►
From YouTube: Local Plan 16.12.19 Day 3 (3 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).
A
All
right,
thank
you.
It's
2
o'clock
now
so
the
hearing
is
resumed
say
before
lunch.
We
heard
from
the
reports
are
on
the
table.
Excellent
length
and
I
think
we
agreed
to
proceed
after
lunch
with
the
council's
response
to
those
points
and
bringing
together
of
the
most
to
be
addressed.
I
think
so,
if
I
could
thank.
B
You,
sir,
we'll
try
and
deal
with
the
points
in
the
order
in
which
they
were
made
and
that
sequence,
just
before
lunch
deal
with
mr.
lien.
First
of
all,
who's
essentially
making
points
about
st
31
last
miss
cook
to
take
up
the
reins
and
nut.
But
the
point
essentially
was
that
that
doesn't
follow
the
spatial
principles
in
all.
On
every
instance.
C
And
we
do
accept
that
SD
31
falls
within
an
area
of
historic
character
and
setting
as
set
out
in
the
evidence
base.
However,
in
line
with
our
site
selection
process
and
the
technical
officer
process,
we
did
consider
evidence
that
was
submitted
to
us
as
part
of
that
site,
which
was
accepted
and
this
evidence
set
out
why
they
site
should
come
forward.
C
What
we
have
accepted
is
that
there
would
be
minor
harm
to
the
urban
fringe
and
reducing
of
the
gap
to
the
village
in
the
main
urban
area,
and
it
is
part
of
the
preventing
coalescence
parcel
G
3,
which
extends
from
Bishop
Sauk
village
to
cotton,
Thorpe
and
northwards
to
the
existing
urban
edge
of
the
main
York
main
built-up
area.
However,
officers
consider
that
the
site
is
severed
from
the
wider
g3
area
by
the
railway
line
and
that
it
is
contained
and
bounded
by
the
existing
settlement
of
cotton
thought
to
the
west.
B
It
may
be
that,
even
if
st
31,
whoever
example,
doesn't
follow
every
single
aspect
of
the
spiritual
principles
to
perfection,
site-specific
considerations
has
to
be
borne
in
in
mind,
and
this
can
be
addressed
at
phase
2
of
the
hearings.
Of
course.
Turning
then
to
mr.
couriers
points
large
in
relation
to
st
15
again
similar
points
herb.
A
lot
of
this
is
going
to
be
picked
up,
hopefully
at
a
later
stage,
but
just
a
few
general
points,
insofar
as
reference
was
made
to
figure
7.
B
B
The
next
point
raised
by
mr.
Kersey
was
support
the
point
that
been
made
by
Miss
Ferran
about
the
dish
law,
and
he
said
there
should
be
a
combined
approach
to
assessing
site
suitability
and
availability
under
the
Shannara
process,
and
we
say
that's
exactly
what
we've
done
for
the
reasons
we've
given.
We've
looked
at
areas
of
land
where
development
may
or
may
not
be
suitable
through
the
application
of
the
spatial
principles
that
I've
identified
and
figures
we've
shown.
B
But
then
we
have
also
applied
site-specific
assessment
through
the
Schlag
process,
which
has
quite
rightly
looked
at
availability
of
land
from
a
willing
landowner.
That's
quite
unrealistic
to
somehow
downplay
the
importance
of
that
through
setting
the
distribution
of
development.
So
there
has
been
a
combined
approach
and
follow
throughout
I
was
mr.
gaerste
we'd
like
to
see
the
next
point
he
raised
was
on
paragraph
52,
C
and
PPF.
B
But
the
fundamental
question
to
ask
is
whether
the
new
settlement
would
allow
for
sustainable
development
to
be
achieved,
and
the
answer
to
that
question
is
not
dependent
simply,
as
mr.
Kersey
appears
to
suggests,
on
whether
communities
support
the
proposition
and
not
respect.
So
we
said
a
fundamental
test
is
whether
sustainable
development
would
be
achieved
and
that
it
would
be
in
this
case,
for
the
reasons
we've
given.
D
D
Which
is
not,
of
course,
for
us
to
interpret
what
the
MPP
F
says,
but
merely
to
read
the
words
and,
and
it
says,
doesn't
it
working
with
the
support
of
their
communities?
Local
planning
authorities
should
consider
whether
such
opportunities
provide
the
best
way
of
achieving
sustainable
development,
those
such
opportunities
being
larger
scale,
developments
such
as
new
settlements
or
extensions,
and
that
follow
the
principles
of
garden
cities
and
I.
Suppose
the
question
really
is:
has
the
council
worked
with
the
support
of
its
communities?
I
think.
B
Worked
with
supported
communities
in
the
sense
that
consultation
has
taken
place
and
where
comments
have
been
made
by
local
communities,
there
have
been
taken
on
board
in
refining
the
in
refining
the
allocation
and
I.
Don't
think
we
would
be
in
a
position
to
say
that
every
single
local
consultation
response
has
been
warm
in
favor
of
the
allocation.
B
There
have
been
objections
to
it,
but
we
don't
say
it
then
follows
from
that
that
somehow
the
allocation
should
be
regarded
as
unsigned
it's
difficult
to
know
how
supportive
the
community
is
actually
to
be
confirmed
or
measured
in
any
way.
We
do
have
to
accept
that
objections
have
been
have
been
made
to
it,
but
certainly
the
consultation
has
taken
place
and
we
have
positively
taken
on
board
comments
about
suggestions
relating
to
the
allocation
that
have
been
made
by
local
communities.
B
B
E
First
thing
is
that
the
transport
assessment
we've
consider
it
under
the
requirement
to
use
a
proportional
evidence
base
within
the
MPP
F,
so
the
transport
modeling
that's
been
undertaken.
We
consider
that
there
has
met
that
requirement
and
it's
been
proportional
in
terms
of
what
the
modeling
does.
It
determines
the
impact
of
the
development
projections
on
the
highway
network
over
the
next
15
years
of
the
plan
period
and
it
models
the
City
of
York
area,
the
highest
level
of
detail
generating
trips
on
the
network
based
on
the
level
of
development
to
calculate
the
traffic
flows.
E
E
There's
a
significant
amount
of
transport
infrastructure
in
the
infrastructure
delivery
plan,
and
we've
listed
that
out,
as
it
feels
the
mitigation
measures
that
are
reasonable
to
go
forward
at
this
time.
The
infrastructure
delivery
plan
also
includes
some
transport
proposals
that
were
listed
as
being
a
reasonable
prospect
of
going
forward,
which
was
the
highways
England
scheme
that
hop
Grove
roundabout.
So
there
are
transport
proposals
at
a
strategic
level
that
aren't
controlled
by
the
local
planning
authority
or
a
local
highway
authority
that
we
also
recognized.
