►
From YouTube: Local Plan 17.12.19 Day 4 (3 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
Yeah,
just
a
quick
sense
check
of
where
we
are
I've,
we're
on
question
3
point
2,
which
is
about
the
the
council's
approach
to
delineating
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
and
we've.
As
part
of
that
discussion,
we
have
talked
about
the
RSS,
which
is
question
3
point
2
a
we
haven't
really
touched
on
three
point:
two
B
C
or
D.
A
However,
the
counselors
approach
also
lends
itself
I
think
to
discussion
within
this
part,
if
I
can
put
it
that
way
of
three
point:
three,
because
I'm
you're
talking
as
well
about
permanence
as
part
of
your
approach.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I've
got
a
further
question
about
openness
and
then
going
to
go
on
to
three
point
two
BCD
and
hear
from
the
council
as
well
about
three
point
three
and
then.
A
A
A
What
I'm
keen
to
establish
in
terms
of
the
spatial
aspect
us
at
least
in
part,
about
the
presence
or
absence
of
development,
building
structures
and
etc?
But
then,
as
we
know,
the
concept
of
openness
also
has
a
visual
dimension
and
I'm
just
trying
to
establish
precisely
where,
in
the
methodology
that
is
encompassed.
D
C
At
the
containment
of
the
build
area-
and
we
also
look
again
under
purpose
two-
we
look
at
the
coalescence
of
settlements,
so
not
just
in
terms
of
coalescence
of
towns,
but
in
terms
of
the
historic
character
and
setting.
We
want
to
keep
the
spatial
separation
and
openness
between
different
built
areas
of
the
city.
B
B
So
we
would
say
there
are
references
within
the
methodology
would
show
that
visual
aspects
in
particular
views
were
taken
into
account
as
part
of
the
overall
approach,
and
that
is
reflected
within
the
annexes,
which
walk
round
the
inner
and
the
outer
boundaries,
where
the
visual
effect,
not
just
the
special
effect
of
openness,
was
taken
into
account
through
the
judgments.
The
releases
when
walks
round
those
boundaries.
A
B
One
can
see
there
that
paragraph
five
point
five
three
on
a
particular
five
point:
five
for
all
those
reference
to
the
landscape
surrounding
York;
five
point:
five:
five
on
references
to
various
landscape
studies
that
were
taken
into
account
when
applying
criteria
and
to
be
as
part
of
the
local
openness
assessment
and
if
one
looks
back
25.46.
Obviously,
landscape
was
taken
into
account
within
the
approach
of
looking
at
local
historic
assets
as
part
of
the
openness
assessment
under
criterion
2a
those
paragraph
five
point,
four
six
and
if
one
then
goes
back
to
page
32.
B
Which
is
the
Box
summarizing
the
approach
to
the
openness
criteria?
One
can
see
that
in
the
box
saying
evidence
for
desktop
assessment
and
site
visits
and
included
an
urban
characterization
sort
of
it
also
landscape
character,
so
landscape
character
assessments
were
part
of
the
council's
consideration
of
the
openness
criteria.
A
C
Thank
you,
I
sit
out
in
the
TP
1
addendum
and
paragraph
3.2.
The
boundaries
of
the
York
green
belts
have
been
determined,
with
consideration
to
the
MPP
F
principles
and
they've
sought
to
achieve
sustainable
development
by
looking
for
a
balance
of
economic,
social
and
environmental
considerations
to
find
sustainable
solutions
in
setting
the
boundaries
the
methodology
has
been
in
line
with
the
core
principles
of
the
local
plan
policy.
C
C
B
B
And
we
say
that
that
approach
a
set
out
in
Section
four
is
consistent
with
the
principles
of
sustainable
development,
because
it
identified
areas
where
development
she
preferably
not
had
take
place
and
they
formed
the
context
in
which
the
detailed
boundary
setting
at
a
granular
level
took
place
under
Section.
Five.
B
A
A
Immediately
adjacent
to
the
most
sustainable
settlements
in
the
borough,
the
district,
whatever
it
is,
because
that
is
the
most
sustainable
place.
So
whilst
it
involves
removing
land
from
the
Greenbelt
nonetheless,
you
know
it
achieves
the
right
outcome
in
terms
of
sustainable
development
and
you're,
saying
something
slightly
different
here:
I
think
in
part
at
least,
but
what
you
you
say
that
there
are
good
reasons
for
that
and
that
those
reasons
are
in
and
of
themselves
also
actually
about
sustainable
development.
Is
that
is
that
right,
no.
B
This
goes
back
to
the
discussion
on
spatial
distribution
away,
because,
obviously
we
do
to
have
a
settlement
hierarchy
here
or
any
or
any
policy
that
seeks
to
achieve
that
in
what
the
council
has
done,
sought
to
apply
special
principles
which
are
rooted
in
the
concept
of
speech
of
sustainable
development,
and
it
sought
to
apply
those
in
order
to
identify
where
generally
develop
and
shoot
not
take
place.
For
reasons
of
sustainability.
A
B
Although
that
is
part
of
the
approach
that
was
taken
by
the
council.
The
council
is
chosen
to
read
sustainability
and
it's
broad
sense,
given
that
there
are
three
broad
dimensions
to
sustainability,
as
reflected
in
detailed
policies
within
the
framework.
So
we
do
say
that
protecting
historic
assets
is
a
fundamental
part
of
achieving
sustainable
development,
and
that's
why
I
was
included
as
part
of
the
spatial
strategy,
no
less.
If
he
said
well,
there's
still
other
aspects
of
sustainability
which
which
need
to
be
considered.
B
Lbc
is
probably
the
same
question
as
the
same
answer
is
B,
because,
insofar
as
channeling
development
towards
urban
areas
inside
the
green
belt
boundary
times,
villages
in
South
was
the
green
belt
or
towards
locations
beyond
the
outer
green
boundary
being
considered,
at
least
in
part.
The
channeling
development
towards
urban
areas
has
been
covered
by.
The
answer
is
given
that
it
was
taken
into
a
kind
as
part
of
the
spatial
distribution
work
conducted
by
the
council.
B
And
in
Section
seven
again,
it's
under
the
justifying
exceptional
circumstances
test,
but
it
shows
that
the
work
has
been
done
by
the
council
to
identify
sites
within
built-up
areas
that
can
take
some
of
the
housing
need,
including
existing
completions.
And
then
it's
identified
beyond
that.
The
need
for
on
the
heightening
requirement,
as
its
proposed
over
2,000
extra
dwellings,
which
is
necessitated
incursions
into
the
Greenbelt,
is
put
by
the
council.
B
So
the
council's
considered
the
extent
to
which
development
could
be
located
in
the
built-up
areas
and
concluded
that
not
everything
could
be
located
in
those
areas.
It's
also
considered
the
extent
to
which
locations
outside
the
art
of
Greenbelt
boundary
could
be
used,
but
for
the
reasons
given,
no
other
authorities
are
willing
to
do
so,
and
that
has
overall
informed
its
approach
to
the
identification
of
new
sites
to
meet
the
residual
need.
