►
From YouTube: Local Plan Working Group, 5 December 2016
Description
AGENDA (To view individual agenda items click on the links below)
1. Declarations of Interest 00:02:29
2. Minutes 00:02:47
3. Public Participation 00:03:05
4. City of York Local Plan - Update on Preferred Sites Consultation and Next Steps 00:03:11
5. EPetition: Ownership of Property and Land in York Plans 01:09:28
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=128&MId=10184
B
Its
heart
bus
fight
or
we'll
make
a
stop
welcome
to
speak
of
the
local
plan
working
group
in
terms
of
housekeeping
to
remind
everybody,
if
you
have
mobile
phones
with
you
and
want
to
tweet,
if
you
could
make
sure
that
they
were
on
silent
or
do
not
disturb
we're,
not
expecting
a
fire
alarm.
So
if
fine
I
vant
does
go
off,
the
building
is
on
fire
and
we
leave
to
the
front
and
immediately
other
points
and
I.
Think
everybody
in
here
will
probably
know
where
the
toilets
are.
B
B
B
C
C
Indeed,
they
responded
to
the
consultation
between
july
in
September
during
their
response
indicator
that
they
may
see
remove
sort,
an
intensification
of
military
use
on
the
site
or
they
may
have
wished
to
dispose
of
them
for
residential.
So
it
was
only
on
the
7th
of
November
that
we
actually
got
a
clear
position
from
the
Ministry
of
Defence.
C
We
would
probably
need
to
take
further
public
consultation
on
those
sites,
but
that
technical
work
is
currently
being
done
if
the
sites
were
included.
It's
likely
to
extend
the
look
upon
time
frame
for
its
production
by
round
about
six
months.
It's
a
gang
killed
in
the
report,
and
the
recommendations
suggests
that
this
will
be
subject
to
a
further
report
to
this
group
and
the
executive.
Once
the
position
is
clear,
I
think
it's
worth
saying
that
the
site
sucks
Jen,
saw
and
info
barracks
are
in
themselves
sensitive
sites.
C
The
two
sites,
as
Chancellor
washed
over
green
belts
and
they're
adjacent
to
strengths,
are
common.
Then
forbearance
site
contains
this
to
build
in
institutions
of
conservation
area
and
also
adjacent
to
the
stray.
So
we
need
to
be
careful
in
how
we
consider
them
in
the
technical
work
that
we
do
is
quite
important
in
addition
to
that,
the
report
highlights
that
there's
been
further
projections
from
DCLG
on
household
growth,
which
we
need
to
consider
in
moving
forward
to
the
local
plan.
C
Finally,
the
report
also
gives
an
indication
of
the
consultation
responses
received
in
terms
of
number.
We
got
2309
responses
and
in
paragraph
6
gives
some
of
the
headlines
relating
to
that.
In
a
sense
you
in
those
headlines,
you
see
sort
of
contradict
each
other.
That's
because
some
of
the
views
that
we've
had
obviously
contradict
each
other.
C
What
we've
done
is
we've
released
all
responses
online
and
all
responses
available
for
people
to
look
at
where
the
four
members
of
the
public
personal
information
is
redacted,
where
their
firm
land
owners
and
developers
you
can
see
the
response
in
full.
That's
the
sort
of
a
dope
and
see
in
transparency
in
terms
the
process.
Thank
you
check.
D
C
That
we've
certainly
had
some
discussions
with
DCLG
and
we've
alerted
to
the
fact
that
the
mo
d
sites
have
come
in
they're
aware
of
the
situation
they
their
responses
that
they're
sympathetic
to
that.
But
that's
a
verbal
response.
We
don't
have
anything
in
writing,
but
the
understand
where
we
are
and
I
think
it's
also
worth
noting
that
elsewhere,
other
local
authorities
have
been
taken
to
task
for
not
properly
considering
particularly
brownfield
land
releases
I'm.
C
Some
thinking
about
Bradford,
for
example,
where
the
mo
dee
dee
subs
are
sort
of
intervened
to
make
sure
that
they
properly
consider
brownfield
options.
I.
Think
the
though
we
don't
have
anything,
that's
black
and
white
I
think
within
that
context
of
the
office
of
you
would
be
that
DCLG
is
sympathetic
and
would
give
us
time
to
probably
consider
these
sighs.
D
I
think
the
other
thing
I
was
looking
at
was
really
in
terms
of
us.
On
my
mind,
contemplative
like
their
arm
could
could
because
the
timing
of
the
Psychlos
that
moment
proposed
with
sons
will
being
20
21
and
info
Barris
being
20
31.
But
you
want
to
consider
whether
it
becomes
a
reasonable
alternative
at
the
site.
Should
not
the
uncertainty
of
those
title
and
timing
that
we
have
no
fan
Pam
that
that
pop
them
into
the
bracket
read
an
alternative.
I.
Think.
C
Surly,
this
was
something
that
that
we
discussed
with
amod
when
we
met
with
them.
So
after
the
announcement
on
the
7th
we
sought
the
earliest
meeting
we
possibly
could
and
we
were
posing
similar
sort
of
questions,
particularly
for
the
peroxide
20-30
wrong.
So
well,
you
know,
would
it
actually
start
to
deliver
during
the
plan
period
and
the
feedback
that
we
got
for
them
is
that
they
suggested
that
they
move
very
very
quickly
and
they
seek
planning
consent
before
they
actually
leave
the
science.
C
So
the
idea
is
that
as
soon
as
the
military
person
I'll
move
out,
they
can
almost
start
to
develop
those
sites.
So
in
that
sense
both
the
strengths
or
sign
up
basis,
both
the
strengths
or
sites
and
the
info
bout
sites,
would
make
a
difference
during
the
Local
Plan
time
frame
because,
of
course,
with
the
Greenbelt
boundaries
and
look
upon
tyne,
for
instance,
all
about
twenty
thirty
seven.
D
So
final
follow-up
for
me
I.