E
There
was
also
an
issue
raised
about
congestion,
I
think,
particularly
on
the
Outer
Ring
Road.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
2019
transport
topic
paper
shows
that
the
outer
ring
road,
the
a
1237
actually
experiences
in
one
direction:
a
decrease
in
congestion
because
there's
actually
a
decrease
in
the
delay.
Time
on
that
stretch
of
road.
B
Mr.
good
next,
please
mr.
good
Ria's,
the
point
about
there
being
only
four
percent
or
so
of
new
development
and
the
in
the
villages
I'd
ask
mr.
Davis
must
cooked
just
to
pick
up
on
the
point
that
it's
unclear
the
extent
to
which
the
current
was
properly
considered.
The
potential
for
higher
levels
of
development
in
those
locations.
F
Thank
you,
sir
I
was
just
going
to
refer
back
to
the
strategic
si
work
that
was
done
in
terms
of
the
spatial
distribution.
One
option
option
two
focused
in
addition
to
the
prioritizing
development
in
the
urban
area
and
so
forth.
He
also
concluded
considered
distributing
development
to
the
villages
and
in
that
regard,
then
there
was
a
brief
commentary
around
the
effects,
both
beneficial
and
negative,
and
it
commented
a
part
on
the
scale
of
the
development
that
could
be
allocated
to
villages
and
whether
they
were
sufficient
scale
to
provide
additional
services
or
not
and
I.
F
C
However,
we
updated
this
information
in
2016,
which
has
gone
on
to
an
update
the
scoring
as
part
of
the
flaw
in
SD
zero.
Four
nine,
and
this
was
included
there
for
consideration
a
balking
of
all
facilities
across
the
city,
including
those
with
in
villages,
and
it's
in
relation
to,
therefore
how
the
site
has
scored
immolation
and
proximity
to
those
services
within
that
village.
B
And
mr.
Johnson
made
a
number
of
points
by
reference
to
st
7
and
14
in
particularly,
you
mentioned
s
two
years
as
well.
Essentially,
if
I
can
put
it
this
way,
the
point
was
the
world
larger
sites.
Extensions
to
those
allocations
would
be
more
viable
and
sustainable,
and
he's
doing
this
essentially
the
tee
up.
His
wider
objection
of
the
areas
of
his
allocation
should
be
that
should
be
extended.
B
B
The
next
item
on
the
deal
with
mr.
mr.
Grundy's
point,
which
came
back
at
an
earlier
and
submission
that
we
had
made
that
it
was
not
appropriate
to
consider
urban
extensions
moving
into
the
green
fingers
in
New
York
and
his
reply
world.
Well,
we
weren't
we
weren't
contemplating
that
as
part
of
our
proposition,
it's
not
entirely
clear
where
these
urban
extensions,
mr.
Grundy's,
referring
to
or
supposed
to
be
directed,
but
to
the
extent
that
even
they
avoid
the
green
fingers
in
between
built
aspects
of
development
in
New.
York
was
only
from
mr.
CooCoo
Judy.
B
C
In
terms
of
considering
urban
extensions,
we
have
looked
at
the
evidence
base
and
in
and
our
understanding
of
how
to
apply
the
evidence
base
which
key
to
this.
My
colleagues
point
is
the
heritage
topic
paper
and
the
accompanying
heritage
impact
appraisals,
which
have
been
done
both
for
each
policy
in
the
plan
and
for
each
site
that
we
have
looked
at
as
an
allocation.
C
In
terms
of
that,
when
we
were
looking
at
urban
extensions
and
previous
versions
of
the
plan
and
moved
to
those
being
separated
away,
that
has
been
a
key
influence
in
our
understanding
to
make
sure
that
we
conserve
the
key
elements
that
are
important
to
the
historic
character
and
setting
of
the
city,
and
that
has
been
directly
informed
by
our
understanding
of
key
prints.
The
first
key
principle
in
policy
ss1
using
the
Heritage
impacts
assessment
and
it's
topic
paper.
B
Thank
you
and
then
mr.
Smith
historic
England
made
a
number
of
points,
but
I
think
the
one
of
the
one
to
highlight
really
is
the
support
that
he
offered
for
the
spatial
strategy.
In
a
way.
This
is
a
rinds
off
the
the
approach
that's
been
taken
by
the
council,
and
we
noted
that
he
said
that
the
distribution
was
the
only
one
likely
to
conserve
key
elements
with
historic
character
and
setting
of
of
York
and
we'd.
A
H
So
they're
their
support
they've
clearly
supported
the
spatial
strategy,
but
on
the
proviso,
sir,
and
you
you'll
read
your
read
of
read
their
statements.
Whereas
I
have
they
use
very
carefully,
it's
been
very
carefully
phrased
and
a
shorter
decanting.
The
housing
need
from
York,
and
that's
obviously
raised
at
the
paragraph
14
issue,
but
we've
yet
to
discuss.
H
If
there
is
that
harm,
you
clearly,
as
inspectors
can
recommend
that
part
of
that
need
is,
is
not
met
within
the
ministry.
Very
of
York
now
would
follow
for
national
policy,
but
and
when
you
read
the
submissions
which
historic
England
and
we
have
put
in
on
all
matters
relating
to
green
belt,
you
other
than
at
one
point
whether
you
should
or
we're
on
to
Counting.
You
could
barely
put
a
cigarette
paper
between
what
we
say
so.
B
Can
I
just
have
confirmation
there
I
mean
we
understand.
Berseker,
says
me
at
this
point
before
about
somehow
is
he
need
being
met
outside
administrative
boundaries?
If
you
work
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
that
again,
but
I
took
it
from
what
he
said
that
if
he
loses
that
point,
then
he
accepts
a
spatial
distribution
that
involves
the
creation
of
a
new
settlement.
H
Yes,
sadly,
our
position
is
that
obviously,
sir
the
there
we
have
something
muddled
issues:
I,
don't
not
other
issues
between
duty
to
cooperate
and
the
issue.
The
paragraph
14
issue
you
do
not
need
to
know
our
submission
to
you
is
that
you
do
not
need
to
know
that
other
authorities
will
accept
the
unmet
need
before
you
can
find
that
a
sit
there
at
the
harm
is
serious
enough
to
warrant
not
meeting
needs
in
full.
H
Just
then,
just
picking
picking
up
the
other
other
points
which
miss
the
line
has
mentioned.
I
don't
want
to
go
on
to
about
figure,
7
or
7,
so
yo
we'll
deal
with
that
tomorrow,
but
any
suggestion
that
somehow
figure
7
has
driven
to
some
proposals
of
the
submission
local
plan
can't
be
true.
Figure
7
arises
out
of
evidence
which
the
council
has
only
submitted
in
relation
to
purpose.