A
B
And
if
one
looks
down
towards
page
41,
the
tests
that
are
applied
or
the
clear
recognized
will
bind
which
is
likely
to
be
permanent
just
above
five
point
six
seven
and
then,
if
one
looked
back
in
the
table,
that
we've
looked
at
a
number
of
times
already
page
33
of
us,
that
the
methodologies
moved
beyond
the
openness
criteria
into
permanence
criteria.
On
the
questions
raft
as
the
binder
offer,
recognizability,
permanence
and
strength
and
under
permanence
questions
are
asked
there.
A
B
A
E
E
It's
really
going
to
how
has
the
council
assessed
special
character
and
setting,
and
indeed
the
other
green
bar
purposes,
so
our
position
can
be
simply
stated
that
we
agree
with
York
that
York
special
character
not
just
restricted
to
the
wolf
City
and
his
conservation
areas
or
even
green
wedges,
but
it
relates
to
its
general
scale,
size,
scale
and
character
as
a
compact,
historic
city
in
open
countryside.
So
so
that's
agreed.
E
E
E
But
Sir,
if
you'd
look
at
figure
three
and
of
course
this
is
dealing
with
why
York
has
a
green
belt.
This
entire
area
is
important
to
York
special
character
and
setting.
So
what
you
see
there
is
that,
first
of
all,
the
entirety
of
the
green
buffer
isn't
shown
he's
only
shown
in
part
parts.
Isn't
it
hey,
I'm,
very
echoey,
yeah.
E
How
I'll
get
nearer
yeah
the
what
you're,
seeing
there,
sir,
is
that
the
entirety
of
that
green
buffer
is
not
shown
is
shown
in
fragments,
but
not
as
a
as
entirety.
I
said,
when
you
look
at
the
poses
map,
you
will
see
that
there
is
Omer.
Is
there
hummus
entirety
as
there's
a
group,
a
green,
green
fringe
of
open
land
assembly?
So
when
you
look
at
the
figure
three,
you
see
that
almost
none
of
the
open
countryside
around
York
is
actually
shown
has
been
important
to
the
setting
and
special
character.
E
I
think
your
your
have
noted
historic
England's
comments
on
that
which
are
almost
identical
to
to
ours
and
their
conclusion.
Our
conclusion,
as
if
you
were
if
these
were
the
only
area,
is
important
to
York
special
curtain
setting,
you
would
not
need
a
green
belt
fundamentally
goes
against
the
principle
of
a
of
an
encircling
green
belt,
which
has
been
there
since
1980.
E
E
You'll
see
the
only
way
they've
assessed,
it
is
with
relation
to
access
to
two
or
more
services,
so
that
isn't
a
proper
way
to
address
opens
urban
sprawl
access.
The
services
is
important,
sir,
but
certainly
sir,
the
other
other
studies
of
green
bell
purposes
have
I've
seen
and
been
involved
in
have
really
looked
at
whether
or
not.
E
So
we
don't
really
that
disagree
with
the
council
that
these
are
the
most
narrow
gaps.
So
we
don't.
We
think
there
are
other
gaps
which
are
important
and
we
don't
take
so
you're,
looking
at
purpose
to
new
purpose
too
so
I'm
taking
the
order
of
TP
wanna
men
just
to
assist
you,
sir.
So
that's
we're
down.
Looking
at
the
figure
five,
sir.
E
E
The
only
elements
of
the
countryside
they
see
worthy
of
conservation
are
nature
conservation,
sights
existing
open
space
and
green
infrastructure
corridors.
That
is
not
the
purpose.
That
is
not
the
intention
that
doesn't
have
purpose
three,
which
is
to
assist
to
safeguarding
the
countryside
and
the
normal
definition
of
countryside,
of
course,
or
open
areas
where
rural
and
uses
predominate
or
similar
I've
listened
many,
but
that
that
seems
to
be
the
we
say
again,
sir,
that
the
whole
approach
to
purpose
tree
is
totally
flawed.
E
E
That's
the
that's
the
end
point
and
that's
to
stress
that
says
that
these
are
Street
Gary's
to
keep
firmly
open
and
sir,
what
you'll
see
there
is
that,
as
a
point
I've
made
before
to
you,
sir,
there
are
large
areas,
including
s,
st
40
and
st
15,
which
I
showed
has
been
required
to
be
kept
firmly
open
the
same
time.
There
are
very
large
areas
of
land
and
you
could
go
round
them
just
to
make
make
it
absolutely
clear
for
you.
E
If
we
go
round
the
settlements,
there's
a
large
area
around
Ruffus
there's
a
large
area
to
the
west
of
cockman
Thorpe.
There
are
large
areas
around
well
Drake,
Irvington,
Donington,
Stockton,
on
forests
and
to
southest
rensil,
which
accounts
are
on
this
map,
as
he
says,
don't
need
to
be
kept
firmly
open.
E
So
this
really
want
questions.
What
how
how
this
analysis
is
going
is
really
assist
you
because
it
isn't
doesn't
line
up
so
with
the
we've
got.
The
submission
plan
says
I
fully
accept
that
these
ostriches
know
this
is
entitled
future
areas
and
there's
a
stage
to
which
detailed
boundaries,
but
it's
detailed
boundaries
through
these
strategic
areas.
E
So
we
we,
we
say
the
whole
approach
to
definition.
Greenbelt
boundaries
is
flawed.
You
cannot
rely
on
it,
which
just
means
that
if,
if
you
come
to
the
same
conclusion,
yes
say
we,
we
think
you,
you
must
do
so
because
you're
looking
at
the
purposes
of
the
Greenbelt
I've
set
out
in
national
policy
and
they
we
say
they
have
not
been
interpreted
correctly
by
the
council.
E
It's
not
said
that
I'm
misquote,
and
so
the
wording
is
that
the
inner
boundaries
should
be
defined
in
order
to
establish
long-term
development
limits,
and
this
is
keywords,
of
course,
at
the
safeguard
the
special
character
and
setting
of
the
historic
city,
the
safeguard
and,
of
course,
safeguard
a
dictionary
definition.
Sir
I
think
this
is
you
asked
me
yesterday.
This
is
the
Cambridge
dictionary,
but
it
is
to
protect
from
harm.
E
E
E
E
E
E
So
I
then
go
on
to
three
to
see
when
I'll
charge
of
a
very
brief,
sir,
because
I
know
we've
dealt
with
us
previously
in
terms
of,
but
I
think
that
there
is
a
little
bit
more
to
add.
On
this
point,
and
particularly
on
green
belt,
on
on
the
feasibility
of
of
whether
the
council
has
exhausted
the
possibilities
so
and
if
I
could
just
take
you
to
page
70
71
of
the
TP
1
addendum.
E
You'll
see
that
there
was
agreement
of
789
that
there
was
potential
for
future
plans
to
be
more.
