►
From YouTube: Local Plan Examination 10.12.19 Day 1 Afternoon (5 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
B
Are
a
number
of
fundamental
flaws
in
what
mr.
Billy
has
said
to
you
and
said
to
you
repeatedly?
The
first
issue
where
he
has
made
a
fundamental
error
is
to
say
somehow
it
is
incumbent
upon
the
council
to
demonstrate
its
own
plan
is
unsound.
That
is
simply
wrong
under
the
regulations
and
the
directive.
B
If
you
are
not
satisfied
that
a
case
can
be
screened
out,
then
there
has
to
be
an
appropriate
assessment
and
if
there
isn't
an
appropriate
assessment
which
comes
up
with
the
conclusion
beyond
reasonable
scientific
doubts
that
there's
no
adverse
effect
on
the
integrity
is
a
matter
of
law.
The
plan
cannot
be
adopted
or
that
policy
cannot
be
adopted.
There's
no
burden
of
proof.
No
one
has
to
show
anything
in
particular,
but
the
issue
having
been
raised.
It's
got
to
be
resolved
in
it.
B
If
it,
if
it
isn't
resolved
positively,
then
there
is
a
legal
duty
to
not
to
adopt
so
we're
all
of
that.
Mr.
beard
I
thought
he
was
going,
I
don't
know,
but
it
doesn't
it
isn't
right
as
a
matter
of
law.
Secondly,
mr.
beauty
wishes
to
jump
in
and
say:
I
will
look
at
our
site.
We
can
provide
you
with
the
mitigation
for
the
other
sites.
The
difficulty
is,
as
mr.
B
Bewdley
has
spent
some
time
comprehensively,
demonstrating
that
we
need
to
do
more
work
which
I'd
already
accepted,
and
you
can't
simply
judge,
as
he
C
asks
you
to
do
at
a
snapshot
now,
based
on
his
later
shadow,
appropriate
assessment,
which
we
only
got
recently.
As
you
know,
we
will
be
putting
in
a
comprehensive
response
to
that,
and
let
me
make
it
quite
clear:
we
do
not
accept
and
dr.
Lila
will
explain.
He
was
not
doing
an
assessment
of
the
adequacy
of
mitigation
in
the
footprint
report.
B
B
There
is
the
issue
that
mr.
Morita's
opinion
deals
with,
which
is
the
ability
to
make
bylaws.
Well,
it's
interesting
if
one
just
looks
and
thinks
about
whether
that
is
something
which
can
cure
these
issues
you
can
ban
sheep
wearing
and
on
they
say
in
passing.
There
have
been
complaints
about
recreational
use
of
the
common
sheep.
Worrying
is
one
of
them
by
recreational
use
of
dogs
being
less
less
often
not
controlled.
B
That
has
been
a
constant
report
and
we
can
produce
in
due
course,
the
relevant
minutes
to
show
that,
but
in
any
event,
but
the
bylaws
issue,
MO
D,
has
had
control
of
this
site
for
a
significant
period
of
time.
There
are
reports
that
people
will
use
areas
which
are
subject
to
active
military
activities,
even
when
those
activities
are
going
on,
people
do
not
necessarily
currently
comply
with
requirements
as
to
the
safe
use
of
the
site
and
the
suggestion
that
the
ability
to
make
bylaws
and
the
mo
D
will
police.
B
It
is
a
cure
for
this
matter,
either
on
its
own
or
as
part
of
a
package
of
measures
is
unrealistic.
We
say
just
looking
at
what's
been
done
to
date
with
military
activities
on
site
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
any
more
detail,
because
we
need
to
respond
to
this
to
this
fully
and
we
we
were
had
it
just
been.
The
mitigation
report
we'd
have
responded
to
that
today,
but
since
we
were
given
the
shadow
HRA,
we
thought
it
was
better
to
provide
you
with
one
package
of
responses.
B
With
regard
to
the
inconsistency
of
approach.
Well,
I've
already
accepted,
we
need
to
revisit
and
undertake
appropriate
assessments
for
the
other
sites,
but
can
I
just
make
a
point
of
correct
just
so
you
don't
think
that
we've
underplayed
this
mr.
bewdley
says
our
well
7%
as
opposed
to
17.