The
green
girl
at
at
your
request
hasn't
informed.
They
submitted
a
proposal
to
local
plan
in
any
way.
I
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
raise
just
a
couple
of
very
brief
points
and
there's
a
bit
of
a
summary
and
a
final
conclusion,
and
firstly,
regarding
the
site
selection
methodology
and
the
thresholds
that
they've
used
to
essentially
fast-track
the
larger
sites
through
the
site
selection
process,
which
it
clearly
states
they
have
in
the
site
selection
paper
and
to
reduce
that
threshold
from
100
hectares
in
the
2013
paper
down
to
35
hectares
in
the
current
methodology
is
just
totally
unjustified
and
there's
no
no
paperwork.
I
To
my
mind
that
justifies
that
reduction
whatsoever
and
I
appreciate
that
things
do
change
over
time
with
the
with
further
evidence
being
available
and
more
detailed
evidence.
However,
a
reduction
by
nearly
2/3
of
the
threshold,
it's
just
totally
unjustified
and,
in
my
mind,
puts
into
question
whether
the
council
are
trying
to
fit
these
housing,
allocate
these
strategic
allocations
into
their
plan
and
justify
them
at
a
later
date
than
they
should
have
originally
just
two
more
very,
very
quick
points
and
so
they're
strategically.
I
The
Greenbelt
as
well
as
other
issues,
are
meant
to
have
shaped
where
development
is
directed
towards
and
the
constraints
map
at
figure.
Three
point:
one
of
the
local
plan
is
meant
to
show
this.
However,
it's
fundamentally
flawed
as
it
doesn't
look
at
us
at
it.
It
doesn't
look
at
the
sites
where
development
can't
be
brought
forward
without
impacting
on
the
green
Greenbelt
to
a
significant
level
based
on
all
five
purposes
of
the
Greenbelt
there.
I
I
A
J
J
If
I
could,
if
I
could
just
read
you
a
case
study,
it
Lilla
straight
the
point
I'm
trying
to
raise
about
joining
the
dots
there
and
also
probably
offer
a
solution
as
well,
and-
and
this
is
the
case
study
from
the
Swedish
city
region
of
Uppsala
in
the
early
2000s
I'll.
Just
read
this
as
a
couple
of
paragraphs.
It
won't
take
long
in
the
early
2000.
The
Swedish
city
of
Uppsala
was
facing
many
of
the
same
challenges
that
the
UK
currently
faces.
J
These
shared
challenges
were
that
house
builders
were
not
able
to
meet
the
demand,
especially
for
social
and
affordable
housing,
with
a
lack
of
supply,
leading
in
part
to
higher
prices,
compounded
by
a
very
concentrated
house
building
sector
and
a
stay
unwilling
to
engage
proactively
in
the
land
market
in
any
meaningful
way.
Unlike
the
UK
Uppsala
decided
to
take
action
and
developed
a
new
model
to
deliver
the
additional
housing
supply
which
works
as
follows.
J
First,
the
council
identifies
the
local
need
and
creates
the
plans
for
a
development
that
they
want
to
build
it
then
purchases
the
land
existing
use
value.
The
council
then
develops
the
master
plan
which
divide,
which
is
divided
into
numerous
subplots,
which
are
sold
to
different
developers
with
the
commitment
to
build
specific
types
of
housing
on
them
within
a
given
time
frame.
An
interesting
feature
of
the
system
is
that
the
price
the
land
is
sold.
J
The
developers
is
dependent
on
with
what
is
going
to
be
built,
meaning
that
land
is
cheaper
for
social
housing
and
for
market
rate
developments.
The
changes
to
UPS
Allah's
house
building
program
have
achieved
tangible
results
and
has
demonstrated
that
an
active
role
by
local
government
in
land
supply
does
increase.
The
supply
of
housing
gives
a
greater
role
to
small
volume
house
builders
and
improves
the
quality
and
diversity
of
the
properties.
A
K
Thank
you,
sir.
Just
a
couple
of
points
to
come
back
on
and
then
then
a
just
a
quick
conclusion
point.
Basically,
just
at
the
point
about
this
assessment
headline
figure
of
100
hectares
down
to
35
hectares,
I,
don't
think
it's
as
simple
as
that
there's
been
many.
Many
assessments
have
taken
place
in
those
years
that
have
gone
by
since
that
point
and
I
think
we
can't
ignore
discussions
over
taken
place
with
constable
T
such
as
historic
England
as
well.
K
So
I,
don't
think
it
is
as
simple
as
there's
always
made
out
to
be
the
point
about
the
Canton
house
into
other
authorities.
I
thought
we'd
put
that
to
bed
last
week.
It's
not
a
reasonable
alternative.
If
normal
accept
it,
we've
got,
housing
needs
to
meet,
so
I
was
hoping
that
point
of
discussion
might
be,
and
then
the
third
point
is
about
paragraph
14
of
the
framework
which
mr.
Koster
keeps
refer
to
the
point
of
harm.
K
Of
course,
in
terms
of
the
socio-economic
benefits
that
the
plan
delivers,
the
overall
approach
and
suppose
my
conclusionary
point,
if
again
he's
a
word,
the
overall
approach
is
largely
soundly
based,
supported
by
an
uber
console
tease,
but
there
are
anomalies,
and
we
outline
them
in
our
herein
statements,
and
we
do
believe
that
those
anomalies
can
be
rectified
through
the
examination
process
and
and
would
enhance
the
inability
of
the
of
the
plan
and
it's
probably
more
for
a
face
to
element.
The
description.
Thank.
L
Thank
you,
sir
again
just
to
return
that
suggestion
by
mr.
Coe
say
that
you,
if
you
find
that
there
is
substantial
harm
which
is
inviting
you
to
do
to
the
historic
setting
of
the
city
and
therefore
some
of
the
housing
needs
of
your
could
be
met
elsewhere.
Can
I
just
invite
you
to
reject
that
out
right
at
the
hurricane
district,
the
hurricane
local
plan
cites
policies,
local
plan
2013
was
considered
by
your
colleague
mr.
ware,
in
at
an
examination
in
2014
that
local
plan
essentially
offloaded
part
of
her
agates
housing
requirement
on
to
other
authorities.
L
When
the
Harrogate
council
were
asked
which
authorities
had
accepted
that
has
a
requirement,
the
answer
was
none.
There
was
no
agreement
with
any
authority
of
your
authorities
that
they
would
meet
the
shortfall
in
her
agates
provision.
The
DPT
did
the
PD
was
proposing
390
dwellings
against
projections
of
8
sixty-two
drownings.
L
The
inspector
essentially
abandoned
the
examination
and
Harry.
It
had
to
start
again.