What
the
authorities
said
at
that
meeting
was
that
we
don't
want
to
do
it
immediately
because
of
the
potential
for
delay
to
our
existing
plans
or
needing
to.
But
there
is
potential
for
future
plans
to
be
more
sub
regional
approach.
E
E
E
The
conclusion
of
that
paragraph
is
that,
given
the
position
of
neighboring
authorities
with
their
own
development
plans,
it
has
been
has
been
in
case
not
possible
to
fully
explore
this
option
at
this
stage.
Nev.
Let's
never
let
any
continues.
Nevertheless,
given
the
potential
sustainable
Brian
for
brownfield
sites
in
the
wider
York
Housing
Market
area
officers
will
continue
this
dialogue,
along
with
discussing
current
proposals,
to
ensure,
if
appropriate,
any
opportunities,
can
be
properly
assess
included
within
the
future
land
supply.
E
E
And
so
there
was
potential
and
there
is
still
is
potential
because
obviously
the
plans
which
we
are
the
neighboring
Authority
who
are
going
to
be
going
to
reviewing
their
plans
shortly.
So
there
is
a
potential,
sir.
In
the
second
half
the
plan
period,
which
is
where
any
shortfall
might
might
come
about.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Mr.
korsky,
okay,
I've
got
a
number
of
people
indicating
can
I
ask
just
for
the
moment
that
you
keep
your
nameplate
up
if
you
are
following
mr.
corces
line
of
attack,
but
have
something
to
add
to
it
if
you're
saying
something
entirely
different,
please
put
your
nameplate
down
just
for
the
moment.
A
F
F
F
F
Sir
and
we
have
looked
at
it
and
they
can't
source
methodology
and
how
they
say:
they've
gone
about
things
and
that
they
have
identified
that
figure
3.1
gives
their
historic
their
areas
that
need
to
be
kept
open.
It's
interesting
to
note
that
figure
3
had
an
earlier
version
which
had
a
difference
to
the
southeast
of
skelton.
Now
the
difference
came
about
because
the
area
preventing
coalescent
has
been
increased
to
the
east.
F
F
F
In
order
to
protect
the
setting
of
the
village,
the
site
is
now
approximately
a
kilometres
from
the
western
edge
of
skeleton
village,
which
replicates
the
existing
distance
from
Skelton
to
the
1237
and
the
edge
of
York
main
urban
area
allowing
its
setting
to
be
protected.
So
that
is
looking
at
the
protection
of
Skelton
village
and
identifying
it
needed
a
kilometre
between
the
main
urban
age
and
the
village.
But
apparently
the
new
site,
st
14,
with
no
southern
boundary
at
all,
requires
only
a
400
meter
distance
to
prevent
urban
space
and
urban
sprawl.
F
In
fact,
if
you
look
at
annex
five
point,
two,
which
is
cyc
18
B,
it
specifically
talks
about
st
14
being
reduced
in
order
to
prevent
urban
sprawl
outside
the
Ring
Road
and
yet
that
buffer
outside
the
Ring
Road.
It's
not
identified
in
any
way
on
the
figure
three
areas,
important
to
York
special
character
and
setting,
or
indeed
on
figure
seven
is
it
figure
seven
of
the
TP
one
assessment
addendum?
Yes,.
F
In
terms
of
promoting
society,
sustainable
development,
this
is
clearly
contrary
to
that
aim,
as
well
as
contrary
to
the
main
purposes
of
Greenbelt
in
this
location,
but
fundamentally
the
methodology.
The
council,
if
you
is
to
identify
the
importance
of
land
within
york
against
the
five
purposes
of
Greenbelt,
even
if
they
identify
the
character
and
setting
of
York
as
the
most
important
one
of
those
five
purposes.
F
G
G
The
answer
to
the
question
of
whether
or
not
you're
required
to
you'll
not
require
to
keep
land
permanently
open
is
to
be
found
in
the
green
belt
purposes.
If
a
piece
of
land
doesn't
perform
any
the
five
green
belt
purposes,
then
that
is
a
clear
indication
that
it
doesn't
need
to
be
kept
permanently
open
and
it
shouldn't
be
in
the
green
belt
and
I
think
we
heard
earlier
on
from
this
Sheldon
before
the
lunch
German
that
that
she
and
I
are
probably
at
one
in
that
approach.
G
If
there
is
not
fulfillment
of
one
of
the
five
green
belt
purposes,
the
land
shouldn't
be
in.
Where
we
say
the
council
have
gone
wrong
in
the
three
evidence
based
documents
upon
it,
which
it
relies
is
that
it
doesn't
do
the
assessment
properly
and
I'll
run
through
our
criticisms
quickly.
If
I
may
2003
approach
to
Greenbelt
appraisal,
so
I,
don't
ask
you
to
turn
it
up.
Sir
SD
107
a
as
I
understand.
It
examines
how
some
land
contributes
to
the
historic
setting
of
the
city.
G
G
It
leads
to
a
surprising
outcome.
Perhaps
it
would
be
helped
if
I
asked
you
to
turn
up
very
briefly
one
reference
within
tp1
on
reference
within
tp1,
which
is
at
page
20,
sir.
Now,
if
you
have
that
to
hand,
so
this
is
the
May
2018
approach
to
defining
York's
Greenbelt
EP
1,
page
20
at
paragraph
4
319.
G
It
said
that
having
considered
the
evidence
available,
which
describes
the
special
keratin
setting
of
York
and
which
underpins
the
emerging
spatial
strategy,
figure
7
shows
how
land
around
York
contributes
to
one
or
more
Greenbelt
purposes
and
figure
7
page
22
as
vast
ways
of
land,
some
of
which
are
actually
right
in
the
middle
of
York
that
are
said
to
contribute
to
one
or
more
of
the
Greenbelt
purposes.
Well,
this
document
has
no
support
whatsoever
for
that
statement
and
that
figure.
G
So
what
the
council
then
tried
to
do
so-
and
this
is
the
third
evidence-based
document
to
patch
the
holes-
is
produced
EP,
one
addendum
at
March
2019,
and
it
does
at
least
and
I,
make
this
concession
to
the
council.
It
does
at
least
refer
to
the
individual
Greenbelt
purposes.
The
way
it
deals
with
them,
though,
is
I'm
afraid
to
say
deficient
so
running
through
purposes
1
to
4,
which
will
be
enough
for
my
purposes
with
regard
to
purpose.
1.
G
So,
with
regard
to
purpose
one,
instead
of
looking
at
whether
or
not
land
checks
unrestricted
sprawl,
which
is
what
purpose
one
in
the
framework
is
actually
about.
It
addresses
the
question
of
achieving
a
sustainable
pattern
of
development
by
reference
to
proximity
to
services,
which
is
a
different
question
altogether.
G
G
G
G
G
G
So
with
it,
told
quite
straightforwardly
that
what
the
council
is
done
is
take
what
it
understands
to
be
the
edge
of
the
dense
built-up
area
and
draw
a
line
round.