That
7%
is
the
cumulative
effect
of
all
of
the
other
three
sites,
as
opposed
to
the
single
impact
of
17%
from
one
site.
B
B
From
the
designated
European
site,
so
what
you're,
having
to
do
with
with
mitigation
or
compensation,
as
it
may
properly
be
considered
in
due
course,
is
to
deter
those
from
the
QE
B
site
who
are
living
right
up
against
the
protected
European
site
from
going
to
the
site,
which
is
right
next
door
to
them.
Now
you
can
put
a
fence
up,
you
can
put
walls
up,
but
people
have
access
through
existing
footpaths
and
the
like.
There
is
access
land,
of
course,
across
the
farm,
but
the
common
is
still
used.
B
The
other
sites
are
significantly
further
away,
and
the
idea
that
you're,
looking
at
10%
of
those
other
sites,
as
opposed
to
14%
from
those
right
up
against
the
European
site,
seems
to
us
inherently
unreliable
and
dr.
Lally
will
respond
to
that
in
due
course.
He
says
the
he
says
the
the
data
hasn't
been
properly
interpreted,
but
we'll
give
you
chapter
and
verse
on
that
in
due
course,
where
all
this
gets
us
at
the
end
of
the
day
is
mr.
B
These
are
all
issues
that
have
to
be
gone
into
and
the
reason
I'm
dealing
with
this
very
quickly,
but
simply
to
show
to
you
that
this
isn't
an
issue
which
can
be
resolved
as
mr.
Murli
would
wish
to
invite
you
to
do
on
the
basis
of
the
information
you
currently
have.
Footprint
haven't
endorsed
the
mitigation
and
dr.
B
However,
as
I
said,
we
will
come
back
and
deal
with
with
this.
The
fact
that
QE
b
do
I
di
o
requires
this
to
be
screened
agrees.
It
ought
to
be
screened.
Did
four
point
three
point:
one
of
the
shadow
appropriate
assessment
is
absolutely
correct.
That
doesn't
mean
the
shadow.
Appropriate
assessment
is
one
which
we
consider
eliminates
risk.
It
also
ought
to
be
pointed
out
that
it
doesn't
deal
with
the
other
sites
either.
Those
are
matters
of
submission
from
mr.
beauty,
but
I
have
accepted
that
we
need
to
look
at
them
again.
B
Yes,
Oh
in
inclusion.
All
I'm
going
to
say
is
that
there
are
serious
issues
that
merit
further
consideration.
The
matter
can't
simply
be
dealt
with
as
mr.
Buell
ISA
jests,
by
looking
at
their
mitigation
without
further
consideration
and
natural
England
will
will
give
their
views
in
a
moment
whatever
they
are.
But
we
know
from
the
statement
of
common
ground
that
they're
not
satisfied
at
the
moment,
either
and
and
we'll
see
what
what
what
is
said
I
would
just
add.
B
Finally,
is
that,
of
course,
natural
ended
were
not
involved
by
D
IO
in
the
shadow,
appropriate
assessment.
There's
no
evidence,
and
perhaps
that
can
be
confirmed
in
a
moment
as
to
whether,
in
fact
natural
England
had
been
involved
in
in
the
conclusions
and
the
assessment
at
that
point.
So
that's
all
I've
got
to
say
at
this
stage.
C
Thank
you
for
that.
Mr.
Alvin
yeah
I'd,
like
to
hear
now
from
mr.
Ashe
I
mean
one
thing
that
is
a
quite
unclear
to
us
is
the
extent
to
which,
if
at
all
natural
England
has
considered
the
additional
mitigations
that
are
included
now
and
and
the
the
shadow
hrá
and
I'm
also
wondering
with
the
heavy
heart
and
how
far
we're
going
to
get
on
all
of
this
today.
D
A
D
D
Just
to
make
a
my
first
point
on
people
over
wind
that
completely
agree
that
the
mitigation
measures
for
other
allocations
should
not
be
taken
into
account
in
the
screening
stage.