So
any
suggestion
that
you,
you
can
simply
find
us
harm
to
the
setting
of
York
and
therefore
conclude
that
someone
else
can
meet
York's
housing
requirement
without
the
agreement
of
those
other
councils
is
simply
not
an
option.
A
M
We
have
got
to
get
this
right,
because
so
many
people
are
struggling
and
to
get
the
placement
wrong
not
to
build
the
connectivity
into
the
housing.
Developments
where
it
is
sustainable
means
that
again
we
are
adding
to
the
problems
of
the
city
not
taking
away
from
them
and
therefore
I
just
believe.
The
construct
of
the
whole
of
the
plan
has
been
ultimately
not
address
the
needs
of
the
city.
M
The
crucial
factors
of
the
way
the
city
is
being
developed,
whether
that's
economically,
whether
it's
sustainably
and
the
environment,
whether
it
is
transportation
which
is
a
constant
bugbear,
because
it
is
so
the
paucity
of
the
situation
currently
or
over
the
housing
crisis
and
getting
this
development
wrong
is
going
to
make
things
worse
and
I
can
see
how
quickly
things
could
descend,
making
the
cost
of
housing
even
more
access
inaccessible,
meaning
that
we
won't
get
the
economic
development
we
need
ending
up,
congested
and
polluted.
This
cannot
be
the
way
forward.
Thank
you.
N
N
O
O
All
that
has
happened
is
that
the
throughput
is
constrained
and
therefore,
as
the
ownership
and
use
of
private
transporters
increase,
the
congestion
has
spread
out
both
in
time
and
in
extent,
so
you
get
congested
junctions
further
and
further
out
in
the
system.
The
current
way
that
transport
operates
in
this
city
cannot
cope
with
the
massive
development.
If
we
just
do
it
on
a
more
as
the
same
basis.
O
If
you
look
at
the
underlying
work,
that's
been
done
for
this
this
plan.
It
differs
from
the
way.
Interestingly,
previous
local
plans
around
the
Millennium
were
done,
where
the
local
transport
policies
and
approach
were
developed
in
conjunction
with
the
local
development
plan
and
actually
significant
and
influenced
where
sites
report
the
policy
of
the
transport
policies
in
that
plan.
If
you
actually
compare
the
transport
policies
that
are
attached
to
this
plan,
they
are
markedly
less
ambitious
and
rigorous
than
the
ones
in
the
2005.
O
Currently,
current
development
control
version
of
the
local
plan,
which
reflected
that
work
that
was
done
on
transport,
and
that
was
then
that
was
then
you
know
almost
15
years
ago,
dealing
with
a
much
lower
level
of
development.
You
can
see
in
terms
of
what
what
has,
in
terms
of
the
council's
response
to
the
earlier
question,
the
work
that
they
have
done
is
limited.
It's
been
primarily
come
confined
to
looking
at
the
highway
use
by
conventional
vehicles.
O
O
The
if
you
look
at
the
the
policies
on
particular
individual
new
developments,
you'll
see
a
target
of
15%
of
journeys
by
public
transport
is
suggested.
No
effort
ever
done.
Seas
offered
to
justify
that
target.
Nor
is
any
target
offered
for
walking
on
cycling.
The
targets
are
far
too
low
to
reflect
an
emphasis
on
sustainable
travel.
O
Similar
new
developments
in
in
the
hearts
of
European
cities
are
achieving
sustainable
mode
shares
in
excess
of
80%
huronian
in
the
Netherlands
Freiburg
in
Germany,
to
name
just
two
comparable
sized
cities
are
achieving
much
higher
active
and
mobin
public
modal's
shares.
Citywide
are
knowing
kroning
in
which
I
visited
in
the
1990s.
They
already
achieved,
50%,
walking
and
cycling.
O
The
that
is
the
order
of
change
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
here,
which
is
not
delivered
by
this
local
plan
and
therefore,
in
effect,
means
that
he's
completely
unacceptable
in
its
present
form.
I'd
also
make
the
point
that
the
council
has
failed
in
terms
of
what
it
should
have
done
in
developing
the
transport
side
of
this
plan
that
they
need
to
both
identify
remedial
transport
measures
and
assess
their
impact
as
part
of
the
transport
plan.
O
They
have
not
done
the
latter
and
therefore
yo
and
I'm,
not
surprised
they
haven't
done
the
latter,
because
it
would
basically
show
that
the
anticipated
levels
in
increase
in
delays
and
congestion
in
the
city
that
are
mentioned
in
their
traffic
topic
paper
and
which
are
completely
unacceptable,
will
actually
happen.
The
alternative,
which
is
actually
more
likely,
is
that
the
increased
congestion
will
choke
off
growth
in
this
city.
O
It
won't
continue
to
choke
the
city
centre
and
lead
to
further
displacement
of
jobs
from
the
city
centre
and
a
wholly
unsustainable
pattern
of
development,
and
that
also
links
to
other
aspects
of
it.
So
the
concentration
on
the
increasing
densities
of
development
in
the
city
has
brought
substantial
pressures
on
the
residual
community
facilities,
so
actually
the
site's
ioke
community
facilities
in
in
the
form
of
pubs
in
the
form
of
green
spaces
sports
fields
we
flagged
in
our
original
submission.
Three
sets
of
sports
fields
that
were
under
threat
of
redevelopment.
O
Two
of
those
have
now
gone.
You
can
say
the
same
in
terms
of
local
public
houses,
all
those
types
of
things
which
are
disappearing
because
of
the
pressure
on
housing
in
the
city,
the
high
house
prices.
It
generates
how
a
land
prices
it
generates
and
therefore
the
depletion
of
those
facilities.
That
is
a
direct
consequence
in
the
same
way
as
the
high
housing
prices
have
led
to
the
highest
loss
of
office,
accommodation
of
any
city
in
the
country
through
conversion
to
residential.
O
O
That's
why
there
isn't
a
secondary
school,
which
was
envisaged
in
the
previous
site
allocation
for
the
we
Winfield
site
on
the
south
south
side
of
the
city,
so
there's
been
a
whole
set
of
unacceptable
compromises
in
this
revision
of
the
2013
plan,
which
lead
to
it
being
far
more
unsustainable
than
the
previous
version,
and
that
leaves
it
on
as
I
said,
particularly
on
transport
and
sustainability.
Side
is
actually
completely
unsound.
A
B
C
And
we
first
looked
at
that,
obviously
in
the
site
selection
paper
and
we've
refined
our
approach
moving
through
as
we've
progressed
through
the
preparation
of
the
plan
and
we've
done
that
in
consultation.
Drawing
upon
mr.
Butler's
points,
we've
done
that
in
consultation
with
our
developers
and
we've
set
that
process
out
at
each
stage
of
our
technical
officer
comments
and
that
we've
reported
on
so.
