
at
what
six
large
massive
Center
might
lead
to
isolated
village
of
well
Drake
outside
of
the
green
belts.
We
think
the
village
of
well
Drake
is
part
of
the
settlement
and
the
historic
development
of
the
City
of
York
and
excludes
all
the
features
that
we
think
are
important
to
you.
So.
D
I
think
I
think
the
point
is
to
answer
your
question.
Yet
there
were
already
areas
of
Greenbelt
which
extended,
if
you
took
management
from
the
center
of
York
to
beyond
six
miles
and
not
reinforced
the
view
that
it
would
be
a
not
necessary
of
a
barrier
at
six
miles,
because
other
authorities
had
green
bells
within
them.
That
went
beyond
the
six
mile
distance.
A
When
I
look
at
those
maps,
I
note
that
each
one
of
them
says
York
Greenbelt,
that
is
what
I'm
looking
at.
Is
it
so?
It's
not.
You
know
in
the
case
of
Harrogate,
attractive
Greenbelt,
that
is
there
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
land
around
Harrogate
and
the
same
in
relation
to
Selby,
etc.
It
is
York
Greenbelt.
Yes,.
A
So
yeah
I,
don't
I,
don't
wish
to
be
seen
to
be
second-guessing
what
you
might
have
thought,
but
did
you
think
that,
frankly,
it
was
and
would
be
unrealistic
to
set
a
boundary
that
followed
the
six
mile
reference
in
our
SS
policy.
Given
the
present
situation
in
relation
to
adjoining
adopted
development
plans,
sort.
D
As
we
said,
there
was
the
interpretation
of
the
RSS
policy
in
its
own
right,
which
was
flexible
and
the
recognition
within
the
authority
that,
with
that
flexibility,
one
should
look
to
assess
the
purposes
or
the
extent
to
which
land,
even
outside
the
six
mile
Arab
six
mile
distance,
contributed
to
Greenbelt
purposes.
So
you
had
to
do
that
in
areas
which
didn't
join
local
authority
areas
which
had
Greenbelt
in
them,
but
you
were
certainly
assisted
by
the
fact
that
other
authorities
went
beyond
the
six
mile
six
mile
limit.
D
But
there
was
a
separate
exercise,
which
said
we
think
we've
got
flexibility.
We
need
to
look
at
these
areas
in
terms
of
the
extent
to
which
they
fulfil
Greenbelt.
Greenbelt
functions
on
out
in
its
own
right
was
a
reason
not
to
fix
it.
Six
mile
at
a
six
mile
distance,
the
fact
that
the
Greenbelt
went
beyond
six
mile
and
other
authorities
Grob
rid
of
that
position.
Well,.
A
I
mean
look
I'm,
looking
at
you
figure
9
on
page
24,
just
as
an
example
we
have
we
have.
We
have
the
York
the
area
of
York
Greenbelt
that
is
in
Harrogate
and
I
use
this
just
as
an
illustrative
example.
I
don't
actually
know
what
else
is
going
on.
I
mean
how
I
get
there,
because
this
plan
doesn't
show
me
so
I,
don't
know
if
there
is
Harrogate
Greenbelt
beyond
the
York
Greenbelt
there
is.
Is
that.
D
Q
D
D
There
wasn't
anything
in
terms
of
green
belt,
which
was
going
to
sort
of
cross
over
from
from
York
and
to
Harrogate.
By
way
of
example,
it
required
cross
working
in
that
sense,
because
the
green
belt
already
been
defined
within
within
Harrogate.
It
was
really
for
York
to
do
that.
Work
within
its
own
boundary
area,
but
green
belt
issues
were
raised
through
the
GDD
cooperate
discussions
and
it's
identified
in
the
GDD
cooperate
statement
that
we
looked
at
on
the
first
on
the
first
day
and
there
were
certainly
weren't
any
outstanding
issues
raised
by
other
parties.