►
From YouTube: Local Plan 18.12.19 Day 5 (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
C
You
just
at
three
or
four
points
and
like
to
come
back
on
the
the
first
was
just
took:
grouper
I,
guess,
a
range
of
different
types
of
comments
about
the
historic
environment
and
clearly
references
to
sort
of
various
reports.
I
think
we
just
really
want
to
sort
of
stay
the
position
that,
in
terms
of
the
heritage
topic
paper
and
the
Heritage
impact
appraisal
and
the
link
through
that,
so
the
site
selection,
where
there
really
this,
gives
us
a
robust
and
very
much
up-to-date
assessment
and
view
on
the
issues
around
the
historic
environment
and
I.
C
Think
we'll
leave
here
that,
because
clearly,
that
plays
out
in
other
areas
of
discussion
point
to
just
really
around
the
exceptional
circumstances.
Clearly,
we've
touched
a
lot
on
housing
and
points
made
that
clearly
there
are
other
development
needs.
Religious
point
to
section
7
of
the
TP
want
addendum
work.
Clearly
there
is
an
examination
of
development
needs
beyond
just
those
of
housing
need
the
third
point:
I'll
come
back
on
I
guess
just
a
case
of
getting
the
sort
of
the
the
maths
right
and
we
set
this
out
in
our
response
there.
C
I
think
we
just
really
point
to
the
council's
windfall
paper
st
49b,
just
to
really
highlight
that
there
has
been
a
very
careful
assessment
of
the
windfall
contribution
and
probably
imbalance
that
there's
issues
sort
of
on
both
sides.
There.
Clearly
there
are
constraints,
but
but
there
are
opportunities
as
well
and
clearly
the
windfall
papers
looks
not
just
I
guess
this
sort
of
the
the
city
as
in
terms
of
the
sort
of
the
main
built-up
area,
but
it's
clearly
looked
at
all
built-up
areas
and
sort
of
other
villages
and
settlements
within
the
boundary.
C
So
we've
tried
to
look
in
a
broad
sense
at
that
and
then
really
related
to
that
and
that
we
we
have
sought
to
optimize
densities
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
are
maximizing
the
the
contribution
from
those
opportunities
that
are
within
the
urban
area,
but
clearly,
particularly
through
the
design
policies
as
well.
The
lies
done
in
a
very
careful
way
so
that
there
is
optimization,
but
clearly
that's
done
in
a
sensitive
way,
just
sort
of
bearing
in
mind
I
guess
the
points
about
overdoing
it
on
density.
B
So
should
I
get
out
a
couple
of
points
briefly,
I
mean
the
first
one
I
think
is
needs
to
be
new
to
that
subject,
as
usual
to
mr.
Kersh.
Here
there
is
a
widespread
agreement
that
exceptional
circumstances
can
be
shown
in
this
case
and
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
accepting,
of
course,
that
you'll
be
revisiting.
There's
four
individual
sites
at
stage
two,
but
there
is
there,
is
widespread
acknowledgment
of
exceptional
circumstances
rising
as
a
matter
of
principle
here,
both
in
relation
to
housing
and
employment.
B
B
B
The
documents
that
you
have
in
front
event,
which
extensive
reference
has
been
made
over
the
last
few
days,
including
the
Heritage
impact
assessments
that
mr.
Burch
referred
to,
have
all
come
along.
Obviously,
since
then
in
a
policy
contact
which
also
has
moved
on
so
we
say,
one
should
recognize
that
and
judge
the
proposals
are
put
forward
by
the
Council
on
their
merits.
In
that
context,.
B
B
Indeed,
the
very
allocation
that
he
is
seeking
to
dispute
in
stage
2
has
been
arrived
at
out
of
a
desire
to
protect
the
historic
character
of
York
by
avoiding
more
development
towards
its
center
and
around
its
urban
fringes,
wise
at
the
same
time
providing
for
an
allocation
of
sufficiently
large
and
strategic
to
provide
for
infrastructure
on
trumps,
particularly
transport
infrastructure.
That
creates
a
sustainable
settlement
in
its
own
right.
B
B
And
those
regards
the
harm
to
the
historic
character
of
York.
It's
important
that
you
look
at
on
X,
5,
ultimately
answer
because
the
council
does
recognize
that
there
would
be
aspects
of
harm
caused
rather
than
flatly
denying
it
as
it
appears
to
be
suggestive
mr.
Kersh
yeah,
but
it
does
reach
judgments
on
the
extent
of
that
harm
which
it
says
nonetheless
justify
at
the
allocation.
These
are
proposed.
B
B
Mr.
Tucker's
points
I
think
in
reality
go
to
phase
two.
We
will
obviously
be
debating
employment
need
there,
I
return
to
mr.
Hobson's
opinion
under
safeguarding,
rather
than
dealing
with
it
here
and
mr.
Johnson
referred
to
the
P
decision
on
st
we're
happy
to
add
that
to
the
examination,
library
and
we'll
do
so.
D
A
D
You
just
the
second
point
in
response
to
mr.
Corzo.
Mr.
Linus
spoke
about
inner
areas
having
potentially
more
historic
harm
than
st
15.
I
don't
think
that
straight
for
all
parts
of
the
the
lung
towards
the
city
center.
I
think
there
is
a
difference
in
terms
of
potential
historic
impact,
there's
a
significant
difference
between
the
east
and
the
west
of
the
city,
but
I
think
we'll
come
on
to
that
in
terms
of
historic
impacts
and
in
a
Greenbelt
boundaries.
Thank
You.
F
I'm
sorry
to
receive
this
point,
but
and
mr.
Linus
is
said
that
they
accept
harm
and
that
has
been
part
of
their
site
selection
exercise.
So
III
have
to
take
you
to
seven
point
one
one
sixth
of
the
addendum
sir,
and
that
he's
a
flat
statement-
and
this
is
this-
has
been
used
post
submission
so
when
the
council's
had
had
in
full
knowledge
of
everything,
that's
in
the
Heritage
impacts,
assessments,
etc.
F
The
sites
are
located
within
the
general
extents
that
your
Greenbelt
had
been
done
so
without
damage,
sir,
without
damage
to
his
primary
purpose,
to
preserve
the
setting,
a
special
car
to
New
York
and
then
in
7.11,
seven
you'd
find
sentence
the
Risa
sites
within
the
general
extent
of
the
York
Greenbelt
Walden,
will
again
this
bland
bland
assertion
will
not
damage
the
overall
purpose
of
the
Greenbelt
as
a
whole.
So
we
I
think
we
do
need
some
clarification,
though
that's
it
that
has
been
written.
F
B
H
F
So
I
I
accept
us
as
a
change
surveys.
I
have
to
say
to
you
a
significant
change
in
position
of
the
council
and
does
100
undermine
much
of
what
has
been
said,
sir
up
to
now,
and
so
this
this
I
must
repeat
the
point.
This
document
is
meant
to
set
out
there
and
these
this
these
paragraphs
are
their
conclusions
after
the
end
of
assessing
potentially
assessing
harm.
F
B
B
B
A
I
You,
sir,
it
was
just
a
brief
question
really
because
the
the
point
was
mostly
dealt
with
Bo
mr.
Kashia
there
about
the
the
duty
to
cooperate
and
the
relationship
between
the
duty
to
cooperate
and
and
the
granting
of
exceptional
circumstances.
If
it
turns
out,
the
council
has
not
properly
asked
all
of
the
other
local
authorities
to
provide
some
some
space
for
housing
development,
then
is
it.
I
You
know,
I
think
that
should
be
taken
into
account
with
regards
to
the
exceptional
circumstances
and
I
had
one
particular
question
that
I
wanted
to
ask
is
when
the
council
went
to
the
neighboring
authorities
and
they
were
told
that
there
was
not
sufficient
land
that
they
could
help
them
did
they
did
the
government
subsequently
change
the
targets
for
those
local
authorities,
and
did
they
go
back
if,
after
that
happened?