H
C
As
part
of
the
selection
process,
we
had
a
number
of
sites
submitted
to
us
in
terms
of
that
first
sift
in
terms
of
understanding.
If
we
could,
you
know
and
following
the
approach
that
we
took
at
the
preferred
options
to
do
with
the
options
to
identifying
a
sustainable
set,
you
know
a
separate
settlement.
We
had
a
number
of
well,
we
had
limited
submissions
of
sites
over
size
that
we
felt
would
deliver
sustainable
settlements
and
we
chose
hectares
as
the
key
as
the
first
starting
point
to
look
at
that.
D
C
C
Working
with
our
developers
and
refining
our
options
we
actually
undertook,
which
was
set
out
in
the
strategic
housing
land
availability
process,
a
what
we
called
I
think
a
strategic
site
framework
where
we
started
to
work
in
depth
with
the
developers
to
understand
and
refine
the
options
for
the
sites
across
the
city.
Not
just
this
new
settlements,
but
the
strategic
sites
in
general
and
through
that
process.
We've
been
working
with
them
to
understand
and
agree,
essentially
the
boundaries
and
the
site
sizes
of
those
supplements.
But
not
was
something
that
there
are
people
around
this
table.
D
C
In
terms
of
the
initial
process
that
we
conducted
our
call
for
sites
in
2012,
which
was
an
initial
call
for
sites
for
people
to
submit
us,
develop
parcels
of
land
with
that
we
receive
limited
information
and
evidence
supporting
different
sites.
To
be
honest,
and
so
we've
refined
our
approach.
There
were,
though,
ways:
we've
looked
at
that
we've
had
various
stages
subsequent
to
that
that
people
have
been
able
to
comment
on
from
developers
and
the
public
which
is
refined.
C
How
we've
considered
that
and
in
doing
so
and
in
recognition
for
to
ensure
that
those
need
to
be
you
know,
of
what
those
strategic
sites
and
settlements
need
to
provide.
We've
we've
put
these
in
development
principles
into
the
site-specific
policies
in
the
spatial
strategy
section,
which
is
section
2
of
the
plan.
D
D
G
Think,
initially,
we
were
looking
at
it
at
a
higher
level.
At
the
beginning
of
the
process,
we
were
looking
at
what
would
be
the
minimum
size,
a
settlement
that
would
be
required
in
order
to
generate
sufficient
sustainable
facilities
in
order
to
sustain
and
sustain
a
sustainable
community.
However,
through
the
process
that
was
then
developed
and
refined,
looking
at
a
specific
set
of
site-specific
principles
for
each
site
and
does.
D
D
G
Those
sorts
of
factors
omit
it
does
depend
on
the
location
of
the
settlement,
so
in
the
case
of
st
15,
which
is
the
larger
settlement.
Clearly,
that
is
further
away
from
the
existing
urban
area
and
is
an
entirely
new
cement
entirely
new
settlement.
So
it
needs
to
create
sufficient
facilities
within
that
site
entirely
to
sustain
that
population
in
terms
of
schools,
local
facilities,
shops
etc,
but
in
some
cases
such
as
st
14,
the
site-specific
principles
do
require
a
local
center
on
that
site,
but
also
within
the
site-specific
principles.
G
We
recognize
that
provision
could
be
made
through,
for
instance,
an
over
bridge
to
connect
to
the
existing
facilities
adjacent
in
Clifton
more
so
in
that
case,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
be
100
hectares
in
order
to
make
it
sustainable.
So
it
was
a
refinement
of
those
principles
that
were
tested
at
each
stage
of
consultation
and
understanding
more
about
the
individual
settlements
in
each
case
and
what
would
be
required.
D
G
I'm
saying
yes,
it
isn't
just
an
RV.
Could
an
arbitrary
cutoff
point
of
a
certain
size
of
settlement
I
think
we
started
off
that
point
when
we
were
looking
at
the
principle
of
new
settlements,
but
then
we've
taken
into
account
the
location
of
those
settlements
and
how
they
connect
with
the
existing
communities
and
then
what
was
required
size
wise
in
order
to
deliver
the
set
of
site-specific
principles
that
we
thought
were
required
in
order
to
make
those
sites
work
as
new
communities
and
there
each
of
those
principles.
G
D
P
G
It's
been
a
process
of
result
of
also
refining
the
boundaries
in
relation
to
get
in
that
balance,
against
the
other
spatial
principles
that
we
talked
about.
It's
connected
to
the
location
of
land,
but
then
also,
it's
been
influenced
by
viability,
assessment
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
those
sites
of
viable
and
deliverable
against
the
principles
that
we
think
yeah.
D
But
it's
that
the
view
of
what
that
what
the
council
thinks
that
threshold
is
is
something
that's
changed
over
over
time
and
as
I
say,
I
understand
the
relationship
between
the
site
and
existing
facilities
and
services
will
be
something
that
has
a
bearing,
which
might
mean
that
the
starting
threshold
is
different
depending
on
where
the
land
is
but
I'm
still
not
quite
clear
in
my
mind.
Well
frankly,
where
that,
where
the
100
and
the
35
come
from.
B
And
I
think
the
Gallants
mistook
it
was.
It
was
basically
through
refinement
of
understanding
what
site
size
would
be
capable
of
bearing
sustainable
transport
infrastructure
through
discussions
with
developers
as
partly
site
selection
process,
bearing
in
mind
that
this
site
size
only
used
as
part
of
the
initial
stage
of
site
selection
and
the
schlau
a
paragraph.
Two
point
three
point:
one
four
that
says
the
site's
over
35
hectares
were
anticipated
to
be
capable
providing
facilities
and
transport
connections.
B
But
was
then
that
didn't
mean
you
didn't
look
at
the
site
and
detail
of
stage
two
something
you
have
to
look
at
the
context
in
which
the
35
hectares
users
it
was
to
avoid
knocking
sites
/
last
age,
which
we
thought
merited
consideration,
not
least
because
of
their
broader
ability
to
contribute
to
sustainable
transport
infrastructure.
But
that
was
really
a
matter.
Looked
at
in
detail
at
stage
2.
D
B
Think
subject
what
others
would
say:
I
think
that
was
then
considered
on
a
allocation
by
allocation
basis
after
that,
so
that
the
question
of
whether
a
particular
allocation
would
contribute
to
sustainable
transport
infrastructure
was
looked
at
by
reference.
The
individual
sites
concerned.
Now
it's
reflected
in
the
way
different
sites
have
different
requirements
on
their
policy
for
dealing
with
sustainable
transport
infrastructure.