That's
absolutely
right
and
that
this
figure
they
should
go
into
the
appropriate
amount
and
the
natural
England
is
a
statutory
Council
T
on
this,
and
so
we
did
expect
to
be
consulted
on
and
that
and
we're
very
happy
and
of
course,
I
can.
D
As
for
as
peridot,
we
can't
really
count
prejudice.
What's
going
to
come
out
of
that
appropriate
assessment.
We've
dealt
with
a
few
plans
in
the
past.
Where
there's
been
the
issue
of
the
changeover
from
pre
people
ever
went
to
afterwards
and
in
and
in
some
cases
it
can
be
as
simple
as
changing
we're
in
the
plan,
the
the
information
is
of
wearing
the
assessment
the
information
set
out,
but
in
some
cases
it
will
require
more
more
detailed
assessment.
D
D
I
think,
fundamentally,
we
still
consider
that
the
level
of
threat
to
strength
will
come
and
si
see
we
just
identified
in
the
footprint
ecology
report
and
the
uncertainty
around
mitigation
measures
means
that
we
agree
with
the
exist.
The
conclusions
of
the
HRA
that
an
adverse
effect
on
integrity
can't
be
ruled
out.
C
Okay,
it's
right
to
say:
isn't
it
that
natural
England
are
the
government's
advisors
on
environmental
issues
of
this
kind?
Yes,
so
in
that
sense,
your
views
are
reasonably
important.
I
will
put
it
this
way.
We
certainly
want
to
know
what
your
views
are
and
we've
got
two
things
going
on
here.
Haven't
we
we've
got
number
one
additional
work
that
the
council
has
identified.
It
needs
to
do
in
relation
to
its
HRA
and
that
the
second
thing
being
we
have
the
shadow
HRA
that's
been
produced
by
d-I.
C
D
B
E
Well,
I
was
only
good
at
just
very
briefly
I
think
well,
we've
got
to
is
that
we're
not
going
to
resolve
this
today
and
my
understanding
I
just
want
to
clarify
this
is
if
there's
a
commitment
by
the
council,
certainly
to
look
at
the
other
sites.
If
that's
going
to
happen,
I'm
not
going
to
say
anything
more
about
it
for
now
and
I.
Think
I'm
right
in
saying,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify.
There's
a
commitment,
Blaney
they're,
going
to
look
at
our
HRA
and
I.
E
On
that
basis
and
obviously
I
won't
I'm,
not
gonna,
second-guess
probably
else
the
outcome
of
that,
because
we
will
try
to
persuade
the
council
if
we
can
that
they
should
agree
with
our
conclusions.
I,
don't
think
I
want
to
say
anything.
More
can
I.
Just
very
briefly
address
one
point:
that's
a
bit
of
an
implication
in
mr.
Alvin's
response,
for
example,
we've
not
been
very
cooperative.
E
E
C
C
E
B
How
would
you
make
it
clear?
We
took
the
site
out
not
because
we
had
any
objections
to
it
generally,
but
because
we
felt
we
had
to
as
a
matter
of
law.
It's
the
mitigation
is
here
and
if
that
issue
is
resolved
and
there's
one
other
issue,
I've
mentioned
to
mr.
Peter
I'm
not
going
to
trouble
you
with,
because
it
might
be
resolvable
to
do
with
the
strength
of
common
act,
and
this
issue
turned
solely
on
that
question
of
mitigation.
F
Thank
you,
sir
I
appreciate
that
we
haven't
made
any
statements
on
this
particular
topic
area
and
I
didn't
think
we
had
to
until
we
heard
that
we
were
dragged
into
a
conversation
under
my
representatives.
Site
is
st8
on
behalf
of
red
roads,
which
we've
got
a
substantial
planning
application
in
outline
currently
in
the
system.
F
Now,
I'm,
very
mindful
of
the
fact
of
the
comments
just
just
being
made,
is
that
work
is
underway
and
therefore,
with
that,
with
that
point
in
mind,
we
would
just
like
to
be
kept
informed
by
the
council
as
to
what
happens
in
that
conversation
and
no
doubt
other
players
and
stakeholders
just
to
make
sure
that
we
are
presenting
the
site
in
the
in
the
manner
that's
absolutely
required.