If
it
did?
Thank
you.
J
B
H
You
have
I
think
it's
a
fair
question
there
that
mr.
Wedgwood
ports
I
think
in
essence
the
point
is,
if
I
may,
mr.
Witten,
if
I,
if
I
get
this
wrong,
do
let
me
know
and
I
think
what
mr.
Wedgwood
is
saying
is
look.
Don't
your
neighbors
now
have
lower
housing
targets
than
they
did
when
they,
when
they
refused
your
advances
for
taking
some
of
your
housing
need
and
have
you
been
back
to
them
since
they've
had
those
lower
targets?
If
I
got
that
right,
that's.
H
Well,
if
you
haven't
gone
back
to
them,
you
don't
know
if
they
would
accept.
Those
would
accept
additional,
would
accept
housing
on
behalf
of
York
now
and
that
that
is
something
that
goes
to
the
demonstration
of
exceptional
circumstances,
whilst
mr.
Wedgwood
catches
it
in
relation
to
the
duty
to
cooperate,
the
complication
I
think
is
that
that's
a
duty
that
relates
to
plan
preparation
and
hence
ceases
to
be
a
duty
with
which
the
council
must
comply
once
the
plan
is
submitted.
B
The
the
duty
cooperate
does
relate
to
plan
preparation,
but
I
think
Sarah
point
would
be.
You
got
to
be
realistic
about
how
the
plans
being
prepared.
You
know,
and
that's
in
the
sense
that
the
green
belt
release
allocations
and
so
on
are
themselves
part
of
the
preparation
of
the
plan,
and
we
say
there
is
an
alignment
in
that
sense,
with
the
duty
to
cooperate,
because
the
work
to
identify
where
green
belt
allocations
should
go.
The
extent
which
needs
can
be
met
within
the
urban
area
or
other
land
outside
the
green
belt.
B
So
you
have
to
adopt
a
degree
of
realism
as
far
as
the
preparation
of
our
policies
is
concerned,
because,
insofar
as
we
have
looked
at
whether
or
not
land
can
be
accommodated
outside
the
green
belt
and
brought
forward
our
allocations
that
was
fundamentally
intertwined
with
the
Judi
cooperate.
Discussions.
A
H
H
C
Thank
you
clearly
the
plant
and
the
Greenbelt
approach
has
been
very
mindful
of
the
need
for
it
to
be
capable
of
meeting
longer-term
development
needs
well
beyond
the
plan
period
and
the
issue
that
the
boundaries
shouldn't
need
to
be
altered
at
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
I
think
as
we've
already
heard
this
morning,
so
thank
you.
There
are
different
ways
of
doing
this
and
that's
already
been
sort
of
covered
to
Cernik,
extends
and
I.
C
Guess
that
just
sort
of
echo
the
point
that
neither
the
framework
or
the
RSS
prescribes
such
an
approach
of
safeguarding
and
the
framework
references
that
were
necessary
plans
should
identify
safeguarded
land.
The
council's
position
is
that
safeguarded
land
is
not
necessary,
so
I
guess.
The
short
answer
to
question
is
is
no
but
clearly
it's
important
going
back
to
those
sort
of
points,
I've
sort
of
opened
with
that
an
alternative
approach
is
adopted
and
an
effective
approach
is
put
forward.
C
So
the
approach
involves
that
sufficient
land
has
been
identified
on
several
of
these
strategic
site
allocations,
with
build-out
rates
that
extend
beyond
the
planned
trajectory.
So
that's
the
overall
approach,
clear
recognizes,
always
be
already
been.
Some
comments
around
some
of
the
risks
associated
with
that
so
I
guess
just
some
points
to
highlight
around
that.
Just
generally,
in
terms
of
the
plans
overall
approach,
there's
a
10%
non-implementation,
rape
has
been
taking
into
account
in
terms
of
accounting
for
sites
and
current
permissions
within
that
to
trajectory.
C
There
are
number
of
different
sites
that
do
this,
so
there
is
some
flexibility
within
that
the
I
guess
an
additional
point,
just
really
sort
of
tying
into
some
of
the
broader
discussion
in
terms
of
historic
character
and
setting.
Is
that
the
council's
position
and
in
terms
of
its
assessment
work,
feels
that
it's
being
able
to
assess
those
sites
better
than
it
has
would
be
able
to
to
assess
safeguarded
land?
Because
it's
Greg
and
more
clear
what
the
sort
of
impacts
and
implications
of
those
and
I
think.
It
also
ties
into
their
comment
that
mr.
C
C
Things
got
a
better
idea
of
exactly
where
the
development
would
take
place
in
terms
of
the
works,
but
that's
been
put
forward
and
in
terms
of
these
site,
site
selection
work
in
the
open
space
been
and
in
terms
of
the
policies
develop
for
the
individual
strategic
sites.
It's
being
able
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
development
implications
would
be
on
those
locations
rather
than
a
broader
parcel
of
land
which
is
safeguarded.
Landa
would
be.
Is.
H
E
Is
correct
but
in
addition,
we're
able
to
put
development
principles
so
the
strategic
policies
that
are
set
out
in
Section
two.
The
spatial
strategy
of
the
plan
have
specific
development
principles
relating
to
any
mitigation,
for
example,
that
we
need
to
require
on-site,
and
that
comes
from
our
understanding
of
the
nature
of
the
development
that
is
proposed
in
those
allocations.
H
H
B
They,
like
a
view,
I
think
the
point
is
with
you.
If
you
are
choosing
to
safeguards
land
the
preferable
approach
to
think
the
council
has
chosen
to
follows.
They
think
it
provide
greater
certainty
by
dealing
with
strategic
allocations
now
and
if
you're
out
the
decision
point
now
as
to
whether
to
allocate
or
whether
to
safeguard
land,
you
have
more
information
than
relation
to
strategic
allocations.
C
C
The
council's
view
is
that,
whether
it's
sort
of
seven
and
a
half-
eight
eight,
eight
and
a
half
years
that,
in
effect
the
council,
is
that
through
the
plan
is
therefore
in
effect
planning
for
a
plan
period
plus
another
half
planning
period
beyond
that
that
sort
of
seven
or
eight
year
period
is
in
effect
that
that
further
half
a
plan
period
and
it's
considered
that
that
is
a
balanced
approach.
So
that
is
planning
well
beyond,
but
not
planning
too
far
ahead
weathers.
B
Thank
you
sure
I
just
want
one
short
point
to
think
has
been
made
already,
but
it
arises
more
specifically
here
the
Guilford
judge
and
just
for
your
reference,
sir
e^x
of
slash
for
paragraph
104,
and
illustrates
that
again
and
not
kiss
the
head
room
in
Guilford
meant
a
safeguarded.
Land
didn't
have
to
be
provided
so
the
broad
principle
of
the
approach
being
taken
by
the
council
as
consistent
with
the
approach
that
was
taken
there.
B
You
know,
as
Guilford
illustrates
as
as
I
just
identifies,
and
for
the
reasons
that
we've
given,
we
says
it's
not
necessary
in
this
case
to
safeguard
land
because
of
the
approach
has
been
taken
to
the
strategic
allocations,
which
we
say,
offer
greater
certainty
and
meet
the
same
objective
of
meeting
longer-term
development
needs
stretching
well
beyond
the
plan
period.
What
what
was
a
period?
What
beyond
the
plan
period
means
is
really
a
matter
of
judgment.
There's
no
fixed
time
limit.
The
one
applies
in
this
case.
B
You
have
a
plan
period
ending
in
2033
with
for
the
reasons
we've
given
land
that
is
available
in
the
supply
that
goes
beyond
2030,
it's
at
least
another
two
and
a
half
years
after
that.
So
if
one's
looking
at
twenty
40/20
20/40
one
the
the
land
that's
been
allocated,
gives
you
a
supply
of
run
about
fifty
percent
compared
fifty
percent
of
the
time
of
the.