Can
your
report
on
the
mo
d
site
not
be
taken
in
conjunction
with
further
progress
and
Local
Plan?
Considering
the
voiding
told
local
plan
came
to
be
a
live
document
that
can
be
amended
wanted
in
a
doctor
the
first
time
ago.
Can
you
not
proceed
with
local
plan
current
state
and
then
make
amendment
her
latest
date?
I
think.
C
The
question
is
whether
or
not
we
would
include
these
sites
as
reasonable
services
within
the
local
plan
if
we
include
them
as
reasonable
Turner
or
concerns
wearisome
alternatives
and
putting
through
our
process-
and
we
actually
attach
a
figure
to
them-
they'd
have
to
be
embedded
in
the
local
plan.
Do
the
option
will
be
to
treat
them
as
though
they
were
windfalls,
for
example?
In
that
sense,
you
wouldn't
actually
use
the
figures
at
all.
C
He
would
just
be
part
of
that
general
windfall
allowance,
but
given
that
the
sort
of
emphasis
on
trying
to
demonstrate
that
you've,
exhausted
brownfield
options
now
sells
before
looking
at
sites
in
the
generally
extent
of
the
greenbelt,
given
that
Bradford
position
that
that
I
mentioned,
I
think
that,
although
we
could
go
down
that
road
in
my
suggestion,
is
that
we
try
to
actually
quantify
what
these
sites
would
give
us.
We
do
a
proper
technical
evaluation
of
these
sites
and,
if
possible
we
build
and
if
they're
going
to
deliver.
C
These
will
be
during
the
block
on
time
frame
of
the
Greenville
time
frame.
We
actually
build
them
into
our
portfolio
of
science.
Another
reason
for
that
is
that
if
we
were
able
to
do
that,
we
can
properly
engage
with
the
communities
that
live
in
those
areas
about
those
sites
or
the
understand
how
they
would
work
in
infrastructure
terms.
C
We
can
build
them
into
the
infrastructure
to
live,
we
plan,
we
can
model
the
transport
implications
and
everything,
so
we
can
take
account
of
them,
not
just
as
a
simple
number,
but
we
can
take
account
them
in
the
fullest
sense
of
the
implications
for
communities
and
strengths.
Allure
fulford
vote,
whoever
it
might
be,
which
is
I,
think
preferable.
E
E
Yeah,
exactly
and
in
terms
of
the
stressful
development.
I
assume
that
any
assessment
is
going
to
take
account
of
the
impact
it
would
have
on
transport
facilities,
the
northern
ring
road
in
particular,
and
whether
it
will
be
if
there
is
going
to
be
more
development
there.
Whether
will
should
be
less
developed
in
other
areas
that
feed
into
the
northern
ring
road,
as
those
developments
are
going
to
have
a
big
impact
anyway,
and
would
it
be
sensible
to
put
more
stress
on
that
particular
area
of
transport
in.
C
C
But,
yes,
it's
important
to
understand
what
it
means
in
infrastructure
terms,
not
just
transport
infrastructure,
but
things
like
the
skills
and
and
everything
else
in
terms
of
things
like
the
the
outer
ring
road
and
again
we're
talking
to
colleagues
who
work
in
in
transport
and
we're
looking
to
see
how
we
can
build
in
the
site
into
the
transport
model.
So
we
can
properly
understand
what
they
mean
alongside
the
any
other
sites
that
would
go
forward
in
the
plan,
so
I
think
that's
both
important
and
uncritical.
F
I
would
ask
a
couple
questions
about
the
population
projections
household
projections
which
ever
it
is
that
you
refer
to,
would
I,
be
right
in
thinking
that
they
see
it
doesn't
actually
indicate
in
here
whether
they're
indicating
a
higher
number
required
or
a
lower
number,
a
higher
number
or
a
lower
number
in
terms
of
what's
actually
required.
Was
it
more
or
less
the
same,
in
which
case
why
we're
concerned
about
it?
Okay,.
C
I
think
that
the
the
household
projectionist
came
out
in
July,
which
meant
that
they
came
out
too
late
for
us
to
incorporate
them
into
the
preferred
science
document.
So
those
the
starting
point
in
those
projections
is
higher,
but
we're
looking
at
them
and
trying
to
understand
what
they
mean,
particular
from
the
point
of
view
of
things
like
student
housing,
student
elements,
how
that
works,
and
so
on
and
I
think
there's
further
word.
That
needs
to
be
done
so
Jill
her
doing
that
work.
A
little
reports
it
back
now.
C
The
other
thing
were
looking
at
these
things,
that
house
or
composition
as
well,
seeking
to
understand
what
that
means
and
we're.
Looking
at
the
objective
assessments
of
housing
needs
have
been
put
forward
by
consultants
and
developers.
So
in
terms
of
the
figure
we
will
come
to
I
don't
know,
I'll
I
can
really
say.
Is
that
gel
hearn?
C
F
C
Clarity
I'm
saying
that
the
starting
point
for
those
projections
is
higher
than
the
starting
point
that
we
used
during
the
preferred
sites-
consultation,
but
also
for
clarity,
I'm,
saying
that
I
want
to
see
what
jail
her
and
have
to
say
about
that,
particularly
from
the
point
of
view,
things
out:
student
numbers
and
student
retentions
and
household
composition
before
I
start
coming
back
to
look
I'm
working
group
or
executive,
saying
this
is
what
these
housing
numbers
actually
mean.
So.
F
Can
I
just
clarify
is:
is
this
a
different
type
of
analysis
from
the
one
which
we
were
working
on
more
from
a
twenty-fifth
of
May?
Because
in
your
report
you
saying
basically
the
preferred
options
was
based
on
something
some
statistics
released
from
the
twenty
fifth
of
may
and
then
some
six
weeks
later,
there's
some
more
figures
and
we
have
to
start
all
over
again
and
so
the
question
you
see
where
I'm
leading
what?