What
I
would
say
is
that
we
think
he
mitigates
itself,
no
matter.
What's
being
said
on
the
other
side
of
the
table,
thank
you
as
I.
B
G
The
group
members,
the
stinking
group
members,
are
aware
that
any
development
applause,
the
strength
of
common,
could
not
be
supported
if
there
was
any
risk
to
the
integrity
of
the
common,
which
is
recognized
internationally
nationally
and
locally,
is
an
area
of
wet
and
dry
heathland,
which
has
international
preset
protection
as
an
SSC
is
also
categorized
as
a
Site
of
Special
Scientific
Interest.
The
group
are
also
aware
that
problems
have
been
identified
where
dogs
are
allowed
to
run
rule
tsavorite,
sheep,
indiscriminate,
trampling
by
visitors
to
the
common
were
also
affecting
the
integrity
of
the
common.
G
The
identity
of
the
SAS
see
as
strengths
of
common
gives
false
impression.
The
many
visitors
that
the
land
is
common
land,
whereas
in
truth
most
of
strength
of
common,
is
owned
and
maintained
by
the
mo
day
and
visitors
were
only
permitted
on
strengths
of
common
when
the
Amod
allow
this
access,
the
OSHA
Wildlife
Trust,
are
also
involved
and
maintain
an
area
rather
side
of
the
office.
Cobra
railway,
the
NPP
of
F
712
from
conserving
and
enhancing
that
natural
environment
provides
protection
to
sese
to
ensure
that
these
areas
are
safeguarded
from
the
effects
of
developments.
G
Our
SNP
has
been
revised
over
the
last
three
years
to
take
account
of
changing
circumstances
which
could
affect
it.
The
major
change
roars
following
the
MRD
announcement
in
November
2016
that
lures
the
Queen
Elizabeth
buttocks
and
dispose
of
the
site
together
with
death
or
blinds
housing
development
was
obvious
to
us
that
a
major
rethink
of
the
neighborhood
plan
and
his
policies
were
required
and
the
mo
D
announcement
also
prompted
co-counsel
to
women.
G
G
Despite
the
publication
of
the
law
or
plan
and
its
submission
to
the
inspectors,
it
may
attain
further
discussions
took
place
between
City
of
York
Council
natural
England,
as
the
latter
were
very
concerned
about
increased
air
pollution
and
recreational
use
of
strength
of
common.
In
order
to
determine
what
further
measures
could
be
tend
to
mitigate
damage
to
this
important
internationally
recognized
natural
space,
whose
apparent
that
our
revised
HR
air
was
required.
G
As
part
of
this
new
assessment,
a
visitor
survey
was
arranged
in
summer
2018,
who
concluded
that
screening
exercise
was
required.
In
the
screening
report
from
Waterman
report
said,
it
was
not
possible
to
screen
out
possible
effects
alone
for
the
Kiwi,
be
Howard
roared
and
tell
for
client
sites.
There
was
a
range
of
possible
but
credible
impacts
regarding
air
pollution,
mobile
species
and
regulation.
G
G
The
conclusion
of
the
report
says
the
only
reliable
mechanism
to
avoid
and
any
adverse
effect
on
the
integrity
of
the
European
site
is
to
remove
both
st
35
and
age
59
from
the
plan
site
year.
Saying
it
tell
Thorpe
lines
was
not
better
to
have
the
same
effect
on
the
SASC,
but
that
the
policies
for
the
commercial
site
should
be
amended
to
ensure
that
no
adverse
effect
on
the
integrity
of
strengths
of
common
was
included
in
policies,
ec,
1
and
g
12.
G
Getting
back
to
the
neighborhood
plan,
we
were
prepared
initially
to
go
to
pre-submission
consultation
in
March
2019,
but
following
discussions
with
office
at
City
and
your
council,
this
was
first
formed.
We
did
the
pre
submission
consultation
in
June
and
July
and
August,
and
this
year
we're
still
going
through
the
responses
that
we
got
from
there,
but
we're
almost
ready
to
have
it
verified
as
a
submission
document.