It
well
I'm
afraid
to
say
that
that
does
not
constitute
an
exercise
of
assessing
land
against
the
five
green
bark
purposes
and
is
deficient.
G
You
then
go
on
certain
section.
5C
of
this
document
you'll
find
that
on
page
31,
32
number
of
reference
to
this
earlier
on
by
the
council,
a
series
of
criteria
for
boundary
delineation.
We're
told
that
that's
what
this
is
and
greenbelt
purposes
are
reintroduced
in
this
exercise
under
the
heading
openness
criteria.
So
all
of
a
sudden,
we
are
commingling
openness
and
greenbelt
purposes
without
explanation
and.
G
So
the
the
same
deficiencies
when
it
comes
to
understanding
what
the
greenbelt
purposes
are
about
are
perpetuated.
For
example,
within
the
strategic
assessment
section
section
1
of
this
table,
we
see
purpose
1,
which
is
all
about
unrestricted
sprawl.
That's
what
the
purpose
is
actually
about
is
simply
boiled
down
to
access
to
services
from
nothing
to
do
with
unrestricted
sprawl.
G
In
short,
whether
it
be
the
2003
exercise,
2018
exercise
2019
exercise,
and
we
don't
understand
there
to
be
anything
else
upon
which
the
council
relies.
There
is
no
robust,
comprehensive
assessment
of
how
lander
performs
against
the
five
green
belt
purposes,
and
without
that
the
plan
isn't
justified,
and
without
that
it's
not
consistent
with
national
policy
and
for
those
reasons,
it's
unsound.
A
H
Thank
you,
sir
I
think
a
lot
of
bottom
good
sake
doesn't
repeat,
but
ties
in
very
closely
with
what
we
just
heard
from
mr.
pondered
but
I
think
to
start
off
with
the
point.
I
make
a
point.
Oh
you
made
yesterday
was
that,
in
the
absence
of
a
clear
spatial
strategy
in
settlement
hierarchy,
it's
absolutely
vital
that
there
is
a
robust,
comprehensive,
objective,
Greenbelt
review.
H
H
Within
the
tp1
addendum,
which
you'll
recall
was
in
response
to
your
letter
to
the
council
of
July
2018
and,
in
fact
holding
their
feet
against
the
fire
to
add
to
the
Greenbelt
review
up
till
that
date,
the
council
sought
to
fill
in
those
gaps
and,
in
our
opinion,
it
failed
to
do
so
and
I
think,
as
a
contrast
to
many
of
the
deficiencies
that
mr.
Ponte
has
just
referred
to.
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
a
good
example.
H
H
But
yet
so
so
it
went
through
the
process.
He
look
to
openness,
it
look
to
the
five
purposes.
It
looked
at
the
potential
strength
of
boundaries,
and
then
it
went
on
to
select,
and
so
after,
comparing
everything
on
a
one
to
five
basis
of
how
well
it
performed
all
of
that
was
set
out
in
tables
with
the
traffic
light
assessment
and
that
then
led
to
the
selection
of
those
sites
where
green
belt
didn't
need
to
be
retained
or
where
the
least
harm
would
be
caused
to
the
purposes
or
the
openness
of
the
green
belt.
H
If
that
site
was
developed
and
the
council
hasn't
done,
that
council
has
taken
the
review
to
a
certain
extent.
It's
looked
at
parcels
and
boundaries
in
a
very
subjective
case-by-case
basis,
but
what
it
hasn't
done
is
it
hasn't
compared
all
of
those
results
to
tests
where
the
green
belt
could
reasonably
be
rolled
back
in,
particularly
in
a
green
belt
boundary
to
me
identified
development
needs.
Thank
you.
I
I
So
so
so
as
I
as
I
just
indicated,
I'm
in
the
fortunate
position
of
being
able
to
adopt
the
criticisms
made
by
mr.
Ponte,
which
reflects
in
slightly
more
detail
than
I
had
intended
to
make
them
some
of
the
criticisms
about
the
approach,
in
particular
to
the
purposes
of
the
green
belt,
as
well
as
the
complete
failure
of
an
analysis
before
March
2019.
The
only
document
you
get
any
analysis
is
in
March
2019,
so
that
exercise
being
done,
I,
don't
I,
don't
repeat
it!
I
don't
want
to
make
two
additional
very
brief
points.
I
The
first
is
that
the
errors
identified
by
mr.
Ponte
tying
with
a
different
kind
of
error,
which
I've
largely
dealt
with
already,
which
is
in
relation
to
the
approach
of
principle
which
I
set
out
this
morning.
The
two-stage
analysis,
first
of
all,
decide
whether
it's
in
or
out
of
the
green
belt.
Secondly,
decide
if
you
need
to
you
go
on
to
the
exceptional
circumstances,
question,
and
whilst
mr.
Linus
as
I
understand
it,
accepted
that
that
was
the
right
approach.
All
very
came
very
close
to
doing
so.
He
asserts
that
the
council
did
that
exercise.
I
It's
fair
to
say
that
in
the
March
2019
document
you
do
see
something
of
that
exercise
being
conducted,
but
just
as
there
is
a
conflation
of
the
green
belt
purposes
with
other
matters,
so
I
suggest.
When
you
look
at
the
exercise
in
the
March
document,
you
see
a
constant
conflation
of
the
two
questions,
and
that
means
that
the
question
of
whether
something
is
in
the
green
belt
or
not
already
is
being
conflated
with
other
land-use
policy
issues
which
are
better
considered
at
the
exceptional
circumstances
stage,
and
a
good
example
of
that
which
crosses
both
mr.
I
pontas
analysis
and
my
slightly
different
point
is,
for
example,
in
relation
to
purpose
during
their
purpose:
3
the
use
of
other
designations,
open
space
and
so
forth,
which
may
be
relevant
at
a
later
stage,
but
which
are
fundamentally
irrelevant
to
the
basic
question
of
whether
something
should
be
on
one
or
other
side
of
the
boundary.
In
the
first
place
last
point-
and
this
is
just
a
square
with
me-
yes,
of
course,.
I
So
last
point-
and
this
is
where
I
do
just
slightly
diverge
from
mr.
pointer
Ponte.
Sorry,
he
invites
you
as
I
understand
it
to
find
that,
for
the
reasons
he
gave
the
whole
exercise.
Is
he
fundamentally
unsound
I,
don't
invite
you
to
go
so
far,
but
the
reason
that
it
matters
is
that
these
kinds
of
mistake
of
general
principle
and
general
approach
feed
through
into
the
detailed
exercise
in
relation
to
particular
science.
I
So
when
and
I'm
not
doing
it
now,
when
I,
someone
for
my
client
comes
in
phase
two
to
make
submissions
to
you
about,
what's
gone
wrong
in
relation
to
those
sites,
those
general
errors
of
approach
are
going
to
be
very
critical,
not
so
that
you
find
the
whole
thing
to
be
unsound.