How
often
do
you
have
to
keep
redoing
your
calculations,
because
the
government's
slightly
different
calculations
from
the
last
one
you
it.
C
Seems
odd,
we
have
the
original
household
projections.
Then
in
May
the
government
produce
new
population
projections.
We
try
to
take
account
of
the
population
projections
to
sense
test.
The
original
household
projections
that
a
new
set
of
house
or
projections
came
out
from
government
that
again
changed
that
position.
So
in
that
sense
there
is.
C
There
is
a
need
to
keep
figures
up
to
date
and
there's
a
needs
building
flexibility
into
any
plan
approach
that
you
would
go
through,
but
I
think
it's
also
equally
important
to
interrogate
the
figures
that
you
get
to
make
sure
that
they
make
sense
for
your
particular
locality,
given
that
there
is
a
an
element
of
flux.
So
that's
what
y'all
gonna
do
in
there
looking
at
those
figures
and
trying
to
make
sense
of
them
for
York
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
a
very
good
session.
F
So
my
sort
of
follow-on
question
from
that
is:
we've
got
a
slight
variance
upwards
in
terms
of
the
numbers
of
households
needed
and
we
got
slight
increase
in
the
available
sites
potentially
for
housing.
So
why
can't
we
just
get
on
with
getting
the
plan
approved
and
rather
than
chilly
shelling
around
yet
again,
okay,.
E
F
C
I
think
I
think
the
50
is
to
get
there.
We
want
to
try
and
get
it
right,
ee,
but
so,
but
without
taking
too
much
longer,
I
think
in
in
in
terms
of
your
point,
it
may
be
that
the
figure
that
comes
back
is
higher
and
I
simply
don't
know
yet
because
they're
doing
that
that
work,
but
we
will
see
I,
mean
members,
have
need
an
opportunity
to
interrogate
it
and
feel
that
it's
the
right
figure
for
York.
C
So
that
has
to
be
done
if
that
figure
is
higher
and
if
the
mo
deal
and
gives
us
an
extra
element
to
supply.
Well,
that
might
help
deal
with
that
issue.
But
again
we
don't
know
so
we
know
we're
looking
into
the
ether
trans
guess
what
would
happen
if
the
Omo
deal
out
sites,
though,
are
to
be
included
within
the
local
plan
because
their
new
science,
they
have
to
be
subject
to
the
same
technical,
vigorous
work
that
was
done
with
all
the
other
sites.
C
That
has
to
be
done,
but
in
addition
to
that,
there
has
to
be
an
opportunity
for
people
to
give
their
views
on
them
before
we
get
to
the
publication
stage.
Look
upon
that
final
consultation
stage,
because
the
final
consultation,
the
publication
stage,
is
really
about
people
raising
issues
that
then
have
to
be
considered
at
examination.
C
It's
not
really
about
the
council
responding.
So
it's
about
letting
people
have
their
say,
I
suppose
we
have
to
show
we've
been
through
that
process.
So
that
would
be
what
would
take
that
extra
six
months?
It
would
be
about
doing
the
technical
work
on
those
sites.
It
would
be
about
consulting
on
those
sites.
C
I
mean
it's
important
as
well
that
we
take
legal
advice
on
the
form
of
consultations,
whether
or
not
we
could
present
them
a
single
sites
and
consultation
or
whether
we
have
to
show
how
the
effect
their
overall
portfolio
sites
is
something
we
would
need
to
to
look
at
so
counselor
all
that's
the
question.
Both
these
sites
were
able
to
affect
other
sites.
Well
it
will,
it
might
do
it
may
be
that
we
have
to
allow
people
to
to
see
that
and
see
how
that
works.
So
again,
that
will
be
something
that
we
need.
F
C
You
know,
we'd
ask
the
mo
d,
as
I
said
before,
and
they
wouldn't
commit,
so
we
couldn't
include
them
in
the
plan.
The
consultation
we
had,
they
wouldn't
a
solely
commit
to
disposal
the
science.
So
it's
something
that's
quite
significant
and
also
these
sites,
though
they
have
green
field
elements,
they
have
substantial
brownfield
elements
as
well.
So,
given
that
the
overall
approach
of
this
plan
is
about
looking
at
brown
field
before
greenfield
and
therefore
implement
trying
to
look
at
the
impact
and
open
and
valid
York,
it
seems
very,
very
sensible
that
that
probably
considered.
B
D
C
It's
difficult,
I
think
it's
more
that
there's
a
sort
of
twofold
element
to
it.
I
think
the
first
element
is
that,
basically,
you
want
to
be
showing
that
you
considered
your
brownfield
options
properly
before
looking
at
Greenfield
options,
particularly
when
they
relates
the
general
extent
of
the
greenbelt.
So
that's
an
element
and
I
think
it
will
be
expected
that
we'd
work
through
that
that
process
in
terms
of
the
the
soundness
issue,
sort
of
need
again
supply
I
think
we
just
need
to.
C
We
need
people
need
to
demonstrate
that
we've
got
an
appropriate
level
of
supply
and
we
need
to
have
a
degree
of
flexibility
in
that
supply
as
well.
That's
not
necessarily
about
the
mo
deal
and
I
think
the
risk
is
more
that
we
have
these
options
to
look
at
and
we
have
to
at
least
show
that
we've
considered
them
unconsidered
them
properly
and
if
they
then
form
reasonable
alternatives,
we
have
to
then
feed
them
into
our
our
process,
but
it's
not
an
exact
science
I
couldn't
figure
on
it.
C
All
I
would
say,
though,
is
that
at
1,600
you're
looking
at
sites
that
could
prevent
potentially
provide
two
years
supply,
which
is
significant
and
in
addition
to
that,
if
any
other
m.o.d
sort
of
property
leases
are
put
into
the
mix
and
I
can't
comment
on
that.
Yet,
but
I,
that's
something
that
we're
pursuing.
There
may
be
further
land
that
we
need
to
think
about.