H
B
It's
because
the
twenty
thirty
years
the
trajectory
goes
xxx
nuts,
Exe,
YC
11
bade.
The
trajectory
appears
a
number
of
different
players
of
dots,
most
detailed
one,
and
then
the
hearings
different.
It
said
that
there
is
an
oversupply
at
the
end
of
twenty
thirty
seven,
twenty
thirty
eight,
which
amounts
to
roughly
two
and
a
half
years
supply.
So
AB,
two
and
a
half
years,
2040
2040
one.
B
We,
don't
think,
is
our
thing
else,
specifically
within
NPP
the
NPP
F.
It's
a
broad
judgment
to
be
reached.
We
say
in
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
we
would,
as
we
said,
rely
upon
gilfred,
which
shows
as
a
matter
of
principle,
it
appears
have
been
accepted
before
applying
the
NPP
F
policy.
So
we
think
it's
a
broad
judgement
as
to
what
were
necessary
means.
H
H
A
H
H
H
H
B
H
H
H
Sir,
it's
right
for
all
development
types
and
I'm
asking
because
we've
got
that
we've
got
lots
of
different
needs
yet
to
examine,
for
example,
in
relation
to
gypsies
and
travellers.
You're
welcome,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
employment,
land
and
land
needed
for
educational
purposes
of
various
types,
and
you
might
preempt
mr.
Linus.
What
I'm
about
to
ask
if
we
disagree
with
you
in
in
relation
to
the
needs
relating
to
those
different
sorts
of
development.
B
B
As
far
as
gypsy
and
traveler
needs
are
concerned,
again,
we
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
safeguard
for
reasons
that
we
touched
upon
yesterday,
that
we
think
that
adequate
provision
has
been
made
within
the
allocations
as
they
stand,
but
to
the
extent
that
any
other
need
has
to
be
addressed,
then
that
would
be
dealt
with
through
gypsy
and
traveler
needs
policies.
So
we
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
safeguard
land
or
not
respect.
H
Yeah,
what
I
don't
frankly
want
to
do
today?
It
is
to
scrutinize
what
people
say
than
the
need
is
for
various
different
things,
because
that
that
will
be
very
much
coming
along
as
part
of
phase
two
and
before
mr.
Wright
says
anything
haven't
preempted.
That
phase
C
will
happen,
but
but
for
the
moment
and
present
purpose
is
assuming
it
does
so
I.
That's
not
a
road
I
want
to
go
down,
I
think
from
the
council's
viewpoint,
I'm
just
so
that
everyone's
absolutely
clear
what
the
councillor
saying
is.
H
If,
if
we
were
to
disagree
with
them
about
the
level
of
need,
that
is
to
say
that-
and
this
plan
was
not
meeting
need
until
twenty
forty
one
in
any
respect,
and
then
the
council's
approach
or
response
would
be
to
seek
to
allocate
land
through.
This
plan
have
I
understood
that
correctly.
Yes,
we're
just
checking.
B
Sir,
that's
right
and
the
reason
for
it
as
I
understand
is
that
as
the
planners
progressed,
the
consultation
responses
have
expressed
a
preference
for
the
certainty,
that's
provided
by
allocations
and
that's
been
the
approach
that's
been
followed
by
the
council
to
date,
and
that
would
be
the
approach
would
be
followed.
Should
you
disagree
with
the
points
that
we've
been
putting
to
you.
H
K
B
Yes,
sir
I
think
the
answer
that
depends
on
the
extent
to
which
you
would
be
seeking
to
uplift
the
OAM,
because,
obviously,
if
a
relatively
minor
up
left,
we
would
say
the
position
doesn't
change
in
the
sense
that
there
would
still
be
the
Headroom
or
flexibility
and
we
would
stick
to
the
approach
has
been
followed.
But
if
you
were
to
uplift
away
and
recommend
uplift
the
winds
to
a
higher
degree
depending
on
what
that
was
then
again,
the
approach
would
be
to
allocate
land
rather
than
safeguards.
H
So
is
it
basically
because
I'm
asking
this
because
you
say
the
point
here
is
about
having
a
Greenbelt
boundary
that
endures
to
a
particular
point
in
time,
you're
saying
I.
Think
if
we
think
the
need
for
housing
is
a
lot
greater
and
then
well,
you
might
have
to
concede
that
you
can't
go
all
the
way
to
20
41
and
you
might,
as
a
consequence,
set
it
as
an
earlier
point
in
time.
H
B
B
H
D
Thank
you,
sir
I
think
the
first
point
I
was
going
to
make,
has
already
been
covered
between
in
your
discussions
with
the
council.
Just
that,
of
course,
before
you
get
too
safeguarded
land,
the
amount
of
housing
land
allocation,
we
say
should
be
significantly
increased
to
help
combat
the
affordability
issues
and
massive
under
delivery
of
affordable
housing.
That's
been
already
identified
and
paragraph
85
of
the
MPP
F
not
only
requires
the
council
to
to
look
at
a
full
safeguarding
land.
The
bullet
point
3
also
directs
safety.
D
D
These
problems
are
most
likely
on
regeneration
sites
where
remediation
and
or
infrastructure
problems
may
need
to
be
dealt
with.
The
where
high
densities
may
cause
harm
to
quality
of
development,
and/or
mix
of
housing
we've
seen
many
many
occasions
in
the
past.
Those
problems
arising
to
significantly
harm
expected
delivery
rates
expected
starts
on
site
I
attended
a
Chamber
of
Commerce
meeting
in
New
York
earlier,
where
a
leader
of
a
party
for
your
council
considered
that
spades
in
the
ground
would
happen
on
york
central
during
2019,
and
that's
clearly
never
going
to
happen.
K
Thank
you,
sir
I
think
we've
made
clear
position
in
our
statements
that
we
feel
there's
a
pressing
need
to
include
safeguard
at
land
within
a
plan.
If
it's
one
thing
the
history
of
this
plan,
preparation
has
taught
us
in
the
history
of
the
discussions
on
green
belt
in
Yorkist
tortoises.
The
need
to
take
a
longer
term
view
than
the
council
has
taken
in
the
past
and
is
taking
now
I.
Think
paradox.
K
I
think
there's
been
I
refer
to
this
in
very
general
terms,
as
a
completely
apolitical
point,
but
I
think
there's
been
a
pressure
in
York
to
suppress
is
not
quite
the
right
word,
but
certainly
I
keep
the
housing
down
to
as
little
as
possible
as
what's
needed
in
political
minds.
I've
referred
to
statements
that
be
made
for
various
and
leaders
of
the
council
in
the
past
and
that's
led
to
a
shorter,
in
my
view,
a
short
term
approach
to
housing
delivery
and
to
the
housing
issue.
K
We're
already
two
and
a
half
years
into
this
plan.
I
do
want
to
address
the
plan
period.
I
didn't
address
it
yesterday,
because
I
wanted
to
bring
it
into
this
discussion
on
safeguarded
land,
so
I'm
looking
at
sd0
for
nine
a
figure,
six,
the
strategic
housing
and
availability
assessment.
It's
the
more
detailed
breakdown
of
the
delivery
I
expected
from
sites
over
the
plan
period.
K
So
we're
at
19
20
19
we're
in
2019,
so
a
three-button
half
years
into
the
plan,
I
go
out
on
a
limb
and
I'll
assume
that
the
plan
won't
be
adopted
by
next
April,
which
means
we'll
be
three
years
into
the
plan
period
and,
as
you
can
see
from
that
detailed
reject
tree
on
year.
Three
of
the
plan,
in
other
words
four
years
in
from
2017
18,
is
when
the
council
was
expecting
to
see
over
700
units
delivered
from
strategic
sites.
K
K
K
H
B
K
The
the
other
point,
of
course,
is
that
once
the
plan
is
adopted,
it
immediately
becomes
subject
to
MPP
F
nineteen,
twenty
nineteen,
which
sets
out
a
requirement
that
plans
must
be
reviewed
at
Lee.
