►
From YouTube: Local Plan Examination 10.12.19 Day 1 Morning (3 of 7)
Description
We're developing a new Local Plan in line with the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which will eventually replace the current Local Plan approved for development management purposes in 2005.
Our new Local Plan is currently in the process of Examination by Independent Planning Inspectors following Submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 25 May 2018.
For more information visit https://www.york.gov.uk/LocalPlanExamination
A
Okay
again,
we
we
don't
think
that
what's
going
to
emerge
themselves
is
in
no
indication
that
is
going
to
adverse
impact
on
York
that
there's
going
to
be
a
requirement
for
for
York
to
meet
any
of
Selby's
housing
need.
It's
historically
hasn't
been
the
case,
and
we
have
a
statement
of
common
ground
signed
by
one
of
their
directors
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks
to
confirm
that's
their
position
as
far
as
they
understand
it.
At
this
particular
stage,.
B
A
They're
listed
in
there
detailed
in
the
documents
that
are
before
you
but
I
think
I
think
particularly
references.
We
made
to
the
to
the
left
for
both
York
and
North
Yorkshire
and
Felicity
region
and
the
West
George
combined
Authority,
also
historic,
England
natural
England.
Most
recently,
we've
had
just
an
update,
I
think
from
highways
England.
So
we
have
saw
the
key
organizations
that
have
impact
on
on
the
preparation
and
the.
A
C
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I,
don't
know.
I've
got
too
much
more
in
terms
of
the
actual
structure,
the
duty
to
go
for
it
on
now
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
it
was
touched
that
in
your
opening
statement,
so
that's
been
really
helpful,
but
in
terms
of
the
outcomes
of
the
actions,
the
outcomes
of
the
actions
that
have
been
undertaken.
Obviously
I
see
we've
seen
the
statement
that
you've
identified
in
the
appendix
in
terms
of
the
actions
are
being
taken
forward
on
there.
B
B
D
One
statement
and
I'm
not
really
sure
he's
a
master
of
soundness
as
much
as
a
matter
for
the
housing
number
when
we
come
down
to
this
next
stage
in
that
the
disconnect
between
the
Selby
this
rate,
the
same
as
part
of
the
same
housing
market
area,
and
indeed,
perhaps
even
as
we
look
for
the
north
to
Hambleton
districts
were
equally
looking
at
the
standard
method.
Is
that
what
you've
got?
Is
that
by
having
the
disconnect
with
the
council
taking
a
different
methodology
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
this
particular
district
needs
to
take
the
standard
method?
D
Because
where
are
the
transitional
arrangements,
but
the
the
fact
that
you've
got
the
two
most
direct
neighboring
authorities
now
looking
at
a
lower
number
under
the
standard
method?
Is
that
you
do
potentially
then
lead
to
a
position
whereby
this
district,
by
not
going
towards
a
figure
in
the
region
of
the
standard
method,
has
then
a
problem
with
the
housing
market
area?
Then
not
supplying
sufficient
number
of
houses,
then
it's
the
fact
that
there
is
a
different
methodology
taking
place
for
the
most
immediate
neighbors.
E
D
I,
don't
think
it
matters
so
much
that
they
use
a
different
method.
I
think
what
matters
most
of
all
is
that
there
is
a
consistency
in
the
overall
outcomes,
because
if
they
take
a
different
method-
and
there
ultimately
is
a
shortfall,
if
they'd
all
have
been
up
to
the
same
method
and
ultimately
that
housing
market
area
will
just
use
Selby
and
and
York
as
an
example.
D
If
they
adopted
the
same
method-
and
let's
say
the
housing
number
combined
was
1500
per
annum,
then
that's
absolutely
fine
and
those
push
and
pull
factors
between
the
two
market
areas
work,
but
by
adopting
a
slightly
different
method,
now
Selby
has
dropped
as
a
result
of
the
standard
method
that
York
under
its
current
methodology,
as
it
has
dropped
equally
that
you've
essentially
got
by
not
having
a
similar
method.
The
shortfall
of
many
hundreds
of
houses
per
annum
within
the
same
housing
market
area,
and
my
concern
is
that
and
I
know.
D
Reference
was
made
that
Selby
is
gonna,
be
until
2023
til.
He
knows
where
he
stands,
but
from
all
of
the
material
that's
coming
from
Selvi.
At
the
moment
they
are
going
down
the
standard
method
and
the
standard
method
is
currently
in
play
in
Selby,
because
their
core
strategy
is
now
out
of
date.
So
by
York.