I
just
feel
these
options
that
we
need
to
to
explore.
B
G
A
light
Thank
You
chair
paragraph
18
says
that
the
MOT
have
indicated
across
the
three
sides.
There
could
be
a
residential
capacity
of
up
to
sixteen
hundred
ninety
five
houses
in
the
council's
meeting
with
the
emoji.
Did
they
give
a
breakdown
across
the
three
different
sites
as
to
how
many
houses
each
might
hold,
because,
obviously,
depending
on
which
site
they
fall
in,
have
an
impact
on
deliverability
in
terms
of
what
stage
of
the
plan
they
could
be
built
out?
Okay,.
C
H
Yeah
thnkx
chair
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
houses
that
are
currently
on
on
those
sites,
because
there
are
certainly
family
housing
at
strengths.
All
and
there's
family
housing
info.
But
some
of
it
looks
as
if
it's
not
it's
adjacent
rather
than
I
are
those
family
houses
that
they're
currently
counted.
H
When
we
count
out
up
how
many
houses
we
have
and
or
not
so
if
they
are,
then,
if
the
service
families
move,
which
presumably
they
will
do,
we
then
immediately
you
get
50
houses
added
to
our
housing
stock,
even
if
they're
going
to
knock
some
of
them
down
which
they
might
to
redevelop
the
site,
but
the
houses
in
Andy's
ward
off.
Is
it
Broadway,
they're,
quite
modern?
You
wouldn't
be
removing
those.
E
C
Think
our
view
at
the
moment-
and
this
is
something
that
we
need
to
do
further
work
on-
is
that
demo
d
houses
where
r
is
given
over
to
military
personnel
almost
institutionalized
clusters
institutionalized
housing.
So
therefore,
if
they're
not
needed
anymore,
they
can
then
come
into
the
supply,
so
we're
interested
to
to
explore
that
so
that
the
snobby,
oh,
that
you
described,
is
a
position
that
we
could
find
ourselves
in,
and
it
requires
just
a
little
bit
of
further
work
and
we're
also
seeking
clarification
for
what
what
would
actually
happen.
I
Catch
the
car,
Thank
You,
chair
I,
just
want
to
pick
up
on
the
sort
of
line
of
questioning
that
councillor
Barnes
and
council
to
go
on
followed
in
paragraph
14.
It
talks
about,
in
addition,
/
10,
alternative,
objective
reports
produced
by
consult,
or
somebody
knows,
developers,
etc.
How
can
ten
alternatives
be
objective
and
what
will
what
weight
will
be
given
to
the
various
alternatives
and
in
the
end
of
this,
but
at
the
end
of
this
process,
which
will
turn
out
to
be
the
most
objective
one
of
the
developers
or
the
council's?
Please
I.
C
Think
that
when
we
submit
look
plan
for
examination,
we
have
to
believe
that
our
assessment
of
housing
need
for
York
is
the
correct
assessment
which
properly
factors
in
those
considerations
that
we
need.
Now
we
may
be
helped
by
the
potential
planning
a
housing
white
paper,
which
is
that
I
think
is
like
it's
about
in
the
new
year,
which
may
standardized
methodologies
and
approaches
as
something
to
to
look
at.
I
C
A
Jay
two
questions
first,
would
to
be
any
extra
owners
honest
to
look
at
these
sites,
given
the
potential
Lando
will
give
him
the
landowner.
In
other
words,
what
the
government
expect
us
to
look
at
it
more
favorably,
because
they
are
the
government
and
you
give
him
on
the
record
or
an
off-the-record
answer.
You
know.
C
The
city
was
a
meeting.
It's
not
really
after
that,
I
can't
listen,
be
quite
difficult,
don't
think
that
it
was
and
I
think
that
really
we
should
be
treating
all
sites
equally,
but
I
think
the
fact
that
the
meid
have
made
such
a
public
statement
of
intent
gives
a
degree
of
certainty
that
you
perhaps
don't
always
get
with
with
other
science.
My.
A
Second
question
is
opposite
of
the
two
sites:
if
we
view
stencil
as
one
and
which
do
you
think,
there's
more
work
to
change
be
done
on,
because
I
would
view
in
file
as
quite
a
bit
more
straightforward,
given
that
the
lack
of
the
wash
they
were
green
belt
and
also
if
we
look
at
issues
like
traffic,
then
on
my
very
rough
Tata
I'm
sure
you
doing
it
in
more
detail,
I,
don't
think
this
will
probably
actually
be
a
reduction
in
traffic
flows.
If
we
have
housing
there,
I.
C
Understand
why
you
would
say
that
I
mean
I'm.
Conscious,
though
the
info
box
is
in
terms
of
the
MRD
disposal
is
a
later
is
a
later
side.
I
think
all
training
very,
very
careful
work
with
of
different
reasons.
So
clearly
the
the
fulford
Road
corridor
hazards
transport
issues.
It
needs
to
be
properly
considered
the
fact
that
it's
a
conservation
area
there's
listed
buildings
as
buildings.
You
perhaps
want
to
retain
on
there
more
given
their
the
ager
in
everything
else.
Now
it
affects
the
character
of
York
is
important.
C
The
fact
it
backs
up
onto
warm
get
strays.
Something
has
to
be
very,
very
carefully
considered,
so
it's
britt
said
more
substantially.
Brownfield
sites
understand
that,
in
terms
of
the
two
sites
as
chance
or
understanding
how
they
fit
in
with
the
right
of
infrastructure
is
fairly
critical
and
clearly
the
proximity
to
the
triple
SI
and
ecological
issues,
habitats.
J
J
C
I
think
what
I
was
saying
like
a
putz
didn't
pretty
as
clearly
as
I
might
and
I.
Think
I
was
saying
that
the
starting
point
with
those
figures
is
higher
than
the
previous
starting
point,
but
I
think
that
we
then
need
to
understand
why
we
need
to
understand
issues
such
as
student,
housing
element,
Sweeney's
and
things
like
house
or
composition
and
size.