F
must
be
reviewed
at
least
five
years
after
adoption,
so
which
brings
me
on
to
another
point,
which
is
we
we've
had
some
discussion
about
the
misalignment
between
the
housing
requirements
of
adjoining
local
authorities
in
particular
Selby.
K
If
we
were
to
assume
again
we're
making
them
we're
in
the
realms
of
assumption
here.
Let's
assume
the
plan
was
adopted
this
time
next
year,
so
here
two
and
a
half
years
in
and
the
council
says
well,
we'll
review
will
hold
off
review
for
five
years.
You
would
be
eight
years
in
from
2017
before
a
review
of
the
plan,
so
any
misalignment
between
the
housing
requirements
of
say
Selby
in
York
would
simply
have
been
magnified.
K
So
we
argue
that,
in
view
of
the
uncertainty
surrounding
the
plan
period
and
I've
just
highlighted
the
uncertainty
surrounding
the
öin,
which
we
discussed
last
week,
the
uncertainty
surrounding
the
delivery
of
sites,
the
timing
of
delivery
of
sites
highlighted
by
mr.
grandi
and
I
thought
I'd
entirely
take
on
board
his
points.
The
history
of
delivery
of
sites
brownfield
on
greenfield
in
sites
in
York
demonstrates
the
uncertainty
about
it.
Highlights
the
uncertainty
point.
K
Those
point
to
the
need,
in
my
view,
for
safeguarded
land
to
manage
the
uncertainty,
but
to
also
give
the
plan
and
the
council
a
degree
of
flexibility
in
how
they
manage
and
deal
with
unexpected
needs
or
shortfalls
going
forward.
So
that's
why
I
say
the
the
Greenbelt
boundary
in
order
to
ensure
the
degree
of
a
boundary
would
endure
for
at
least
25
years.
K
K
2005
development
didn't
start
until
20
2013,
and
that
was
what
is
regarded
as
one
of
the
most
desirable
sites
in
the
city.
Likewise,
sir,
on
the
Germany
back
site,
which
again
I
think
was
approved
and
20
know
this
26
2006
of
70,000,
oh
seven,
again,
work
on
that
site
did
not
that
completion
is
out
not
actual
start
of
construction,
putting
in
the
access
road
that
begin
until
around
2014.
K
M
Thank
you,
sir.
The
identification
of
areas
of
safeguarded
land
is
essential
to
meeting
future
of
development
needs,
stretching
well
beyond
the
plan
period.
In
line
with
paragraphs
83,
84
and
85
of
the
MPP
F,
it's
required
to
provide
a
degree
of
permanence
to
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
in
the
long
term,
in
line
with
paragraph
79
of
the
MPP
F.
As
mr.
M
Tucker
highlighted
earlier,
the
counselor
sought
counsel
opinion
references
exc,
why
C
/
11
a
in
relation
to
the
determination
of
the
Greenbelt
boundary
and
the
need
for
safeguarding
land
and
I'll
draw
to
your
attention
to
particular
paragraphs.
Within
this
opinion,
paragraph
9,
in
accordance
with
paragraph
84
of
the
MPP
F
authorities,
are
also
required
when
drawing
up
Greenbelt
boundaries
to
take
account
of
the
need
to
propose
promote
sustainable
developments,
patterns
of
development.
This
requires
consideration
of
the
development
needs
of
the
area
which
should
be
objectively
assessed,
as
paragraph
85
makes
clear.
M
This
involves
consideration
of
the
development
needs
which
are
to
be
met
during
the
plan
period
and
also
the
longer
term
development
needs
stretching
well
beyond
the
plan
period.
Quite
how
far
beyond
is
a
matter
of
planning
judgment,
but,
in
my
opinion,
a
ten-year
horizon
beyond
the
life
of
the
plan,
as
mentioned
in
my
instructions
would
be
appropriate.
M
M
Obviously,
we
considered
that
the
council's
reliance
on
large
new
sites
and
urban
extensions
and
new
villages
which
claimed
to
have
build-out
rates
beyond
the
plan
period
isn't
sound
and
therefore
there
is
they've
mentioned
that
this
is
future
proofed
approach
and
spatially
planned,
but
it's
not
consistent
with
the
framework
in
support
of
mr.
Grundy's
points.
M
N
Thank
you,
sir,
and
just
to
start
with
going
back
to
question
three
point.
Three
part.
The
first
part
of
the
question
actually
raises
this
year
round:
will
the
green
bar
boundaries
but
need
to
be
altered
at
the
end
of
the
plan
period,
but
that
was
with
reference
to
the
permanence
of
lung
features
and
whether
there
were
appropriate
boundaries
that
were
being
drawn
actually
on
the
ground
and
to
probably
the
context
where,
as
in
but
there's
still
the
element
of
that
question
around
whether
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
need
to
build
a
plan.
N
At
the
end
of
the
plan
period,
now,
paragraph
83
of
the
MPP
F
talks
about
the
boundaries
enduring
at
the
plan,
how
the
bounded
might
endure
at
the
end
of
the
plan
period,
obviously
with
reference
to
how
we
afaid
phrasing.
The
question
three
point
three,
but
then
it's
paragraph
eight
point:
five
85
that
actually
talks
about
how
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
shouldn't
be
need
to
be
altered
at
the
end
of
the
plan
period
and
there's
a
distinction.
N
There
I
think
between
what
the
NPS
is
trying
to
get
at
in
terms
of
paragraph
8
to
3,
and
then
paragraph
85,
because
being
satisfied
that
they
will
not
need
to
be
alter
that
plan
period.
It's
quite
a
distinct
test,
but
I
think
when
you
mentioned
earlier.
The
question
about
reference
to
the
words
where
necessary
to
bullet
points
ahead
of
before
the
bullet
point
of
rounds
that
loketh
or
has
been
satisfied
that
the
boundaries
said
needs
Baltar's.
I.
N
Think
that's
where
the
link
is
because
the,
where
necessary,
comes
back
to
local
authorities
being
satisfied
that
the
boundaries
don't
need
to
be
altered
at
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
And
this
is
where
safeguarding
comes
into
play,
because
that
safeguard
in
land
is
the
mechanism
by
which
the
government
expects
local
authorities
to
make
sure
that
the
boundaries
don't
can
endure
in
the
long
term,
because
they're
being
set
to
take
account
of
future
and
long
term
development
needs.
N
Now
we
hear
from
the
local
authority
that
that
the
allocation
is
planned
to
meet
strategic
development
needs
in
in
respects
of
predominately
residential
development
is
a
means
by
which
they're
looking
to
protect
the
boundaries
and
ensure
they're,
clean
and
you're
beyond
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
But
all
of
a
sudden
I
mean
this
morning.
Is
it
fall
to
this?
N
What's
the
evidence
say
you
know,
that's
not
very
sound,
and
it's
a
bit
worrying
that
the
assumptions
can
change
so
much,
but
obviously
strategic
allocations,
the
the
ones
that
appear
in
the
palate
moment.
That's
predominantly
focusing
on
residential
allocations.
It
doesn't
meet
the
needs,
as
we've
heard,
of
other
types
of
developments,
and
and
really
that
that's
a
key
crux
of
why
safeguarded
land
is
required
to
meet
that
wider
breadth
of
developments
within
that
next
plan
period.
N
You
know
why
it
then
begs
the
question:
well,
why
not
just
extend
the
strategy
period
as
well,
but
then,
if
you're
extending
the
period
of
the
strategy
and
all
the
land
allocations,
you're
ending
it
with
a
new
end
of
plan
period,
where
you
then
you've
raised
the
same
issue
where,
as
a
safeguard
like
well,
how
are
you
going
to
make
sure
that
boundaries
can
ensure
beyond
that
plan
period?
So
you
can't
select.