D
C
B
C
D
B
D
B
C
Sd
five
York
Central,
which
is
in
the
main
urban
area,
which
is
35
hectares,
st
seven,
which
has
land
to
the
west
of
east
of
Metcalf
Lane,
which
is
thirty,
four
point:
five
hectares,
st
eight,
which
is
land
to
the
north
of
monks
cross,
which
is
thirty,
nine
point.
Five
hectares
st-9
land
to
the
north
of
Haxby,
which
is
35
hectares,
st
14,
which
has
land
to
the
west
of
Wigington
Road,
which
is
55
hectares
land
to
the
west
of
Elving
two-lane,
which
is
st
15,
which
is
159
hectares.
C
C
D
G
We
would
consider
those
other
settlements
to
be
sustainable
and
there's
a
different.
They
are
self-sustaining
in
the
sense
that
they
do
require
facilities
within
those
sites,
including
local
centers,
say,
for
instance,
at
st
14,
but
there's
a
recognition
that
in
some
of
in
those
cases
they
do
have
connections
to
existing
communities.
So
in
some
cases,
whilst
they
require
local
facilities
on
the
site,
they
also
and
we're
also
requiring
increased
connectivity
with
facilities
and
services
that
in
those
surrounding
areas,
so,
for
instance,
in
st
14,
through
policy
SS
12.
G
We
do
require
a
new
local
center
in
order
to
provide
the
provision
of
shops
and
local
facilities
within
that
site.
But
we
also
require,
for
instance,
an
over
bridge
or
a
connection
safe,
pedestrian
and
cycle
access
through
to
the
Clifton
Moore
site,
which
is
adjacent
so
there's
a
balance
across
each
of
those
sites
and
that's
reflected
in
the
site-specific
principles
that
are
set
out
in
the
spatial
strategy
policies.
G
But
in
all
cases,
we're
trying
to
ensure
that
those
create
sustainable
communities
that
are
accessible
by
public
transport
that
have
facilities
within
them
or
connected
to
existing
facilities
and
they're
they're
set
out
in
the
in
the
policy
aims
of
those
site-specific
policies.
In
a
spatial
strategy,
section.
G
Yes,
that
is
correct
in
the
sense
that
it
isn't
an
arbitrary
cutoff
point
for
35
hectares,
and
it
does
depend
on
the
on
the
individual
settlement
and
how
they
connect
to
the
facilities
that
they're
close
to
so
it
there
are
individual
requirements
on
each
of
those
strategic
sites
of
its.
It's
been
a
refinement
of
those
settlement
boundaries.
D
D
C
B
B
We
bore
in
mind
what
the
question
you
raised
earlier,
which
is
it's
unclear
exactly
what
alternative
is
being
proposed,
because
on
the
one
hand,
we
understand
that
there's
a
desire
to
see
more
development
to
deal
with
issues
of
affordability,
on
the
other,
there's
a
complaint
about
the
prospect
of
harm
being
caused
by
increasing
densities
in
the
city,
and
it's
not
entirely
clear
what
exactly
mr.
Merrit
or
miss
Massey
seeking
to
achieve
there
were
of
an
alternative
spatial
distribution.
All
I
would
say.
D
B
That's
that's
entirely
understood,
I
just
bear
in
mind
and
the
comment
it
was
made
earlier
that
insofar
as
objectors
appear
to
complain
about
well,
not
the
plan
is
signed.
You've
been
looking
for
suggestions
as
the
heart
might
be
improved
and
I
didn't
discern.
Another
thing:
we've
heard
from
mr.
Merritt
or
miss
Maskull,
a
clear
indication
as
to
how
we
should
change
the
spatial
strategy,
but
be
that,
as
of
may,
we
say
that
focusing
development,
where
possible
in
the
main
urban
area,
provides
the
best
opportunity
for
achieving
sustainable
transport
choices.
That
appears
to
be
there.
B
There
me
an
aspiration,
I'm,
similarly
identifying
a
major
new
settlement
and
other
new
settlements,
which
we
say
have
the
ability
to
contribute
towards
sustainable
travel
choices
again
as
an
entirely
acceptable
spatial
distribution
and,
to
the
extent
that
one
must
recognize
there
will
be
new
traffic
to
a
degree
as
a
result
of
this
spatial
distribution.
We
stand
by
the
proposition
that
the
work
has
been
done
to
debt
is
sufficient
to
demonstrate
that
over
all
can
be
regarded
as
acceptable
for
the
purposes
of
this
stage
of
the
plan.
B
And
finally,
just
to
confirm
mr.
Kersey
a
point
about
paragraph
14.
We
are
not
in
the
territory
where
one
should
be
finding
it.
The
harm
caused
by
this
plan
significantly
and
demonstrably
outweighs
the
benefits
permitting.
The
housing
needs
we've
identified,
and
we
note
his
view
that
if
you
were
to
include
consistently
with
our
case
that
there
isn't
a
prospect
for
housing
needs
to
be
met
outside
the
York
Local
Plan
area,
that
he
doesn't
have
an
issue
in
principle
with
a
new
settlement
and
ask
you
to
nuked
up.
Q
Thank
you,
sir
I'm,
just
listening
to
that.
Obviously,
we
representing
st7
and
st
14
and
looking
at
the
site
selection
process
back
from
2013
it.
This
takes
an
approach
through
as
many
site
selections
do
of
identifying
sites
and
then
applying
them
to
a
scoring
mechanism
based
on
access
to
facilities
and
things
and
the
reference
to
100
hectares
effectively.
What
that
does
is
that
knowledge
that
some
sites
of
that
scale
will
be
located
in
areas
that
can't
comply
with
those
scores.
Q
So
what
it
says
in
that
document
is
that,
if
you're
over
100
hectares
you
effectively
by
past
that
second
test,
so
you
don't
look
at
being
scored
against
accessibility.
You
go
straight
on
to
phase
3,
which
is
the
further
assessment.
So
the
hundred
hector's
wasn't
a
case
of
saying
it
has
to
be
over
hundred
to
be
this
interface.
We
just
moved
to
one
to
a
different
part
of
the
scoring
mechanism,
so
st7,
for
example,
wasn't
identified
in
that
process.
D
That
forgive
me,
maybe
my
snacks
just
just
know:
I'm
I'm,
not
asking
you
this
question.
It's
something
I
thought
I
meant
to
I'm,
asked
the
council
earlier
and
I'm
grateful
to
you
for
reminding
me
Yeah
right,
so
you've
just
gone
through
a
list
of
sites.
We
you
have
concluded
that
there's
one
that
you
consider
to
be
a
self-sustaining
community
which
of
these
do
you
regard
to
be
new
settlements,
whether
self-sustaining
or
not,.
C
But
if
I
may
add
that
this
is
st
7
and
st
14
are
in
the
context
of
the
refinement
of
the
boundaries
from
the
urban
extensions
that
we
have
used,
so
they
were
urban
extensions
and
we
have
refined
those
boundaries
using
our
evidence
to
move
them
away,
be
more
in
conformity
with.