We
need
to
film
stone
with
those
figures
have
come
from,
and
then
we
need
to
come
to
that
figure.
That
we
believe
is
the
right
figure,
4
York,
so
it
doesn't
suggest
acceptance.
C
C
Think
that
the
figure
is
roundabout
889
is
a
sort
of
starting
point
on
it,
but
I
would
handle
up
with
caution
in
a
sense
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
that
should
be
the
figure-four
jörg
I'm,
suggesting
that
we
need
to
take
that
and
include
that
in
the
word
that
gel
turn
are
doing
Flores
and
they
need
to
consider
it.
And
then
we
need
to
report
back
and
see
whether
it's
right
so
I'm
very
careful
about
what
I
say
really,
because
I
think
that
there's
a
piece
of
work
that
needs
to
be
done.
C
We're
actually
paying
somebody
to
do
that
piece
of
work
and
we're
paying
them
to
look
at
that
in
interrogator.
And
then
we
will
report
that
back
openly
and
transparently.
So
we
can
challenge
it
and
see
whether
it's,
whether
it's
correct
now,
I
think
that
members
of
this
group
will
have
a
range
of
different
questions
on
that
and
there
issues
that
they
would
want
to
explore
with
those
consultants.
So
I
can't
really
say
much
more
on
that
at
the
moment
other
than
that
is
working
progress.
But
members
will
have
a
chance
to
interrogate
it.
C
C
It's
it's
difficult
to
to
judge
because
I
don't
know,
they've,
actually
didn't
it
anywhere
in
the
fullest
sense,
I
think
in
reality,
what
they
would
do
is
they
would
put
a
DCLG
team
into
your
local
authority
and
they
were
put
it
in
surcharge
local
authority
for
the
work
of
that.
That
scene,
though,
how
that
would
work
in
practice
is
difficult,
because
that
team
would
still
have
to
meet
the
requirements
of
statute
and
regulations,
so
they
would
still
have
to
do
the
consultation.
They
would
still
have
to
go
through
public
inquiry
and
everything
else.
C
So
the
initial
financial
element
would
be
more
about
paying
for
their
stuff
to
do
that.
The
work,
but
it
I,
don't
know
any
way
that
they've
done
it
and
I
think
as
well.
The
point
I
made
before
is
that
detailed.
You
are
aware
of
the
mo
deal
and
release
they
aware
of
the
position
that
York
same
feel
conscious
of
things
that
have
happened
elsewhere.
That
I
mentioned
so
I.
Don't
see
that
as
an
immediate
threat,
but
it
would
be
in
that
it
would
be
in
that
sense,.
B
D
To
avoid
intimacy,
we
never
hearing
impaired
person
why
I
remembered
Lee
that
I'ma
go
change
topic
to
your
consultation
response.
If
I
may
I
read
the
media
report
about
North
Laurel
County
Council's
respond
to
the
consultation,
or
rather
the
confusion
over
which
response
they
put
him.
Now
I
only
have
what
I
read
in
the
media
anniversaire.
I
can
make
conjecture
about
whether
we
just
didn't
like
their
first
respond
to
license
the
second
respond.
Sir,
could
you
talk
us
through
the
poster
of
why
we
ended
every
two
different
responses?
I
think.
C
I
don't
think
it
was
well,
I
don't
think
was
we
didn't
like
it?
I
think
we
thought
it
was
was
incorrect,
so
they
put
initial
response
in
and
the
response
suggested
that
the
plan
wasn't
ambitious
enough.
They
didn't
have
enough
flexibility,
it
should
include
safeguarded
land.
That
was
the
general
thrust
of
what
was
said,
and
we
felt,
though,
that
there
was
inaccuracies
in
it
and
they
didn't
properly
understand
that
we
don't
an
objective
assessment:
housing
leader,
Naresh
Mardan.
C
We
had
a
portfolio
of
sites
that
met
that
we
had
an
employment
land
projections
that
fitted
with
the
REM
that
the
housing
and
employment
fitted
together
the
sufficient
land
in
it
we
met
with
them.
We
talked
them
through
the
approach.
We
talked
them
through
the
evidence
that
we
had
and
they
then
submitted
a
further
response
and
been
more
satisfied
with
the
answers
that
we
would
give
him
and
asked
us
to
ensure
the
first
response
that
they
put
forward.
C
Predictably,
is
not
more
complicated
than
than
that
and
the
sorts
of
points
that
I've
made
the
sorts
of
points
that
have
picked
up
in
I
think
it's
paragraph
six.
So
there
wasn't
anything
that
was
over
in
above
you
know,
it's
not
about
know
the
auction,
but
the
points
generally
made
about.
Maybe
you
should
look
at
higher
levels
of
development
of
sorts
of
issues.
B
A
Stewart,
the
apologies
councillor
Barnes
hats
on
quite
well
to
the
consultation,
so
I'm
gonna
go
backwards,
but
it's
just.
We've
all
got
this
letter
from
a
Jennifer
Hubbard,
which
in
nutshell,
says
we
should
just
tag
on
the
m.o.d
sites
as
additional
windfall,
so
I
assume
as
part
of
it
she
wants
to
you
know
just
have:
we've
got
the
current
win
for
figure,
making
a
lot
lot
bigger
and
not
looking
to
these
in
detail.
We've
discussed
this
before.
A
C
I've
mentioned
before
about
the
need
to
properly
consider
these
sites
the
infrastructure
implications,
everything
else.
So
that's
the
first
point
second
point
is
that
by
including
the
planet
that
was
proper
consultation
with
communities
about
these
sites
and
everything
else,
which
is
obviously
a
useful
thing
to
do.
C
But,
thirdly,
as
well
is
that
windfall
allowances
that
generally
for
the
patterns
have
been
been
averages
butts
over
the
last
10
years,
projected
forward
for
different
categories
of
science,
so
it'd
be
quite
difficult,
just
simply
to
up
the
windfall
allowance
by
1600,
because
they're
no
longer
windfalls,
you
know
about
them,
so
it
almost
seems
a
little
bit
perverse.