N
You
know
there's
a
real
fundamental
issue
here
around
this
idea
of
Oh,
we'll
just
allocate
a
bit
of
extra
land
for
a
few
actually
is
beyond
the
end
of
the
plan
period,
because
that'll
mean
that
the
boundaries
enjoy.
But
what
about
strategy?
It's
absolutely
fundamental
that
the
allocation
of
land
is
shaped
by
strategy
and
that's
where
then
the
ideas
say
guarding
line
comes
in
because
for
safeguard
line.
H
N
No,
it
can't
go
anywhere.
That's
know
that
no
the
strategy
is
around.
The
purse
is
a
green
belt.
It's
the
tests
of
green
belt
that
you've
been
talking
about
fur
this
morning,
the
exceptions
tests
and
around
setting
boundaries
that
can
endure.
Now
the
council
did
actually
look
at
safeguarding
land
at
the
beginning,
the
plan
process
and
there
were
actually
a
couple
of
stages
of
the
initial
process
that
included
the
safe.
You
know
the
suggestions
to
safeguard
land.
N
As
identified
in
this
current
plan,
neither
have
room
to
grow
in
the
next
pump
here,
because
there's
no
land
safeguarded.
If
we're
talking
about
meeting
development
needs
for
five
years,
post
2033
well,
their
needs
aren't
taken
into
account
because
the
boundaries
been
drawn
so
tightly
now
around
those
allocations.
They
have
no
room
to
grow
and
we
already
know
that
those
sites
are
both
going
to
be
developed
out
within
the
early
phases
of
the
plant
current
plan
period.
N
So,
by
the
end
of
time
period
there
will
be
no
land
available
and
naturally
and
there'll
be
a
real
issue
about
where
the
local
authority
then
goes
to
meet
those
employment
needs
just
to
mention
as
well.
Those
two
allocations,
most
of
both
of
those
allocations,
actually
already
have
planning
permission.
Now
we
were
able
to
demonstrate
that
the
needs
were
so
great
for
employment
lands
that
exceptional,
don't
circumstances
were
demonstrated
so
that
those
sites
have
now
got
plenty
pushing
it
despite
them
currently
being
in
the
green
belt.
N
So
so
it
shows
the
pressures
on
land
and
the
needs
that
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
sufficient
land
going
forward
and
also
I
mean
this
thing
about
needing
to
obviously
look
towards
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
So
so
what
we've
got
at
the
moment
is
a
plan
that
goes
to
2033
and
then
the
MPP
F
paragraph
85
says
that
the
local
authority
needs
to
satisfy
sense
at
themselves
that
the
boundaries
won't
need
to
be
altered
at
the
end
of
the
development
plan
period.
N
So
we've
got
then
sort
of
like
seven
and
a
half
five
years.
We're
not
quite
sure,
we've
got
on
the
mount
allowance,
but
this,
but
because
of
that
requirement
in
the
MPP
F
and
the
fact
that
paragraph
47
then
talks
about
needing
to
identify
for
land
for
possibly
up
to
15
years
for
the
new
plan
period,
then
actually,
there
is
literally
insufficient
land
now
to
ensure
that
the
fact
that
the
boundaries
will
they
will
have
to
definitely
be
altered
at
the
end
of
this
plan
period
to
meet
the
develop
in
the
next
plan
period.
N
Because
of
that
parent
requirement,
paragraph
47
that
talks
about
needing
to
allocate
for
at
least
ten
years
and
possibly
15
years.
We
know
that
there
isn't
that
amount
of
land
there.
Now
the
the
the
counts
also
talked
about
in
paragraph
in
document
T
P,
one
paragraph,
five
point:
six:
five,
how
the
counts
or
their
expectations
that
the
green
belt
should
be
permanently
there,
advocating
that
they
would
remain
unchanged
repealed
at
least
twenty
years.
If
we
look
at
other
local
authorities,
most
of
them
have
actually
taken
approach
of
thirty
years.
N
So
in
the
case
of
Wilmslow
Kirklees
Bradford
in
Coulter
Dale,
they
all
have
boundaries
that
were
set
to
take
account
of
a
period
of
30
years
in
order
to
allow
for
permanence
and
in
all
instances
they
actually
safeguarded
land
as
well
to
ensure
that
they
could
do
that
enough.
Nothing
there's
also
within
that
counsel
advice
that
mr.
winters
referred
to
I.
N
O
In
in
shark,
we
consider,
as
you'll
see
from
our
statements
that
they
should
be
providing
safeguarded,
land
and
kind
of
intrigued
by
the
council's
responses.
They
might
want
to
allocate
up
to
twenty
forty
one,
which
seemed
a
yeah
slightly
patch
from
the
end
period
of
the
plan,
but
we'll
see
where
that
goes.
I'm,
also
very
very
intrigued
by
the
council's
response
that
the
land
and
and
the
sites
that
they
have
or
currently
deliver
to
2041.
O
My
own
ease
with
what
they're
saying
is
if
we
look
at
their
trajectories.
So
if
you
look
at
Y
X,
so
you
I
see
sixteen
or
seventeen
B,
whichever
one
you
choose,
that
shows
those
sites
delivering
up
to
twenty
thirty.
Eight
now
I
understand
the
point
that
the
council
made,
that
they
say
that
they
would
over
deliver
by
two
thousand
units.
If
that
is
the
case,
is
a
either
through
jekt,
Iran
or
B.
O
Are
they
not
proposing
that
any
development
will
happen
after
twenty
thirty
eight,
because
the
two
don't
quite
sit
together,
because
if
the
trajectories
right,
all
of
your
sites,
will
finish
by
twenty
to
thirty
eight,
if
not
you're,
suggesting
that
some
of
those
sites
will
carry
on
longer,
in
which
case
the
trajectory
is
wrong.
I
also
point
if
the
trajectory
is
right
and
I
won't
go
at
this
stage
into
the
housing
requirement
arguments
we
had
last
week,
but
I
will
note
that
the
council
said
the
790
was
a
minimum
figure.
O
They
quite
pointedly
made
that
that
point.
Therefore,
if
it's
a
minimum
figure,
what
is
the
harm
of
going
over
it
and
is
the
2000
D
units?
Actually
an
oversupply,
or
is
it
simply
fulfilling
the
policy?
My
statement
would
be?
Is
the
latter
and
that's
what
the
MPP
F
tries
to
to
make
you
do
in
terms
of
the
boost
in
supply
significantly
the
positive
way
in
which
you
should
plan?
O
Also,
if
you
look
at
the
trajectory
itself
and
you
which
we
have
done
so
now
here
in
statement,
Tata,
what
those
allocations
are
purported
to
do
post
plan
period,
ie,
post,
2032
33,
you
actually
only
have
one
thousand
seven
hundred
and
fifty-two
dwellings
from
those
from
those
sides
which
is
actually
2.2
years.
Supply
I
recognize
that
the
council
also
anticipate
that
windfalls
will
carry
on
post
the
end
of
the
plan
period.
O
But
even
then
you
only
get
to
around
about
three
point:
six
year
supply
at
best
sorry
three
point
two
nine
years
prior
best,
which
is
some
way
short
of
enduring
well
beyond
the
plan
period,
at
least
in
my
eyes.
A
final
point.
If
I
may,
sir,
there
is
also
the
issue
which
which
mr.
Keogh
raised
around
the
need
to
to
look
at
the
plan
again
and
review
the
plan
within
five
years,
which
will
be
invoked
in
terms
of
power
of
33
of
the
new
MPP
F,
the
2019
version.
O
If
we
look
at
what
that's
currently
saying
is,
if
you
haven't
done
that
review
at
that
point
period
at
that
point
in
time,
the
standard
method
would
then
be
invoked
and,
as
we
know
at
the
moment,
that's
around
about
280
units
higher
than
the
plan
require
much.
We
have
in
front
of
us,
which
in
essence
would
mean,
but
by
time
we
got
to
20
30
to
33.