The
whole
the
whole
plan
to
be
unsound
in
relation
to
Greenbelt,
but
when
you're
considering
whether
the
boundaries
been
drawn
in
the
right
place
in
relation
to
particular
science,
and
so
that's
again,
thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
sir
and
I
think
this
is
the
starting
point
in
dealing
with.
Most
of
the
criticisms
have
been
made
by
mr.
Kirchner
and
mr.
ponder,
as
well
as
the
need
to
distinguish
between
the
strategic
approaches.
A
tight
end
section
for
on
the
local
boundary
definition
set
out
a
way
of
methodology.
In
section
and
section
5.
B
And
that
is
done
with
the
VA
at
paragraph
four
point:
seven
of
Section,
four
to
salic
all
land
within
the
Greenbelt,
because
we
already
have
a
general
extent
serves
more
than
one
Greenbelt
falls
on
the
provisions
of
the
framework.
So
we
have
a
general
extent
where
all
Greenbelt
that
falls
in
the
framework,
but
it
recognized
that
land
which
serves
more
than
one
Greenbelt
purpose,
could
be
held
to
carry
additional
weight
on
the
purpose
of
section.
B
B
B
B
B
So
insofar
as
any
criticism
is
made
by
mr.
courier,
mr.
at
pom
turbo,
the
purpose
is
not
being
accurately
reflected.
One
takes
the
question
of
urban
sprawl,
for
example,
in
this
detailed
boundary
assessment
one's
not
simply
looking
at
access
to
services
and
erased
the
criticism
made
of
a
strategic
level,
the
various
questions
that
are
asked
under
this
methodology
at
the
localized
level.
B
Do
you
consider
openness,
aligned
with
purpose
one
in
a
way,
that's
broader
than
pure
access
to
services
in
relation
to
purpose?
Three,
the
boundaries
been
identified,
not
purely
by
asking
whether
land
is
within
the
nature
conservation
area
or
a
green
corridor,
but
asking
about
the
relationship
between
a
built-up
area
and
an
open
up
and
an
open
area
with
a
view
to
considering
the
purpose
of
encroachment.
B
The
greenbelt
purposes
have
been
taken
into
account
in
their
wider
sense,
within
the
fundamental
openness
criteria.
And
when
you
look
at
the
detailed
judgments
that
are
reached
in
the
annexes,
they
reflect
that
approach
where
it's
quite
clear.
The
judgments
haven't
been
reached
on
the
grounds
of
purpose
three,
for
example,
simply
because
something's
in
an
area
of
nature
conservation,
a
wider
approach
has
been
taken
at
the
local
at
the
local
level,
and
we
say
that
hasn't
really
been
understood
by
the
submissions
that
you
have.
That
you've
heard.
B
Another
point
was
maybe
mr.
pomp
Dhirubhai
purpose
T
some
suggestion
that
it
wasn't
appropriate
for
the
council
to
approach
purpose
too,
in
the
way
that
it
did
now,
if
the
council
recognizes
that
purpose
to
prevent
neighboring
towns
merging
into
one
another
that
doesn't
apply
cleanly
in
this
case,
in
the
sense
that
we're
not
looking
at
York
merging
with
another
time
as
such,.
B
B
So,
on
page
37,
where
purpose
T
is
referred
to
on
the
approaches
to
keep
open
areas
between
settlements,
maintained,
separate
communities
and
distinct
identities
and
prevent
assessments
for
coalescing,
we
say
it's
entirely
appropriate
for
that
factor
to
be
considered
as
part
with
the
boundary
setting,
even
the
ones,
not
technically
looking
at
York
merging
with
another
time,
because
it's
quite
right
to
consider
the
relationship
between
different
settlements.
When
looking
at
boundary
matters
and
again
it's
another
illustration
of
of
hi.
The
purposes
have
been
properly
approached
by
the
council
as
part
of
its
binary
setting
exercise.
B
B
After
all,
yes,
all
right
and
so
restricting
sprawl
does
have
a
relationship
with
avoidance
of
merging.
So
there
is
a
the
purposes,
aren't
necessarily
clean
the
new
clean,
bright
line
between
the
purposes
in
that
sense,
but
we
have
looked
at
purpose
to
as
the
purpose
that
relates
most
cleanly
to
the
concept
of
merging.
A
Yeah,
it's
not
for
mr.
mckormick
and
I
to
interpret
well,
the
MPP
F
says
merely
to
read
the
words
and
understand
them
and
I
read
the
second
purpose
purpose
too,
as
being
to
prevent
neighboring
towns
merging
into
one
another.
Yes,
given
that
the
council
says
that
there
isn't
a
question
here
of
neighboring
towns
merging
into
one
another,.
A
B
So,
as
regards
impacts
relating
to
historic
character-
yes,
that's
purpose,
for
we
would
say,
as
regards
the
question
of
merging
I,
think
a
little
bit
more
information,
but
the
protis
have
been
taken
by
the
council
under
purpose
to
set
up
a
page
15
of
the
addendum
document
and
I'd.
Read
it
out,
paragraph
surfer,
your
note,
4.27
that
recognizes
that
York
does
not
have
any
major
times
close
to
the
general
extent
of
the
Greenbelt.
So
potential
issue
of
tines
merging
does
not
arise.
B
However,
the
planning
advisory
service
planning
on
your
doorstep,
the
big
issues,
Greenbelt
guidance-
supports
an
approach
which
analyzes
the
need
to
prevent
the
coalescence
of
smaller
settlements
and
villages.
So
we
accept
that
purpose
to
does
not
have
any
direct
application
and
so
far
as
we're
not
looking
at
York
as
a
Tyne
merging
with
another
time.
But
the
underlying
purpose
of
the
policy
justifies
we
say
considering
the
extent
to
which
development
could
involve
York
merging
into
other
smaller
settlements,
because
that
is
part
as
well
of
what
defines
the
historic
character
of
York.
B
A
B
Think
it
wouldn't
necessarily
make
a
difference
as
far
as
the
pure
application
of
purpose
is
concerned,
but
it
could
have
enough
it
could
have
a
bearing
on
purpose,
for
which
is
why
I
mentioned
historic
character.
So
don't
think
our
analysis
would
necessarily
be
any
different,
because,
even
if
you
would
interpret
purpose
to
mean
that's
really
only
looking
at
neighboring
times.
The
similar
considerations
that
we
have
applied
under
purpose
would
apply
under
purpose
for
because
the
relationship
between
York
and
its
settlements
is
also
part
of
the
historic
character
of
York
under
purpose.
A
B
Yes,
we've
treated
it
as
relevant
in
the
sense
that
one
looks
at
the
underlying
purpose
of
the
policy
and
you
apply
it
to
the
circumstances
of
the
case.
We
we
accept
that
on
a
strict
reading
of
the
purpose
that
relates
to
x,
but
the
underlying
purpose
of
the
policy
applied
in
current
circumstances
would
apply
it
to
smaller
settlements
and
villages.
Well,.
A
B
Your
flow
sorry,
sir,
thank
you
and
then
just
mr.