So
if
they
were
to
be
included
as
windfalls,
they
would
simply
be
outside
the
process.
They
would
be
almost
be
additional
flexibility,
but
we
wouldn't
take
account
of
them
within
the
figures.
H
J
H
Well,
another
inspectors
audios
rogue
as
well,
so
there
we
are,
but
I
do
think
that
this
local
I've
SAT
around
this
table
longer
than
anybody
else
longer
than
Martin,
even
III,
think
I.
Most
of
anybody
would
like
to
see
this
local
plan
finally
approved,
but
I
don't
think
expecting
somebody
else
to
come
in
and
do
it
for
us
is
way
forward.
J
J
Technical
officer
group:
that's
going
to
consider
what
developers
have
put
forward
to
you.
It's
then
going
to
following
the
discussions
feedback
to
the
developers
and
the
landowners
so
you're
in
discussions
with
the
developers
and
the
landowners
and
officers
and
officers,
and
only
then
when
you've
decided
what
you're
going
to
include
a
members
going
to
be
involved.
Is
there
any
discussions
with
the
local
communities?
Are
the
local
members
before
you
met
the
decision,
or
is
it
totally
decided
between
officers
and
developers?
I.
C
We
put
that
technical
information
to
the
groups,
so
you
remember
that
when
we
looked
at
sites
previously,
we
have
substantial
pieces
of
evidence
that
contain
all
the
technical
work.
That's
being
done.
That
summarizes
the
technical
work
on
sites,
so
that
members
can
look
at
that
and
then
decide
whether
or
not
they
would
agree
with
an
officer
recommendation.
B
And
I
think
if
you're
going
to
quote
paragraph
11
capsule
water
is
helpful.
To
quote
the
whole
paragraph,
a
lot
miss
out
the
key
bit
of
the
end,
which
does
says
specifically
to
request
any
additional
technical
evidence
required.
That's
what
the
feedback
to
developers
about,
and
it's
a
little
disingenuous
to
completely
taken
out
of
context.
Are
there
any
further
questions
I'll
bid
to
debate
any
casual
Williams
has
waited
diligently.
I
shall
take
you
first.
I
think
I
did
watch
the
magnificent
seven
last
night.
I
think
you
were
slightly
faster
than
council
of
you.
K
Haven't
seen
a
magnificent
of
74
years
to
a
chair
that
city,
it
strike
two
pressing
I
think
we
should
say
thank
you
to
the
officers
for
the
continuing
sterling
work
that
they're
doing
on
this
and
Martin,
as
always,
is
demonstrating
what
a
fantastic
advocate
years
for
the
plan
and
the
process
I
would
take
issue.
One
tiny
thing
that
he
said,
which
was
that
when
he
said
that,
because
the
Yemeni
have
been
so
strong
in
there
in
a
case
in
the
public
that
that
means
we
could
have
some
confidence
around
it.
K
It
does
give
me
quite
a
concern
that
we
could
potentially
be
delaying
the
plan
on
the
basis
of
that,
because
it
does
strike
me.
We
have
to
whittle
Hobson's
choice
here,
there's
two
potential
ways
in
which
we
could
fail
with
the
government.
We
could
fail
because
we
haven't
considered
them
properly
and
treat
them
as
win
four,
and
they
then
consider
as
the
Bradford
model
has
been
set
out.
We
would
would
end
up
having
to
scratch
our
heads
and
think
again
or
we
could
fail,
because
we
missed
the
deadline
and
end
up
having
a
government
intervention.
K
So
there's
a
judgment
to
be
made
about
which
one
are
we
more
concerned
about.
The
judgment
is
being
proposed
here
is
that
we
should
be
more
concerned
about
not
having
properly
considered
those
sites
and
take
the
risk
that
we're
going
to
miss
the
deadline.
I
would
like
to
suggest
that's
the
wrong
judgment,
because
actually
I
think
the
bigger
risk
in
terms
of
the
overall
situation
with
the
plan
is
around
it.
Government
intervention,
because
I
totally
agree
emphatically
agree
with
what
counts
on
the
Reid
said
this
should
about
local
democracy.
K
K
I
think
is
a
more
grave
concern,
because
do
you
know
what
I
suspect
there
will
be
far
higher
housing
projections
if
the
government
have
a
decision
and
the
site
allocations
are
going
to
be
far
less
sympathetic
to
your
presidents
if
it's
taken
by
government
officials,
because
their
only
interest
is
going
to
be
driving
up
the
housing
needs,
because
that's
the
only
thing
they're
going
to
care
about
in
that
process
now,
I
personally
think
we
need.
We
have
a
high
demand
for
housing
in
the
city.
K
I
fought
an
election
and
lost
on
that
basis,
but
I
strongly
and
still
believe
that
point,
but
it
should
be
what
the
site
should
be
defined
by
local
people
and
should
be
voted
for
by
councillors.
Who
are
the
elected
representatives
of
those
people?
So
I
have
a
big
concern
about
this,
and
I
would
like
to
hear
the
views
of
other
members
around
here,
because
I'm
at
the
moment,
not
in
the
mood
to
vote
for
it.
H
Thanks,
chair,
yeah,
I,
think
I.
Think
councilman's
is
right
where
we're
bit
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
Part
of
me
thinks
yeah
great.
We
got
this
wonderful
windfall
opportunity,
but
the
other
half
thinks
but
actually
they're
big
sites
with
all
sorts
of
issues.
They're,
not
just
somebody's
shutter
factory,
sort
of
sight
that
clearly
needs
you
know
the
site,
but
the
very
least
the
site
down
Duriez
identified
so
I
think
we
would
have
difficulty
just
tacking
them
on
the
end
and
pretending
that
we
kind
of
didn't
know
about
them.