You
would
actually
be
in
deficit,
not
in
positive,
which
I
think
is
quite
a
Tele,
an
argument
and
a
quite
telling
thing
for
the
council
to
consider.
O
So
will
they
actually
in
do
beyond
the
end
of
the
plan
period?
I
recognise
some
of
that's
conjecture
and
things
may
change,
but
this
significant
uncertainty
that
they
will
and
even
if
they
do,
that
that
delivery
beyond
the
plan
period
is
actually
quite
minimal
and
we
reckon
around
in
a
bit
years
if
we
don't
take
into
account
a
windfall
and
we
take
into
account
a
windfall
it's
only
three
and
a
bit
years
by
the
council's
own
evidence.
I
really
don't
see
how
that
is
indeed
and
well
beyond
the
plan
period.
O
To
my
mind,
that's
quite
the
opposite
of
it
and
I
think
where
the
MPP
F
talks
that
we're
necessary
in
terms
of
safeguarded
land.
To
my
mind,
that's
if
you
can
identify
other
sources
supply,
you
may
not
need
to
go
and
safeguard
land
in
the
future.
If
you
aren't
identifying
other
sources
of
supply
which
are
not
aware
that
the
council
are
and
I'll
think
of
other
examinations
such
as
Cheshire
East,
where
they
were
at
pains
to
identify
all
sorts
of
other
sources
apply
which
could
endure
beyond
the
plum
period.
O
I
think
we
are
in
a
case
here
where
we
do
need
to
look
at
safeguarded
land
or
at
least
alternative
to
look
at
alternatives
to
provide
further
flexibility.
Now,
if
that's
through
allocations,
it's
an
interesting
choice
which
the
council
make
I'm
not
going
to
argue
against
that
necessarily.
But
it's
an
interesting
choice.
They
could
look
at
reserve
sites
either
sir,
which
had
a
phase-in
date
on
them
or
were
invoked
if
they
were
if
they
were
suffering
from
a
five
year.
Supply
issue.
O
G
Thank
you,
sir
ma'am
I
think
this
all
comes
back
to
paragraph
85
and
just
partly
linked
sir
question
three
point:
three,
which
is
about
ensuring
that
the
Greenbelt
boundary
doesn't
need
to
change
at
the
end
of
the
plumpy
and
I.
Think
that's
what
this
whole
discussion
is
about,
and
we
need
to
be
absolutely
sure
that
that
is
the
case
and
what
we
do
over
this
stage
in
the
next
stage
is
ensure
that
this
plan
does
last
that
period
of
time
and
I.
G
Think
that
the
council's
opinion
that's
been
referenced,
made
it
absolutely
clear
that
safeguarded
should
be
looked
at
to
make
sure
it's
the
case.
However,
it
then
did
give
an
out
to
the
council,
which
is
this
flexibility
in
allocating
more
sites
and
in
the
council
statements.
They've
confirmed,
that's
the
route
that
they've
wanted
to
go
down
and
again
today,
they've
confirmed
that's
the
route
that
they'll
continue
to
go
down
and
I
personally,
don't
have
an
issue
with
that.
You
know
if
it's
either
safeguarded
land
of
its
allocations.
G
It
gets
us
to
the
same
points
that
we
ensure
that
we've
got
sufficient
land
to
go
beyond
the
plan
period
and
meet
the
need
so
that
we're
not
reviewing
this
Greenbelt
when
it
comes
where
I
do
have.
An
issue,
however,
is
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
actually
delivered.
It's
ok,
saying
we're
not
going
to
safeguard
because
we
go
into
over
allocate,
but
if
those
over
allocations
don't
actually
come
to
fruition,
then
we're
not
achieving
what
we're
setting
out
to
do
and
and
I'm
sure
people
will
touch
on
it.
G
G
So
we're
clearly
not
hitting
these
figures
or
getting
anywhere
near
them.
And
indeed,
when
you
look
at
the
trajectory
in
two
years,
17
we're
wholly
reliant
on
two
sites.
There's
actually
two
sites
that
go
beyond
the
plan
period
at
presence:
that's
st
15
to
live
into
8c
and
st
36
delivering
a
hundred.
All
the
other
sites
have
been
the
built
out
or
haven't
come
forward.
G
So
again,
we
shall
be
looking
carefully
at
actually
how
many
of
those
can
be
delivered
and
another
figures
and
the
trajectory
accurate,
and
it
also
includes
barracks
that
aren't
going
to
be
released
until
the
later
dates,
and
even
if
a
hundred
percent
of
the
allocated
sites
post
one
period
came
forward
in
the
immediate
future.
They
wouldn't
deliver
the
seven
ninety
a
year
if
they
were
all
delivered
in
the
five
years
after
the
plan.
Peered,
the
numbers
simply
aren't
there.
G
Now
it's
obviously
not
going
to
be
delivered
that
quickly,
particularly
the
Barretts
side,
so
it
will
come
down.
So
it's
for
me.
It
sort
of
exacerbates
the
point
that
I
was
saying
yesterday
that
that
the
council
have
made
a
real
binary
choice
here,
in
that
they
either
feel
that
lamb
needs
to
be
green
belts,
are
allocated,
there's
no
sort
of
in
between
there's
no
land.
That
simply
doesn't
need
to
be
Greenville
and
may
come
forward
at
a
later
date.
G
Be
white
land,
be
safeguarded,
land
or
actually
be
included
in
the
allocations
and
allow
those
allocations
to
determine
the
numbers
by
providing
some
flexibility.
You'll
have
seen
from
our
our
various
statements
that
we've
made
comments
on
site
specifics.
A
comment
was
made
early
by
the
council
that
safeguarded
land
is
very
difficult
to
assess
in
as
much
detail
as
the
allocations.
But
again
I.
Disagree
with
that,
because
the
2013
plan
did
a
detailed
assessment
of
sites
and
it
included
a
whole
host
of
other
sites.
It
included
sites
that
have
been
deleted.
G
It
included
larger
versions
of
existing
sites
that
have
been
allocated,
and
you
can
very
simply
look
at
the
matter
to
statement
from
the
council
with
the
key
diagram
from
then
in
the
key
diagram
from
now.
There's
not
a
massive
amount
of
difference
in
it
other
than
the
sites
have
reduced
in
size
and
the
odd
sites
been
deleted
and
that
hasn't
been
because
of
reassessments
been
done
of
the
Greenbelt.
G
It's
because
a
reassessment
was
done
of
the
housing
requirement
and
then
a
decision
was
made
as
to
will
which
ones
err
affects
me,
the
worst
of
those
sites
and
will
delete
those
out.
It
would
be
very
simple
to
go
back
and
if
a
decision
was
needed,
that
safeguarded
was
needed,
or
indeed
actually
we
go
down
the
council's
room
and
we
allocate
more
it's
very
easy
to
find
those
sites.
Where
that
can
happen,
we
can
go
back
to
the
previous
versions.
The
essay
has
assessed
bigger
versions
of
sites
such
as
st
7
and
st
14.
G
It's
assessed
st
11
there's
been
situs
essence
of
them,
they've
been
out
to
public
consultation.
It's
it's
quite
simple.
To
quickly
add
on
the
extra
few
thousand
houses
that
you
need
in
order
to
start
to
fill
this
trajectory
out,
so
I
think
I'm
happy
with
either
option
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
flaw
in
what
the
council
are
doing.
It
follows
the
council's
advice
that
they
had,
but
actually
they're
not
delivering
it,
because
there's
insufficient
homes
being
provided
for
in
the
latter
parts
and
going
beyond.
P
P
I
suggest
it
would
do
the
opposite
just
to
take
one
one
example
and
I
won't
go
over
all
all
the
comments
that
have
been
made
previously
about
the
need
for
safeguarded
land
yachts.
Hospital
is
now
well
past
its
sell-by
date.