Comptroller
raised
the
point
about
querying
wide
listed
buildings,
for
example,
were
included
within
the
local
level
at
methodology
of
pages
31.
32
again,
we
says
quite
justified
for
those
matters
to
be
taken
into
account,
because
it
confirms
that
the
openness
criteria
have
looked
at
Greenbelt
purposes.
Listed.
Buildings
are
directly
relevant
to
purpose
for.
C
Just
to
add
a
few
points
in
relief
to
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
and
the
number
of
people
made
criticisms
about
the
figure
3,
which
is
the
approach
to
historic
character
and
setting.
We
are
quite
clear
in
that
part
of
the
document
that
that
is
not
the
only
piece
of
evidence
base.
We
are
relying
on
in
setting
the
start
character
and
setting
of
York
and
miss
Worthington
noted
that
it
can't
be
up
to
date
because
it
has
been
modified
as
a
result
of
sites
being
put
forward.
C
Progress
at
four
point,
one:
nine
to
four
point
to
one
that
the
heritage
topic
paper
supplements
the
diagram
that
is
provided,
and
that
is
not
the
only
guide
to
they
started
setting
areas
in
terms
of
the
issues
that
are
raised
around
st
14.
In
that
location
we
would
say
that's
a
site's
issue
and
not
a
boundary
delineation
issue,
because
it
is,
it
is
not
within
scope,
scope
of
the
boundary
setting
exercise
in
response
to
the
points
made
by
mr.
Ponte
on
the
retreat.
C
He
makes
reference
to
paragraph
5.17
in
saying
that,
essentially,
it
is
already
determined
that
the
urban
area
is
the
edge
of
the
green
belt,
and
that
statement
is
actually
in
this
in
the
section
entitled
setting
the
scope
and
it
is
relating
to
the
fact
that
that
is
the
starting
point.
As
I
mentioned
earlier
on
the
review
RSS.
C
We
feel
that
the
point
is
to
delineate
where
one
ends
and
the
next
begins
and
also
in
relation
to
the
retreat,
because
if
we
are
going
to
be
site-specific,
you
find
reference
to
that
in
the
inner
boundary
decisions
about
what,
where
the
inner
boundary
is
open
or
built
up
in
exe
I
see
18
D,
page
4,
1
3.
There
is
a
clear
assessment
of
how
the
land
to
the
south
of
the
built
elements
of
retreat
sit
within
warm
grates
tray,
which
is
an
important
part.
C
They
start
character
and
setting
and
the
boundary
has
been
drawn
to
follow
the
site's
historic
boundary
and
the
boundary
of
the
conservation
area
and
has
respect
of
the
listed
buildings
in
the
area.
So
I
think
the
assessment
is
clear
about
why
the
land
needs
to
be
kept
permanently.
Open
and
for
what
purpose?
And
finally
mr.
Grundy
raised
the
point
that
there
is
no
settlement
hierarchy
as
far
as
we're
aware,
I'm
sure
this
came
up
in
spatial
distribution
yesterday.
C
As
far
as
we're
aware,
there's
no
requirement
that
we
have
to
have
a
settlement
hierarchy
and
in
terms
of
our
approach
to
sustainable
development
within
the
green
belt,
we've
taken
a
much
more
holistic
approach,
having
a
hierarchy
that
is
based
only
on
access
to
what
settlements
have
a
certain
level
of
access
to
services.
Those
services
can
change
over
time.
They
can.
C
They
can
adapt,
it's
not
a
permanent
fix,
but
also,
we
think
it's
important
in
deciding
if
settlement
can
grow
to
understand
what
the
impact
and
the
harm
to
grow
in
that
settlement
could
be
on
the
wider
principles
that
we
consider.
Mr.
Grundy
also
suggested
that
we
should
apply
the
same
approach
as
quickly
and
apply
scoring
mechanism
to
every
part
of
land
and
again
where's
Goins
mechanisms
have
been
employed.
They
tend
to
be
in
reviewing
the
green
belts
and
we
have
in
the
situation
of
wanting
to
put
the
most
amount
of
detail
into
setting
our
boundaries.
C
Well,
we
could
go
away
and
look
at
scoring
mechanism.
We
explored
the
option
and
found
it
more
difficult
in
New
York,
given
that
the
historic
current
setting
is
the
primary
purpose
that
holds
so
much
weight.
Therefore,
a
scoring
system
has
to
be
weighted
to
give
priority
to
that
purpose,
and
in
addition
to
that,
the
way
that
we
have
chosen
to
appraise
historic
character
and
setting
is
in
relation
to
six
core
principles
that
have
much
more
detailed
granular
data
below
that.
So
it
would
be
a
very
complex
assessment.
C
What
we'd
essentially
have
to
do
is
a
Heritage
impact
appraisal
for
every
parcel
of
land
in
York.
As
this
comes
back
to
the
point,
miss
Worthington
was
making
the
changes
that
happened
around
st
14.
The
reason
why
that
the
coalescence
was
needed
was
because,
in
and
in
in
drawing
the
sight
away
from
the
road
is
because
in
looking
at
the
potential
development,
it's
just
a
parcel
of
land.
It
might
seem
acceptable.
However,
when
we
understand
the
type
of
development
that
could
go
on
that
land,
we
have
to
apply
different
mitigation.
We
have
to
be
adaptable.
C
There
is
a
wee
word
said
generally
as
well.
A
lot
of
the
criticisms
come
from
the
fact
that
people
are
taking
sound
bytes
from
the
document
in
Section
four,
as
my
colleague
mr.
Linus
has
addressed,
people
seem
to
be
adding
that
up
to
understand
that
figure,
seven
sets
out
all
land
that
must
be
kept
permanently
open.
What
figure
seven
actually
does
is
is
that
the
scope
of
the
land
within
the
Greenbelt
and
identify
the
areas
and
the
boundaries
which
need
to
be
addressed.
A
Well
from
my
from
my
understanding,
I
think:
that's
because
you
include
within
figure
seven
the
combined
constraints,
map
things
like
open
space
which
do
go
into
the
city
center
and
I.
Wonder,
and
we're
looking
at
an
assessment
here
in
relation
to
Greenbelt.
So
I
do
I
have
to
say
I.
Do
wonder
what
what
part
open
space
in
the
city
centre
has
to
play
in
such
an
assessment.
C
B
Yes,
clearly,
the
the
broad
approach
to
open
space
can
have
two
emphases.
One
open
space
obviously
can't
affect
any
debate
over
and
where
a
boundary
should
lie,
because
it's
part
of
the
consideration
of
what
lands
needs
to
be
kept
permanently
of
them.
But
it
also
form
part
of
the
consideration
of
areas
important
to
York
special
character
and.
A
As
a
question,
isn't
there
by
keeping
land
permanently
open
for
Greenbelt
reasons
and
keeping
none
permanently
open
for
a
completely
different
reason
altogether?
Yes,
you're,
not
you're,
not
telling
me
that
the
City
Council
was
at
any
stage
seriously,
considering
identifying
green
belt
land
in
the
city
centre.