We
feel
policy,
ss1
principles.
R
Thank
you,
sir
I'll
be
careful
here
not
straying
too
much
into
the
specifics,
because
I
there
is
clearly
a
case.
It's
mixing
to
support
the
council
in
this
is
that
I've
got
two
similar
sites
there
around
about
800
or
900
units.
They're
activating
excuse
me
very
differently
in
terms
of
their
location
and
working
with
facilities
and
therefore
is
st8
self-sustaining.
R
The
answer
is
probably
no
on
the
basis
that
it's
more
or
less
bolted
on
to
the
existing
main
urban
area
and
to
that
extent
the
800
dwellings
on
st
egg
were
probably
supported
by
the
convenience
store
on
site
with
respect
to
st7
it's
of
a
similar
size
to
st
8.
But
it's
now
made
remote
from
the
urban
area
and
at
around
about
800
dwellings,
you
probably
will
get
a
convenience
pool,
but
is
that
then
self-sustaining?
R
R
Think
when
you
talk
about
larger
settlements,
self-sustaining
I
think
the
councillors
right
is
that
once
you
get
to
certainly
around
about
3,000
dwellings,
even
talking
about
a
local
service
center,
but
you're
not
commercially
going
to
get
a
local
service
center
on
a
site
of
around
about
800
dwellings
and
I
only
say
that's
through
experience.
Cuz
I've
got
a
number
of
sites
that
I'm
currently
running
and
you
end
up
with
a
convenience
store
at
around
800
dwellings.
R
D
K
K
Think
that
that's
where
our
elements
have
come
from
and
we've
not
sought
a
threshold
or
headline
limit
on
on
hectare
which
the
hectare
has
been
formulated
by
those
qualitative
assessments
ensuring
that
these
settlements
deliver
what
they
need
to
deliver
to
be
self-sustaining
and
also
to
provide
sustainable
connections
to
the
surrounding
main
urban
area
from
a
viability
point
of
view
as
well
in
terms
of
what
we
can
afford
to
deliver
in
terms
of
bus
routes
through
sites
and
underpasses.
And
things
like
that.
I
Thank
you,
yes,
I'm.
Just
a
couple
of
brief
points
to
pick
up
from
what
the
council
have
said
regarding
the
hundred
hectares,
35
hectares
situation
and
what
we'd
be
interested
to
know
is
whether
any
sites
that
were
saved
out
as
part
of
the
hundred
hectare
threshold.
So
if
that
was
those
sites
that
didn't
meet
100
hectares,
so
a
lower
than
100
hectares
that
didn't
meet
the
criteria
for
selection
process,
which
include
access
to
public
transport
networks
and
access
to
facilities,
whether
there's
any
of
those
sites
that
were
excluded
very
early
on
in
the
situation.
I
I
The
other
quick
points
was
the
fact
that
in
the
timeline
between
2013
in
site,
selection,
paper
era
and
the
golf
sites-
and
now
it's
extremely
convenient,
don't
wish
to
point
fingers
as
such
and
I'm
not
that
kind
of
person.
But
it
seems
extremely
convenient
that
the
threshold
was
reduced
as
part
of
that
that
process,
once
discussions
had
been
undertaken
with
the
developer,
which
of
which
this
at
that
particular
site
had
been
reduced
by
more
than
half
its
size.
So
it
fell
below
the
100
hectare.
H
You
I
want
to
go
back
to
these
questions
thresholds
because
you
won't
be
surprised
to
know.
There's
been
a
lot
of
research
about
the
this
matter
for
new
settlements
and
unfortunate,
haven't
brought
it
with
me.
Then
I'm,
going
to
what
I
recall
I'll
check
it
overnight
to
measure
and
correct
what
I'm
saying
that's
what
my
my
Rico
is
about.
10,000
units
is
what
deemed
to
be
a
self-sustaining
settlement.
Normally
I
will
offer
a
full
range
of
35,000
units
would
reduce
you
a
secondary
school.
H
That
obviously
is
very
important
for
for
being
self-sustaining
and
a
particular
note
cutting
this
acceptance
in
some
of
the
council
documentation
that
SD
15
won't
support
a
secondary
school.
So
therefore
it
will
not
be
fully
selves.
It
won't
be
self-sustaining
in
the
normal
sense
of
that
word
below
5,000
units
you're,
going
to
you,
Argan
sports,
some
basic
convenience
facilities
somewhere
in
the
range
of
two
to
four
thousand,
that's
sort
of
where
we
are
in
in
terms
of
SD
15
you'll
get
probably
a
convenience
shop.
H
You
might
get
a
hairdresser,
you
might
get
a
few
other
basic
facilities
like
of
that
nature,
but
those
are
not
gonna.
Be
dealing
with
the
majority
of
people's
needs.
You
better
get
a
pint
of
milk
if
you
run
out,
but
that's
not
the
notion
of
self
sustaining
and
so
I
haven't
got
in
front
of
me,
but
there
is
a
figure
given
in
the
garden
community's
document
from
M
CLG,
which
I
look
up,
look
up
overnight
about
what
they
say.
The
figure
is
and
that's
much
in
the
high
range
and,
of
course,
to
be
self-sustaining.
H
You
need
to
be
mixed-use,
not
mixed-use
in
terms
of
having
a
retail
center
and
the
bits
and
pieces
put
it,
but
you
have
a
significant
employment
element.
None
of
these
so-called
new
settlements
have
an
employment
element,
substantial
employment
element,
and
so
the
terms
of
the
public
transport
I
know
I've
read
for
today.
H
But
if
you
look
at
the
policies
and
just
overnight
I
suggest
you
look
at
SS
13
little
14,
where
it
says
that
there's
talking
about
public
transport
services
and
visits
that
such
measures
will
enable
upwards
of
15
percent
of
trips
to
be
undertaken
using
public
transport.
That
must
mean
that
the
majority
of
trips
are
going
to
be,
are
going
to
be
car
born.
H
Because
I
see
no
notation
on
that
of
new
settings,
I
see
strategic
sites,
but
I
see
nothing
that
differentiates
between
new
trees,
excites
and
new
settlements
and,
as
I
say,
there
seems
to
be
some
confusion,
even
within
the
council,
whether
they're
posing
two
or
three
new
settlements,
and
so
just
dealing
with
the
paragraph
14
case.
I,
don't
want
that
I
know.
There
have
been
a
few
comments
around
the
table
about
that,
sir,
but
that
needs
proper
consideration
at
some
point
during
the
examination
not
I,
don't
think
the
comments
up
to
now.
H
S
H
Clearly
the
10,000
is
when
you're
trying
to
get
a
fully
self-contained
community
I.