H
Kind
of
dates,
then
that
put
that
would
put
us
in
a
very
difficult
situation
and
I
I
actually
I
think
that
if
we
and
certainly
take
what
counts
oral
said,
that
it'd
be
nice
to
have
something
in
writing
to
say
that
we
wouldn't
be
penalized,
but
actually
I
I
would
go
the
opposite
way
and
and
and
do
the
work
that
we
need
to
do
on
these
sites.
Actually,
looking
at
the
recommendations,
it
doesn't
actually
talk
about.
H
It's
asking
for
a
number
of
further
reports,
all
of
which
we
kind
of
need
to
do
anyway
within
the
time
frame,
so
that
the
officers
aren't
asking
for
six
months.
They
might
be
saying
suggesting
that
they're,
not
as
the
asking
for
a
time
frame
so
I.
I
would
say
that
we
military
just
ran
produced
report,
highlighting
implications,
business
survive
handsome
and
within
the
local
plan.
But
yes,
but
we're
doing
that
report
in
in
conjunction
with
all
the
other
reports.
H
If,
while
they're
doing
that,
a
report,
the
mo
dee
come
out
and
say
yes
or
no
we're
selling
it
next
week
or
we're
not
selling
it
for
another
15
years,
we'll
have
done
that
work.
Won't
we
I
think
we
can
do
that.
We
need
to
do
to
work,
but
what
what
Counsell
Williams
is
concerned
about
is
adding
time
on
before
we
get
to
the
inspector.
But
I
read
these
as
saying
we
need
to
do
all
this
work
anyway,
but
working
still
working
towards
the
inspection
date
that
we
were
looking
for,
but
we
might
not
make.
H
A
But
as
counsel
reader
said
it's
not
about
adding
some
magical
delay
on
to
the
process,
it's
about
work
there
has
to
be
done,
it
would
have
to
be
take
longer
and
but
I
would
very
much
be
at
the
view
of
John
Maynard
Keynes,
who
I
frequently
like
to
quote:
that's
when
the
circumstances
change,
I
change.
To
my
mind,
what
do
you
do,
sir,
and
it's
very
disappointing
I-
think
the
counselor
Levine
made
it
into
the
press
with
his
comments
on
what
we
should
or
shouldn't
do,
but
hasn't
actually
made
it.
A
This
meeting
so
I'm
struggling
to
see
what
the
labor
alternative
is
to
this
and
I'll
be
very
happy
to
proceed
with
the
recommendations
which
I
think
give
due
consideration.
The
changing
landscape
of
emod,
land
and
I
think
that
is
what
we
have
to
do,
because
I
don't
take
the
view.
The
government's
can
all
of
a
sudden
intervene
on
what,
at
the
end
of
day,
is,
if
anything,
a
delay
of
their
causing.
B
E
Just
to
reiterate
what
I
said
before,
if
we
and
I
didn't
know
the
numbers
at
that
time,
I
don't
think
if
there
are
800
more
properties
growing
in
strength.
So
that's
effectively
on
to
the
non
ring
road
I
think
we
should
be
looking
very
carefully
at
the
sites
in
that
area
that
affect
the
northern
ring
road.
Looking
around
I
think
I'm,
the
only
one
who
lives
near
the
northern
ring
road,
so
I
know
on
a
daily
basis.
What
it's
like
and
for
those
who
David
was
on
the
site
visits.
E
Last
week
the
bus
that
was
going
to
assign
visit
in
Huntington
went
to
the
Ring
Road
and
decided
it
couldn't
get
along
and
came
back
through
the
city
center,
so
that
is
an
indica
siz
half
past
eleven
in
the
morning.
That's
an
indication
of
what
the
ring
road
is
like
on
a
regular
basis.
So
if
we're
going
to
put
800
more
houses
there,
we
need
to
carefully
assess
the
impact
of
that
and
whether
other
sites
can
be
taken
out
as
a
recompense
for
those
eight
hundred
houses
going
there.
B
D
F
F
At
800,
more
houses
on
fuller
road-
that's
in
addition
to
the
655
which
in
the
process
the
building
at
Germany
back
and
as
many
people
be
aware.
Unfortunately,
there
was
a
an
accident
this
morning
on
Fort
Hood
road
had
closed
it
and
it
caused
chaos
around
the
whole
of
the
city.
Because
of
part
of
that
one
road
being
closed,
so
you
know
for
a
traffic
implications.
Whenever
we
put
this
housing
I
do
think
it's
really
important.
We
look
at
that.
F
Having
said
that,
I
do
share
councillor
Williams
concerned
that
we
seem
to
be
unable
to
actually
agree
on
moving
forward
and,
as
we
do
know
from
long
history,
you
know
I
mean
some
of
us
around
the
table
of
not
being
counselors
as
long
as
others,
but
you
know
we
have
had
a
history,
at
least
over
the
last
decade
of
getting
too
close
to
the
final
hurdle
government
moves
the
goalposts
and
tells
us
to
do
everything
a
different
way.
So
I
would
very
much
want
to
see
the
process
concluded
and
actually
get
plan
in
place.
D
I've
are
being
on
the
tape
as
long
as
some
counters,
but
I
do
feel,
like
I've
been
around
the
block
quite
a
few
times
on
this
very
I'm,
not
contributing
today,
because
I
do
you
need
a
point
of
clarification
is
based
on
what
counselor
read
was
saying
about
the
ambiguity
of
what
the
delay
actually
is
because
she's,
better
questions
in
my
mind,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we
had
been
aiming
for
adoption
by
full
council
by
early
spring
next
year.
So
can
you
clarify
over
by
undertaking
these
recommendations?
C
But
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
see
if
I
may
clarify
that
the
recommendations,
the
recommitted
council,
we
just
correct
the
recommendations,
say
that
we
do
a
further
report.
When
popular
had
a
chance
to
look
at
these
sites,
then
we
can
actually
quantify
and
any
delay
or
extension
to
the
the
actual
look
plan
process.