Are
you.
B
Not
right
in
the
city
centre,
sir
I
think
the
point
was
that
there
were
areas
within
the
green
fingers
that
have
been
referred
to
before
it's
included
open
space.
We
didn't
want
it
being
misunderstood
that
that
was
properly
taken
into
account
as
part
of
the
assessment
but
right
within
the
city
center.
Take
your
point,
sir.
J
Thank
you,
sir.
So
I
think
we've
moved
perhaps
from
the
additional
points
that
mr.
courtier
made,
which
was
your
initial
filter
out
so
sir
I
hope
you'll.
Forgive
me
for
diving
at
this
stage
and
I'm
also
happy
to
adopt,
insofar
as
it
relates
to
Section,
four
or
mr.
Pond,
sir,
had
to
say
in
relation
to
it.
So
I'm
not
gonna.
Add
to
that
mr.
line
so
responded.
J
J
You'll
see
sir,
under
the
section
defining
Greenbelt
boundaries
around
urban
areas.
It
says,
as
detailed
in
section
3,
the
York
Greenbelt
is
setting
theater
boundaries
for
the
first
time.
This
includes
defining
the
inner
edge
of
the
Greenbelt
boundary
where
this
abuts
urban
areas,
which
are
not
of
an
open
character
and
do
not
contribute
to
the
essential
openness
of
the
Greenbelt,
and
if
you
want
any
confirmation
that
that's
what's
happened.
So
if
you
turn
to
the
summary,
which
is
on
page
49
third
paragraph,
the
proposed
detail,
boundaries
around
urban
areas
follow
a
consistent
methodology.
J
I
think
that
means
detailed
boundaries
of
the
inner
boundary
of
the
Greenbelt
defining
the
inner
boundary.
The
main
urban
area
of
your
that's,
the
Greenbelt
in
a
boundary
I,
think
proposed
boundaries
of
the
urban
areas
are
based
on
current
built
development
and
do
not
take
account
for
the
need
to
release
land
stroke
sites
for
their
long-term
permanence
to
the
Greenbelt
issues
and
boundaries
relating
to
exceptional
circumstances
and
the
need
to
release
land
are
presented
in
Section,
seven
and
eight.
J
J
Scrolling
down
or
turning
over
section
7
has
the
phraseology,
exceptional
circumstances,
which
then
becomes
the
test
which
we
talked
about
this
morning,
which
I
want
transgress
so
that
the
first
point
so
is
methodological
II.
This
is
wrong
because
he
doesn't
follow
paragraph
80
and
85
of
MPP
F
80,
for
the
reasons
mr.
Ponte
said
85,
for
the
reason
that
we
said
this
morning
and
those
that
just
articulated
second
point
in
terms
of
his
methodology.
J
J
This
strategic
element
is
not
somehow
background.
The
strategic
element
of
section
4
informs
what
then
takes
place
in
section
5
and
section.
5
then
sets
out
the
local
assessment,
which
then
informs
where
the
boundaries
are
set
within
the
annex,
the
documents
which
I'll
turn
to
in
just
a
moment,
sir.
It
is
wrong
to
say
if
this
was
said
and
I
don't
think
it
was
it's
wrong
to
say
that
the
criticisms,
the
section
for
that
mr.
Ponte
raised
somehow
do
not
infect
what
take
the
plate.
J
A
J
Which
is
within
the
section,
which
is
the
part
of
the
part,
a
criterion
of
the
criterion
for
the
local
assessment,
which
is
protecting
local
historic
assets
in
character.
We've
got
conservation
errors
in
five
point,
four,
seven
and
the
five
point,
four
eight.
Apparently,
in
a
Greenbelt
assessment,
we've
got
the
reference
to
designated
and
non
designated
heritage,
assets,
seven
historic
parks
and
gardens
numerous
designate,
design
landscapes,
twenty
scheduled
monuments
and
fifteen
hundred
listed
buildings
and
the
settings
of
which
also
need
to
be
considered.
J
This
is
not
a
Greenbelt
assessment.
This
is
an
assessment
which
somehow
encompasses
a
number
of
different
areas.
If
the
setting
of
listed
buildings
is
part
and
parcel
of
the
assessment
which
it
appears
to
be,
let
alone
the
setting
of
non
designated
heritage
assets,
this
document
is
just
wrong
and
I'm
picking
that
as
an
example,
but
this
is
replete
with
them
for
all
the
reasons
mr.
Ponte
said
I'm
not
going
to
add
to
those
and
then
circa
can.
A
J
Forty
eight,
the
non
designated
assets
around
york,
of
which
there
must
be
tens
of
thousands.
It
doesn't
do
that,
sir
flagging
up
that
these
are
some
relevance
is
just
not
right.
This
is
not
a
heritage
document
greenbelt
deals
with
broader
brush
spatial
concepts,
about
the
protection
of
the
character,
the
special
character
of
historic
settlements
such
as
york.
It's
not
a
mechanism
to
bring
in
that's
much
more
fine-grained
approach
to
listed
buildings,
and
it's
it's
of
relevance.
J
So
I'm
going
to
take
you
to
annex
three
in
just
a
moment
in
the
way
in
which
this
document
approaches
matters
because,
for
example,
Heslington,
which
is
a
built-up
area
immediately
adjacent
to
built-up
area
of
the
university
campus.
Is
it
included
within
the
Greenbelt,
notwithstanding
that
it
adjoins
the
built-up
area
of
York,
I
think
from
the
notations,
because
it
includes
a
conservation
area
I
think
it's
not
entirely
sure
clear
from
this
documentation.
J
But
the
problem
with
having
a
methodology
which
isn't
the
straight
forward:
let's
look
at
the
pastures
of
land
and
the
periphery
of
the
various
settlements
of
the
district,
and
then
let's
see
what
contribution
they
make
to
Greenbelt
and
let's
see
the
degree
of
contribution,
then,
let's
that
use
that
information
to
feed
into
a
paragraph.
Eighty
five
approach,
the
more
traditional
approach,
the
problem
with
not
going
down
that
route
is
so
you
potentially
over,
complicate
it
and
you
end
up
with
unsound
results.
J
J
J
J
Yeah,
it's
just
trying
to
induce
some
levity
into
this
otherwise
dry
subject.
Mr.
Lyons
apologies
I'll
stick
to
the
dryness.
Where
do
these
things
fittings?
This
flow
diagram
approach,
the
first
and
second
rows,
don't
matter
so,
but
for
the
purpose
of
my
point
here.
If
you
look
at
the
the
next
view,
says:
defining
York's,
Greenbelt,
inner
and
outer
boundaries,
which
relates
to
your
section,
your
question
here,
sir
you'll
see
you
read
across
as
to
which
is
the
bit
in
the
report
and
then,
which
is
the
applicable
annex
and
sir
the
outer
boundary.
J
So
you
read
across
and
then
you
turn
to
annex
2
in
the
outer
boundary.