According
to
it,
it's
an
anticipated
life
and
decisions
about
moving
it
to
a
more
accessible
location
crop
up
on
a
very
regular
basis.
P
I'm,
not
I,
don't
up
for
the
hospital,
but
it's
just
a
case
in
point
I've.
No
doubt
that,
on
the
basis
of
the
council's
plan,
as
currently
proposed,
a
new
hospital
would
be
able
to
pass
the
very
special
circumstances
test
if
a
new
site
were
to
be
proposed
in
the
Greenbelt,
but
that
doesn't
apply
for
everything
else.
All
of
the
things
we
can't
think
of.
P
We
don't
know
about
that,
might
crop
up
between
now
and
twenty
forty
one
would
have
to
go
either
down
the
very
special
circumstances,
rooms
or
be
dealt
with
by
reviews
of
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
whenever
the
plan
might
be
reviewed
and
I
just
suggest
that,
rather
than
giving
certainty,
which
is
what
the
the
council
wanted
to
achieve,
that
would
fundamentally
undermine
the
credibility
of
the
Greenbelt.
Thank
you.
H
Q
Thank
you,
sir
sleep
corroborate
and
over
the
comments
made
from
the
table,
particularly
mr.
cures
and
mr.
necklace
just
now,
because
they
support
the
strategy.
We
put
forward
now
hearing
statements
in
respect
to
the
options
for
expansion
of
our
site.
Access
to
you
said:
Mercy
14,
these
two
additional
points
that
I
wanted
to
pick
up
on
the
other.
The
first
was
this
point
of
certainty
of
allocation
versus
safeguarded.
All
the
allocations,
if
expanded,
would
be
in
accordance
with
spatial
strategy,
so
you've
got
that
as
a
background
point.
Q
But
the
key
point
I
wanted
to
talk
about
in
this
respect
was
delays.
So
by
having
allocations
you
do
you
want
to
get
the
delay,
that's
associated
with
the
need
to
release
that
land
and
the
time
it
will
take
to
do
so.
So
if
you
weren't
with
safeguard
it,
doesn't
happen
overnight,
the
decision
to
release
safeguarded,
submitting
applications
getting
undetermined
building
them,
there's
a
time
like
there
and
that
time.
Q
H
Well,
the
MPP
F
says:
doesn't
it
that
local
planning
authorities
should
make
clear
that
safeguarded
land
is
not
allocated
for
development
at
the
present
time
and
planning
permission
for
the
permanent
development
of
safeguarded
land
should
only
be
granted
following
a
local
plan
review
which
proposes
the
development.
So
it's
what
even
longer
than
perhaps
you
were
suggesting
just
that
I'd.
You
know
people
are
talking
about
safeguarded
land.
It
feels
like
as
though
it
could
come
forward
quite
quickly
and
so
I'm
just
pointing
out
or
national
policy
says
safeguarded.
Land
is.
Q
Indeed,
so,
and
that
argument
is,
is
run
in
many
cases
in
practice
throughout
the
last
five
to
ten
years.
Our
argue
where,
where
councils
and
authorities
had
to
bring
forward
safeguarded
sites,
that
is
obviously
a
judgment
needs
to
be
made
the
number
I
brought
forward.
It
has
taken
some
time
to
reach
that
decision,
and,
yes,
this
happened
simultaneously
with
with
local
plan
review,
so
the
dog
that
they
happen
and
they
run
in
alignment
and
due
to
her
direction
of
travel
so
to
speak,
but
in
reality
they.
Q
But
it
in
theory:
yes,
if
you
read
the
PPF
in
verbatim,
what's
in
reality,
they
do
happen
side
by
side
example
of
witch's
eye
I
brought
forward
in
Barnsley
recently,
where,
at
the
same
time
the
local
plan
review
was
taking
place.
We
were
putting
applications,
don't
safeguarded
sites.
The
safeguard
site
was
approved
prior
to
the
local
pumpkin
adopted.
However,
the
safeguarded
site.
Okay.
H
These
days
anyway,
no,
but
I
can
only
read
the
words
that
national
policy
says
and
I
can
only
say
that,
insofar
as
this
plan
is
concerned,
if
the
council
were
to
bring
forward
sites
for
safeguarded
land,
any
the
policies
allocating
that
land
would
be
in
line
with
or
consistent
with
national
policy,
irrespective
of
how
local
authorities
up
and
down
the
country
might
choose
to
implement
such
policies.
Indeed,.
Q
Q
If
we
look
towards
end
of
the
plan
period
has
been
rightly
identified
to
be
two
sites:
one's
probably
gonna
deliver
apartments
through
the
world
over
housing,
but
we're
talking
two
sites
so
I
think
if
we
are
looking
when
we're
looking
really
looking
at
numbers
and
safeguarded
sites
or
expanded
allocation
sites,
we
need
to
bear
that
in
mind
in
terms
of
be
more
flexible
supply
when
the
times
needed.
Thank
you.
H
R
Lane,
thank
you,
sir
I.
Think
most
of
my
points
have
largely
been
covered
by
this
side
of
the
table
and
one
of
the
benefits
to
being
at
the
end
of
the
row,
a
couple
of
quick
points.
However,
we
heard
from
mr.
wood
in
justifying
why
no
safeguarded
land
had
been
provided
that
it
was
the
council's
view
that
it
was
difficult
to
assess
those
sites.
R
Mr.
Mac
has
made
the
point
that
a
large
amount
of
sites
were
identified
in
the
2013
draft
local
plan
and
they
were
suspenseful
and
found
to
serve
no
greenbelt
purpose
or
didn't
need
to
be
kept
permanently
open
and,
to
add
to
that
I
know
a
number
people
around
this
table,
including
myself,
submitted
a
significant
amount
of
information
with
those
associated
with
those
sites,
including
layouts,
and
all
the
technical
reports
necessary
to
make
it
in
depth
assessment.
The
council
clearly
had
the
evidence
if
their
wishes
wished
to
allocate
safeguarded
land.
R
It
is
my
position
here,
sir,
which
charms
with
mr.
Naxos
is
that
the
council
can
do
what
they
have
elected
to
do
and
allocate
more
land
for
development
rather
than
as
they've
got
the
land.
So,
just
to
make
that
clear,
but
I
think
one
point
that
has
not
really
been
articulated
so
far
is
it's
not
necessarily
the
council
use
what
they
call
head
room,
which
is
just
pure
numbers
to
justify
their
position.
I
understand
the
council's
case.
R
However,
my
view
says
it's
more
about
the
need
to
provide
a
five
year:
housing
land
supply
which
I
don't
think,
come
20
20,
20,
33
and
up
to
20
38.
The
council
will
be
able
to
do
so,
as
we've
heard
already.
Only
they've
only
identified
five
sites,
which
certainly
aren't
going
to
provide
the
range
and
choice
of
science
and
position
by
the
MPP.
R
R
Now,
if
they
haven't,
got
safeguarded
land
to
my
mind,
so
they
haven't
got
a
plan
B
that
they
can
undertake
your
review
and
have
a
readily
available
amount
of
sites
to
bring
forward
as
that
action
plans
here.
So,
whilst
I
believe
the
council
can
do
what
they
are
seeking
to
do,
I
actually
think
the
allocation
of
safeguard
land
is
a
Vettes
solution,
as
it
does
allow
that
flexibility.
Thank
you,
sir.
R
H
S
Thank
you,
sir
I
think
most
of
the
points
that
I
was
going
to
make
you've
already
been
made,
but
just
to
pick
up
on
those
particular
points,
I
think
mr.
Quiros
point
about.
If
there
was
ever
a
plan
that
needed
a
longer
lifespan,
it
was
the
one
of
York
and
I
think
the
fact
that
many
people
have
been
waiting
decades
together,
plan
which
suggests
that
we
ought
not
to
be
thinking
about
coming
back
immediately
to
review
it
I
think
it
needs
longevity.