Not
adopting
a
similar
method
is
that
you
have
now
got
a
significant
shortfall
between
the
two
districts.
F
Thank
you,
I'm,
just
a
point
of
clarification
and
in
answer
to
your
question,
the
reason
why
Selby
has
decided
to
abandon
the
allocations
plan
and
embark
upon
a
new
local
plan
is
nothing
to
do
with
any
reduction
in
housing
requirement.
It's
long
been
recognized
in
Selby
that
the
core
strategy
is
well
out-of-date
and
the
decision
to
abandon
the
allocations
plan
was
taken
at
office,
the
level
I
think
some
time
ago.
It
was
only
endorsed
in
September,
but
the
new
executive
member
for
place
shaping
has
been
on
record
for
quite
some
many
months.
F
G
G
G
We'll
come
back
to
it
that
this
decision
to
work
in
isolation
is
reflected
in
other
areas
where
the
plan
is
being
given
a
more
narrow
focus.
It
should
be
on
dish.
This
is
a
long
term,
land
use
plan
for
all
activities
in
the
city,
and
if
you
don't
look
at
things
like
the
economy
and
transportation,
alongside
the
need
for
housing
and
the
green
belts,
then
there's
a
very
good
chance.
You'll
reach
the
wrong
conclusion.
Now
we
do
have
a
concern
that
the
authorities
are
proceeding
in
isolation.
H
You,
sir,
we
we
start
with
the
position
that,
of
course,
the
scaled
indication
of
housing.
Growth
is
a
major
strategic
issue
which
cuts
across
boundaries,
but
so
we
takes
also
notes
that
the
council
there's
been
a
standing
assumption
throughout
the
plan.
Making
process
that
the
York
will
meet
is
in
full,
always
own
housing
needs.
That
has
been
a
standing
assumption.
H
H
Of
course,
if
you
do
conclude
that
there
is
harm,
then
of
course
you
would
have
to
you
would
refer
yourself
to
paragraph
179
of
the
framework
which
says
that
there
should
be
Joint
Working,
to
enable
local
planning
authorities
to
work
together
to
meet
development
requirements
which
cannot
be
met
within
their
own
areas,
for
instance,
because
this
would
cause
significant
harm
to
the
policies
of
the
framework
and
so
the
policies.
Just
four
note:
we
are
going
to
refer
you
throughout
this
hearing.
H
H
H
Report
by
the
City
Council
to
the
North,
Yorkshire
and
York,
spatial
planning
and
transport
board
stated,
and
it
has
a
series
of
bullet
points.
I've
asked
for
a
copy
of
this
report,
but
I
haven't
yet
received
it.
So
I
would
ask
through
you
if
I
could
actually
see
a
copy
of
this
report
and
I
think
that
would
be
relevant
to
yourselves.
It
says
States.
H
And
but
then
it's
I
think
it's
in
the
tp1
addendum
it
meekly
says.
Well
the
authorities
Mary
said
they
were
such
an
advanced
stage.
They
wouldn't
alter
their
plans
and
on
that
basis
York
accepts
it
all.
Metis
fool,
Oh
Ahn,
but
Sir.
This
is
clear
evidence
that
there
was
a
request
based
upon
harm
and
your
didn't
explore
that
any
further.
There
was
no
further
reference
to
this
throughout
the
documentation.
H
Of
course,
we
have
the
element
of
harm
which
English
heritage
actually
contain
in
their
own
matter,
to
statement
which,
of
course,
we'll
look
at
in
more
detail
position
of
English
of
heritage.
England
is,
of
course,
that
they
say
that
harm
will
be
caused,
but
they
just
simply
meekly
say
well
that
harm
for
the
new
settlement
to
be
less
than
that
of
peripheral
development,
but
they
expressly
find
harm
to
special
causes
in
setting.
H
H
So
if
you
were
then
to
conclude,
this
plan
should
be
amended
to
take
out
those
parts
of
the
plan
which
cause
harm
or
ways
to
conclude
that
the
plan
should
be
withdrawn.
You
have
those
two
alternatives
would
be
in
front
of
you,
then.
On
that
basis,
the
2018
MPP
F
paragraph
60,
would
then
come
into
play
for
the
joining
authorities.
When
they
prepared
their
plans,
they
would
have
to
take
up
york's
needs
which
could
not
be
met
within
their
own
boundaries,
so
those
knees
would
continue
to
be
met,
but
in
a
different
way.
C
E
I'm
not
sure
that
I
was
going
to
quite
address
this
here,
but
I'm
going
to
now
as
I
understand
it
then,
or
at
least
I'm
hearing
that
the
council
well
correct
me.