I
have
no
brief
to
criticize
any
part
of
the
answer:
boundary
inner
boundary,
which
my
clients
are
obviously
very
concerned
about,
so
you'll,
see
that
tells
us
section,
4
and
section
5
of
the
2
bits
which
are
of
relevance
to
sit
together
and
then
annex
three
York
Greenbelt
inner
boundary,
section
descriptions
and
justifications.
J
If
you
will,
sir,
forgive
me
a
list
for
your
for
you
to
consider.
So
if
you
look
at
its
its
section
down,
each
of
the
sites
are
identified
with
a
section
so
section
1,
2,
8
and
then
there's
a
boundary
and
then
it's
numbered
1
to
whatever
is
in
the
boundary.
So
if
you
turn
to
internal
page,
3,
6
4,
you'll,
understand
why
I'm
taking
to
this
page
so
but
I'm,
not
gonna,
say
anything
about
the
University.
J
J
A
J
364
I'm
massively
grateful
to
mr.
Linus,
for
that.
This
is
just
really
telling
you,
sir,
how
to
navigate
this
bit
of
the
documentation
and
you'll
see
from
right
to
left.
You've
got
a
series
of
lines
numbered
which
directly
correspond
to
the
proposed
green
green
belt
in
a
boundary,
and
each
of
those
numbers
are
then
followed
on
with
different
sections,
so
Easter
Grimson,
greenness
embosser,
the
next
page.
J
You
will
see
this
little
red
line,
that
red
line
corresponds
to
the
first
number
and
so
you'll
have
then
a
description
about
local
openness,
permanence
and
then
local
permanence,
which
corresponds
to
the
two
criterion
within
section
five.
So
I'm
going
to
invite
you
if
you
will
at
some
point
to
read
boundary,
eight
to
boundary,
15
what?
Why
am
I
asking
you
to
do
that,
sir.
J
If
you
look
at
the
page,
three
six
four
you'll
see
that
the
green
belts
take.
Some
really
quite
bizarre
turns
in
this
neck
of
the
woods
area,
such
as
area
ten,
where
you've
got
green
belt,
surrounded
on
three
sides
by
bill
development,
the
land
immediately
south
of
boundaries,
13,
14
and
12-
are
actually
built-up
area.
11
goes
into
the
urban
area
itself
and
you'll
see
areas
24
to
21,
so
include
Fulford,
which
which
steps
out
in
as
much
as
the
same
way
that
Heslington
does
in
spatial
terms.
J
J
And
why
is
this
identified
as
being
the
Greenbelt
er,
so
you
can
read
that
four
and
four
and
two
don't
apply
one.
It's
got
access
to
two
or
more
services,
not
least
it's
stuck
in
the
middle
of
the
urban
area
on
its
east
side
and
then
the
swathe
of
land
within
the
green
must
mean
detonators,
open
space
in
the
local
plan.
J
J
J
You
might
have
expected
so
if
the
council
are
taking
the
approach
that
that's
the
right
boundary
to
have
some
analysis
to
doubt
to
identify
white
as
the
land
to
the
south
fulfilled
some
Greenbelt
function,
you
probably
don't
get
it
from
the
text
directly
below,
but
I'm
plucking
these
out.
So
really
as
examples
to
demonstrate.
This
is
a
boundary
exercise.
It
would
seem
not
a
parcel
of
land
exercise
at
the
time.
You
need
to
feed
into
a
paragraph
85
exercise
and
that's
why
it's
flawed.
J
J
You
just
cuz
I
heard
a
whisper
from
the
other
side
of
the
room,
so
can
I
just
make
very
clear
the
white?
Why
is
that?
A
misguided
approach
is
a
misguided
approach,
because
it's
not
a
paragraph
85
approach
and
85
tells
you.
There
are
other
factors
which
feed
into
what
should
take
place,
in
other
words,
including
sustainable
development
requirements
which
comes
to
my
third
point.
J
Third,
point,
sir,
is
that
there
is
a
real
problem
with
the
informations
being
presented
before
you
and
I
am
gonna,
make
mention
the
for
Bob
forbidden
word
now,
and
so
you
have
an
explanation
within
the
text
of
the
addendum
as
to
when
you
get
to
section
7,
where
about
some
of
the
information.
Some
of
the
needs
that
inform
section
7
and
the
site
selection
approach
comes
from
so.
A
J
The
addendum
sir
yeah,
which
paragraph
section
7
sir,
which
deals
with
the
exceptional
circumstances,
2
why
sites
aren't
to
be
released,
and
so
we
have,
from
page
51
onwards,
establishing
the
need
for
development
I,
now
I'm
going
to
keep
this
high
level
and
deal
with
education
needs
in
the
tertiary
sector
generally,
notwithstanding,
there's
not
obvious
reason,
so
you
have
housing
needs
which
is
assessed
by
reference
to
the
SH
la
effectively
from
page
51
onwards.
In
relation
to
universities,
sir,
what's
the
need
for
the
universities?
J
What
has
informed
the
approach
with
the
Garcia
universities
in
this
document,
sir?
You
have
that
from
section
seven
point:
four:
four
onwards:
you
have
a
general
recognition.
We
need
to
ensure
the
facilities.
Are
the
cities,
plural,
further
education
establishments
to
meet
the
requirements
of
modern
education
establishments
over
the
period
7:44,
sir
and
then
75
sir.
J
Second,
third,
third
sentence
of
this
paragraph,
sir,
is
the
continued
development
of
the
university's
West
Indies
campuses
to
support
is
is
consider.
The
University
will
not
be
able
to
continue
to
grow
beyond
2023
without
an
expansion
of
the
existing
campus
East,
and
then
sir
I
could
give
you
a
page
full
of
references
from
the
local
plan
itself
and
which
talks
about
the
importance
of
tertiary
education
and
facilitating
its
growth.
Sir,
but
just
stressing
ss-20
EC,
181
and
edy
33.
J
And
as
you'll
hear
in
part
two
sir
Azen,
when
we
get
to
that,
my
clients
case,
is
that
we
run
out
of
land
by
2023
even
with
the
inadequate
expansion
land.
But
that's
a
matter
we'll
talk
about
in
the
part
2
section,
but
I
do
emphasize,
sir.
That
concern
has
only
heightened
in
the
last
week
with
the
Oxford
Economics
information.
That's
been
put
forward
for
the
reason
additional
documentation
we
put
in,
but
Sir
that's
a
matter
for
next
time.
J
It's
assert.
My
third
point,
therefore,
in
summary,
is
to
do
the
exercise,
that's
necessary
for
paragraph
85.
Don't
think,
whilst
this
housing,
which
is
a
central
concern
of
many
people
in
the
room,
employment
and
education
are
the
central
concerns
of
my
clients
in
relation
to
getting
the
inner
boundary
of
Greenbelt
right,
and
we
have
really
serious
concerns
that
that's
not
been
done
correctly,
which
we
matter
we'll
discuss
it.
The
part
two
session,
sir
I.