S
The
point
we
made
about
safeguarded
land
is
that
we
were
in
support
of
safeguarded
land,
but
I'm
very
similarly
minded
to
mr.
natus
on
this
one
is
that
if
the
council
decides
that
the
better
route
is
to
allocate
more
over
a
longer
period
than
equally,
that
would
achieve
the
same
goal.
However,
the
policies
as
currently
drafted
in
this
plan
I
think
referred
to
2038
and
that's
also
referenced
in
the
Greenbelt
policy.
S
H
S
Well,
if
that's
the
case,
then
I'd
be
comfortable
in
team.
The
council
to
allocator
2040,
but
I
think
the
trajectory
that
we've
got
currently
doesn't
reflect
that
point
and
the
points
made
by
the
gentleman
on
my
right
about
how
the
number
of
sites
dwindles
down
post
2033
wouldn't
then
deliver
on
that
case.
So
my
point
would
be
I
think
we
need
to
come
back
to
the
trajectory
at
the
phase
2
stage
because,
for
example,
st8
this
year
is
delivering
35
dwellings
already.
H
T
S
H
T
I'd
like
to
preface
my
comments
by
saying
that
I
am
NOT
a
planner
or
a
consultant
or
a
developer.
I
am
a
citizen
of
York
concerned
about
the
most
disadvantaged
people
in
in
York.
It's
been
a
huge
expansion
of
my
education
sitting
around
this
table
for
the
last
couple
of
days.
Learning
how
in
other
worlds
operates,
but
I
do
want
to
just
make
a
couple
of
points.
T
What
we
don't
know-
and
we
have
got
no
indication
of-
is
whether
any
common
conversations
have
been
happening
with
the
developers
of
those
sites,
because
we
don't
know
actually
how
valid
it
is.
What
we
do
know
is
at
this
point
in
time
there
is
no
site
provision
in
York
for
in
the
local
plan,
and
on
the
basis
of
that,
we
would
argue
that
the
plan
is
unsound.
J
You
the
issue
of
where
necessary
the
necessity
is
due
to
the
permanence
of
Greenbelt
boundaries
enduring
beyond
the
plan
period,
particularly
the
inner
boundary.
In
this
case,
the
council's
reasoning
for
no
safeguarded
land
is
on
the
basis
that
these
largest
strategic
sites
can
accommodate
beyond
the
plum
period,
and
this
providing
Headroom
the
issues
of
deliverability
surrounding
large
sites
could
push
the
proposed
housing
delivery
further
into
the
next
plum
period.
Bearing
this
in
mind,
where
is
the
flexibility
to
pick
up
the
slack
within
this
plum
period?
H
B
U
So
one
of
the
considerations
I
think
you
need
to
bear
in
mind
when
determining
whether
or
not
there
should
be
safeguarded.
Land
is
whether
or
not
it
is
possible
to
identify
sufficient
lands
to
meet
the
likely
future
needs
of
the
city
in
a
manner
which
is
likely
to
be
consistent
with
safeguarding
the
primary
purpose
of
the
your
green
bell
and
we've
already
heard
from
the
council
that
a
large
number
of
the
sites
that
they
have
already
identified
as
allocations
are
going
to
cause
some
harm
to
the
primary
purpose
of
the
York
Greenbelt.
U
The
one
of
the
reasons
why
many
of
the
areas
of
safeguarded
land
were
taken
out
of
the
plan
was
also
because
the
assessment
showed
that
their
future
development
was
likely
to
harm
the
primary
purpose
of
the
York.
Greenbelt
I
think
there
is
a
real
challenge
in
identifying
sufficient
land
to
ensure
a
permanent
Greenbelt
without
actually
causing
development.
That
sea
harms
the
primary
purpose
of
that
greenbelt.
V
V
Point
number
one
point
number
two.
We
agree
that
the
MPP
F
does
not
insist,
does
not
require
land
to
be
safeguarded.
It's
those
magic
words
only
when
necessary
and
plainly
the
primary
purpose
of
the
Greenbelt,
as
advocated
by
mr.
Smith,
is
a
factor
that
one
has
to
take
into
account
here,
but
also
and
and
and
it
is
that
factor
that
has
led
to
this
strategy.
V
But
it's
also
fair
to
say
that
the
trajectory
that
we
produce
and
so
whether
you
props
the
most
convenient
point,
is
appendix
5
of
our
response
to
the
modifications
which
I
think
is
CID.
3
7,
8,
you'll
you'll
see
our
trajectory
and
it
looks
at
the
st
15
numbers
as
well
as
the
four
thousand
odd
language,
but
in
either
case
it
is
going
beyond
the
plan
period.
V
W
Thank
you,
sir.
There's
been
a
lot
of
debate
about
this
period.
Twenty
thirty
one,
twenty
thirty,
two,
twenty
three,
twenty
thirty
eight
twenty
forty
I
think
what
all
this
shows
is
that
it's
the
flexibility
and
part
of
that
comes
in
the
fact
of
we've
discussed
last
week
that
we've
got
new
national
policy
and
we're
going
to
have
to
reflect
that
through
plan
reviews.
So
really
that's
where
I
believe
that
safeguarded
land
comes
in
to
deal
with
that
uncertainty
to
do
with
that
changing
context,
and
that's
why
the
safeguarded
option
is
a
good
option.
W
I
mean
yeah.
Obviously
it's
been
applied
differently
across
the
country
and
that
really
comes
down
to
the
circumstances
of
different
authorities.
Building
on
the
points
of
mr.
Grundy
and
mr.
Lane,
the
whole
of
its
setting
aside
some
of
the
points
yesterday,
the
the
majority,
if
not
all,
of
York,
is
within
the
green
bowel
and
therefore
it
does
take
you
towards
the
inner
boundaries
and
I
really
build
on
the
discussion
yesterday.
W
In
terms
of
where
these
long-term
defensible
boundaries
are
and
whether
that's
safeguarded
land
white
land,
whatever
it's
about
getting
those
boundaries
right,
so
I
do
believe
that
safeguarded
land
does
have
a
have
a
purpose
in
terms
of
providing
that
transition
and
dealing
with
subsequent
plan
reviews.
Whoever
whether
is
at
what
point
in
the
2030s
I
think.
The
other
point,
I'd
like
to
add,
is
just
we've
got
a
plan
before
us
which
does
look
at
large
strategic
allocations.
W
So
the
fact
that
were
bearing
in
mind
that
point
about
the
inner
boundaries
and
those
small
parcels
of
land,
quite
clearly
you're
gonna
cancel,
would
have
more
information
about
the
small,
distinct
parcels
of
land
that
could
be
safeguarded
as
opposed
to
these
large
strategic
allocations.
So
the
fact
that
the
point
the
council
made
about
not
being
able
to
assess
safeguard
land,
we
just
don't
accept.
X
You,
sir,
that's
two
points
for
me.
The
first
is
a
clarification.
Earlier
you
asked
the
council
about
their
employment
supply
and
I
I
know
I
understood.
The
answer
was
that
they've
provided
enough
employment
land
until
twenty
forty
one
and
then
they
pointed
you
to
seven
point
four:
two
of
the
TP
one
addendum
just
looking
at
how
quickly
my
reading
is
that
that's
until
twenty
thirty
eight,
so
clarification
sort
on
if
it's
38
or
41.
X
Whichever
the
case,
we
support
the
concession
that
they
will
look
to
allocate
land
until
twenty
forty
one.
The
second
point-
and
this
is
where
I'm
struggling
and
veering
into
employment
needs,
but
we've
heard
lots
about
housing.
Some
about
education,
I
think
if
I
just
say
it,
but
the
points
made
are
equally
applicable
to
employment
and
just
as
important
important
and
we'll
leave
it
at
that
in
terms
of
safeguarding
and
additional
allocations
to
illustrate
the
point
with
severe
efference
to
office,
the
council
identifies
just
one
allocation
specifically
for
office
to
me.