Don't
have
that
document
in
front
of
me
I
just
think
I've
read
it
again
last
night,
just
to
by
myself,
but
I
think
the
1500,
the
gong
communities
obviously
go.
The
government
has
actually
taken
our
communities
from
being.
If
your
urban
extensions,
which
are
designed
next
bit
like
Metcalfe
Lane
right
through
to
the
type
of
thing
we're
talking
about
at
st
15
and
I,
don't
think
anyone
would
claim
the
1,500
units
would
produce
a
self-sustaining
community.
A
C
To
pick
up
on
this
point
and
we,
we
have
actually
received
funding
from
the
homes
and
communities
in
agency,
as
my
as
part
of
that
garden,
village,
funding
and
we'll
be
commencing
discussions
with
sorry,
Holmes
England
at
home,
with
them
in
2022
in
January
2020,
together
with
the
site
developers
to
take
forward
SD
15
as
a
garden
village.
Under
that
scheme,.
B
T
Thank
you,
sir,
just
so
you're,
not
under
the
wrong
impression.
The
sites
that
were
referred
to
by
the
count
saw
as
being
35
hectares
or
more.
Not
all
of
them
have
the
same
characteristics.
So
st5
is
in
the
urban
area.
As
you
know,
st-9
north
of
Haxby
is
very
well
related
to
services
facilities
in
in
Haxby
he
easily
walk
or
in
commutable
to
those.
So
not
all
of
the
settlements
and
sites
are
the
same.
It's
tall
and
say,
sir.
O
We
talked
about
public
transport,
accessibility,
the
needs
in
terms
of
journeys
from
the
dormitory
communities
into
town.
We
will
still
have
the
same
challenge
of
accommodating
those
journeys
in
the
city,
so
the
use
of
public
transport
is
quite
important
and
there's
a
difference
between
accessibility
to
public
transport
and
actually
having
a
public
transport
service.
O
O
D
O
I
was
just
trying
to
make
the
point:
there's
a
difference
between
access
to
public
transport
and
a
public
transport
service
that
will
take
actually
attract
a
significant
level
of
use
and
and
is
in
effect,
available
or
wheat
round.
If
you
look
at
existing
dormitory
communities,
around
York
you'll
find
some
that
don't
have
Sunday
services
that
have
a
weak
or
non-existent
evening.
Services
and
those
are
very
infrequent
day
services.
Those
are
not
attractive
in
terms
of
getting
significant
numbers
of
people
to
use
public
transport.
It's
in
fact
they
they're
a
residual
social
public
transport
service.
O
Only
people
who
will
be
inevitably
working
in
in
in
the
city
or
traveling
further
afield
by
rail
or
whatever,
still
will
have
to
get
into
the
city
and
if
they
all
come
in
by
car,
because
the
local
public
transport
service
is
not
of
the
quality
or
sufficiency
that
they
want.
Then
we
still
have
the
major
traffic
problems
in
the
city.
O
So
you
do
need
to
take
into
account
what
what
is
the
size
of
community
rap
and
its
location
relative
to
existing
public
transport
services,
viable
public
transport
services
as
to
whether
it
will
have
a
genuine,
reasonable
quality,
public
transport
service
and,
generally
speaking,
that's
at
the
ten
thousand
end
of
the
spectrum.
Unless
it
happens
to
be
one
of
the
previous
urban
extensions
that
are
now
separated
that
happen
to
linked
that
happen,
to
be
very
close
and,
in
effect,
can
be
served
by
an
extension
of
an
existing
public
transport
service,
modest
cost.
O
U
U
A
Q
You
so
I
won't
comment
on
the
mix.
I
think
we
asked
that
it's
Australian
through
a
little
bit
of
stage
2.
It
was
just
to
highlight
the
point
that
it
was
almost
implied
that
some
of
the
sites
had
sought
skips
a
stage
because
they're
over
100
hectare
and
then
being
reduced
down
in
size
and
effectively
cheated
the
system,
but
I,
don't
think
that's
the
case.
Q
Having
looked
at
the
background
papers
and
again
just
to
flag
to
you
figure,
7
I
think
it
isn't
ep
1
which
will
touch
on
tomorrow
does
show
settlements
and
locations
that
have
access
well,
800
meters
to
to
arm
our
services
and
the
sites
that
we've
been
talking
about
our
shaded
white
in
those
areas.
So
from
st
7,
st
14,
you
gets
a
sewer
more
services,
so
they
haven't
offensively
cheated
the
system
by
going
big
and
then
gradually
being
reduced
down
in
size.
They
do
meet
the
criteria
anyway,.
C
D
B
C
And
all
of
the
we
don't
think
so,
all
of
the
sites
that
we
have
considered
as
reasonable
alternatives
are
set
out
in
the
sustainability
appraisal
and
a
consideration
of
strategic
sites,
in
particular
Isetta
and
appendix
I
of
C
D,
0,
0,
9
and
appendix
K,
which
sets
out
the
audit
trail
of
all
the
strategic
sites
we
have
considered
and
how
we
have
looked
at
them
through
and
across
the
process.
I.
B
D
D
B
February
is
at
one
point
of
vote
tomorrow
and
the
day
after,
as
we've
been
reviewing
the
hearing
statements
on
Greenbelt
matters,
it's
quite
clear
that
there
are
a
number
of
developers
here,
promoting
allocations
who
may
want
to
change
the
boundary
of
those
allocations
for
one
reason
or
another,
now
we'd
anticipated
that
that
would
be
a
matter
more
naturally
falling
within
fears,
even
though
it
may
relate
to
a
potential
alteration
to
Greenbelt
boundaries.
But
we
just
wanted
to
check
that
as
a
as
a
first
point.
B
Yes,
no,
bearing
in
mind
the
time
we
have
from
the
approach
that's
been
that's
been
taken.
We
just
wanted
to
clarify
what
you
would
find
most
helpful,
because
we
understand
it's
bit
like
sustainability
appraisal,
there's
a
there's,
a
balance
to
be
struck,
and
it's
not
entirely
clear
where
it
should
fall,
not
applies
in
relation
to
especially
a
mission
site,
proposing
an
alternative,
Greenbelt
boundary.
B
We're
quite
aware
that
there
are
broader
issues
of
methodology
in
approach
which
others
have
raised,
but
it's
those
two
categories
that
we
just
wanted
to
check
with
you
with
as
soon
as
I've
said
in
the
case
of
proposed
site
allocations
at
the
bits
over
the
barn.
These
are
those
would
be
more
naturally,
with
a
letter.
At
a
later
stage,
the
greater
difficulty
comes
with
developers
who
are
essentially
promoting
a
mission
site
through
specific
points
raised
on
the
Greenbelt
boundary.