If
I
get
this
wrong
I'll
put
it
another
way,
did
the
council
go
into
duty
to
cooperate
discussions
having
already
taken
the
decision
that
York
would
set
out
to
meet
its
own
housing
need.
C
So
you
need
the
problem
with
what
you've
just
heard.
Is
it
pics
one
report
at
one
point
in
time?
If
you
look
at
the
TP
one,
for
example,
it
was
initially
referred
to
you'll
see
that
it
was
the
start
of
the
process
and
there
are
a
series
of
additional
meetings
and
other
matters
raised,
including
discussion
with
Rydal,
East,
Riding,
Hamilton,
etc,
after
which
the
decision
was
made.
C
C
E
E
How
did
that?
Go
Wendy,
I'm,
just
trying
to
kind
of
picture
in
my
in
my
mind's
eye
what
time?
What
might
have
gone
on
at
that
meeting
and
how
things
were
approached?
Was
it
a
sort
of?
And
what
do
you
think
we
should
do
about
this,
then
chaps
or
what
precisely
and
then
they
all
said?
Well,
we
think
you
should
meet
it
yourselves
and
you
went
okay.
E
A
I
think
over
the
over
the
years,
there's
been
discussions
and
there's
continued
to
be
discussions
between
the
different
authorities
about
looking
to
bigger
picture,
how
different
local
plans
may
alive.
Looking
at
housing,
market
areas,
functional
economic
areas
and
that's
an
ongoing
thing,
I
think
issue
about
people
being
at
various
stages
with
different
authorities,
and
it
is
quite
difficult
if
you
part
way
through
to
suddenly
modify
your
plan
and
that's
been
an
ongoing
discussion
at
the
2015
stage.
A
Perhaps,
to
do
that
and
in
terms
of
then
reducing
things
like
commuting
patterns
of
movement
between
authorities,
is
sustainable,
a
sustainable
way
forward
in
terms
of
plan
making,
if
you
can
provide
employment
and
housing
in
close
proximity
rather
than
encouraging
unsustainable
travel
to
work
between
different
areas,
I
think
that's
a
general
sort
of
planning
approach.
Clearly,
there
are
some
issues
across
regions
where
people
will
never
to
believe
carry
out
those
journeys.
A
I'm
reminded
that,
as
part
of
the
discussions,
there
was
a
full
sort
of
workshop
session
to
engage
in
this
to
have
a
sort
of
fallen,
Franken
informal
discussion
about
how
to
make
a
take
the
way
forward,
and
that
resulted
in
the
progress.
That's
documented
before
you.
In
terms
of
that,
that
we'll
continue
to
have
a
discussion
with
those
authorities
going
forward.
I
guess
in
terms
of
actually
who
said
what
about
meeting
I
wasn't
there.
A
E
Okay,
so
I
think
that
the
picture
I'm
getting
I
think
is
that
at
the
early
part
of
plan
preparation
that
the
council,
you
say,
I
want
to
put
words
into
your
mouth,
but
I
think
what
your
ultimate
ly
saying
in
effect,
is
that
the
council
had
an
open
mind
about
meeting
housing
needs
at
that
stage.
Is
that
right?
That's.
E
And
as
a
result
of
all
that,
and
what
presumably
looking
at
the
the
MPP
F,
which
starts
off
with
a
starting
point,
is
that
local
plans
should
meet
objectively
assessed
needs
a
sort
of
starting
point
in
two
paragraph
or
14
of
the
MPP
F.
You
decided
that
and
that's
the
way
that
you
ought
to
go
and
take
the
MPPs
starting
point
as
the
way
forward
for
the
plan
meeting
meeting
needs.
E
C
C
C
E
C
Think
the
point
is
that
we
are
not
seeking
to
avoid
meeting
the
objectively
assess
needs
and
this.
In
any
event,
you
you
don't
get
into
the
territory,
even
if
you're
into
the
the
indents
to
the
second
bullet,
because
we've
undertaken
the
work
which
supports
the
view
that
it
doesn't
significantly
and
demonstrably
etc.
E
Okay,
I'm
I'm
reluctant
to
go
too
far
down
this
road
today,
I
mean
it
does
play
into
clearly
the
question
of
the
duty
to
cooperate,
but
I
think
it's
probably
more
something
to
pick
up
in
discussion
tomorrow
rather
than
today.
I
mean
he's
obviously
relevant,
but
I
think
I
probably
want
to
hold
that
point
there.
Unless
anyone
has
krikey
quite.