So
the
minute
the
amount
of
information
we
have
isn't
enough
for
us
to
actually
say
yes,
we
would
definitely
do
it.
C
This
is
a
way
that
we
were
do
it
so
I
think
that's
the
first
point
that
some
see
relevant
to
the
question
that
you
asked
and
in
terms
of
the
the
local
plan,
the
the
LDS
shows
that
will
have
an
adopted
local
plan
by
render
by
June
cows
than
18.
What
we're
saying
is
that
if
we
were
to
build
these
sites
into
the
plan,
consult
on
them
and
do
the
technique
work
necessary,
it
would
add
six
months
into
that
process.
J
G
For
a
point
of
clarification,
I
can
understand
councils
around
this
table
wanting
I'm
very
much
one
of
them
to
see
this
plan
progressing
and
get
to
a
point
of
submission.
What
I
can't
quite
get
my
head
around
is
it's
the
point
that
Counsell
Williams
was
making
I
should
counselor
to
go
on
as
a
counter
proposal
to
this
recommendation.
But
what
are
we
actually
suggesting?
Is
it
that
we
simply
include
them
as
windfalls
and
not
do
that
assessment
and
consultation,
but
I
can't
see
any
other
proposals
other
than
that.
K
I
try
to
take
the
invite
to
be
honest,
I'm
I'm,
genuine-
and
this
is
a
blending-
a
very
likely
I'm,
genuine
undecided
on
it.
But
but
personally,
yes,
I
think
there
is
a
case
you
could
make
for
treating
them,
as
windfalls
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
get
on
with
it.
I
think
people
of
your
wants
to
get
on
with
it
and
I
think
there
is
a
risk
in
either
decision
that
we
take
and
I
think
the
assessment
that
I
am
suggesting
is
except
what
you're
saying
about
the
recommendations.
A
Just
for
councillor
Williams
articulate
as
alternative
recommendation,
which
I
look
forward
to
can
I
just
clarify.
Are
you
won't
be
me?
Okay,
you
just
clarify
live
groups,
positions
change
then
previously
you
opposed
any
consideration
of
windfalls
at
all.
Councillor
Levine
spoke
at
great
length
of
about
two
meetings
ago,
you're
now
favoring
windfalls
and
these
being
part
of
a
windfall
policy.
K
B
J
C
Believed
that
the
dates
given
our
when
the
mo
dee
would
actually
leave
the
sites,
so
they
would
no
longer
utilize
the
sites
after
20
21
no
longer
use
the
sites
after
20
31,
and
what
they've
also
said,
which
I
think
is
important,
is
that
before
they
actually
leave
the
sites,
they
would
get
probably
get
planning
consent
for
what
was
going
to
follow.
So
you
get
fairly
rapid
implementation.
J
C
J
C
Gives
you
the
unity
to
shape
what
you
would
get
on
those
sites
through
policies
within
the
local
plan
and
to
consider
the
infrastructure
requirements
and
everything
else
so
I
think
the
view
that
we're
expressing
the
report
is
that
we
need
to
do
that
work.
But
if
they
do
represent
real
alternatives,
it
will
be
sensible
to
build
them
into
the
plan.
Yeah.
D
Can't
quite
liquid,
you,
when
you
say
counselor
bars,
I,
wait
for
it
to
be
tighter,
I'm
trying
to
find
a
solution
if
I
can,
but
obviously
I,
don't
know
exactly
how
you
allocate
you
officer
resource
on
a
day
to
day
basis,
so
I'm
just
a
closer
to
an
out.
There
is
a
way
we
can
have
our
cake
and
eat
it.
In
that
you
progress
with
the
local
planners,
you
have
been
working
whilst
beginning
the
word
me
a
certain
because
I
wonder
how
soon
would
you
be
able
to
see
that?
C
Think
at
the
22
points
really.
I
think
that
the
choice
as
we've
seen
in
this
meeting
is
quite
a
black
and
white
wine
in
the
sense
that
either
you
include
the
sites
in
the
plan
if
they
were
presently
intensifying
the
technical
work
or
you
treat
them,
swim
falls,
and
you
done
and
we've
rehearsed
that
the
benefits
of
an
issue
surrounding
both
have
been
rehearsed
in
your
debate,
which
is
which
is
correct.
So
it's
a
difficult
choice.
There
are
some
advantages
in
the
sense
that
I've
articulated
by
including
them.
C
If
the
Army's
Malter
natives,
you
can
use
the
figures
to
help
meet
your
housing
need
you
could
do
the
consultation
and
Bobby
take
account
of
the
infrastructure
costs
I.
Think
in
terms
of
looking
at
what
that
actually
means,
though
we
would
bring
a
report
back
as
early
as
possible.
So,
at
the
moment,
as
mentioned
before,
we're
seeking
technical
information
from
the
MLD
on
those
sites,
they
are
starting
to
submit
some
information
to
us,
read
acting
out
things
that
they
think
are
sensible
and
sensitive
from
a
military
point
of
view,
sensible.
C
That
was
a
slight
slip
of
its
own,
but
we'll
leave
that
sensitive
military
put
a
military
point
of
view,
and
and
we
will
start
to
look
at
those
and
see
what
that
means
and
be
put
back
as
quickly
as
we
can.
So
you
have
a
clear
view:
are
the
timescale
implications,
but
also
start
to
get
a
view
as
members
about
what
these
sites
can
actually
give
or
provide
through
that
process?
So
at
the
moment,
is
quite
an
early
stage.
We
know
the
sites.
Are
there?
C
The
sort
of
figures
that
there
can
be
up
with
seemed
reasonable
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
sites,
but
we
haven't
done
all
the
work
to
assess
those
sorts
of
factors
that
would
actually
constrain
those
science
which
things
that
transport
and
green
infrastructure
and
everything
else,
and
we
need
to
do
that
work
and
see
whether
there
any
solutions
that
sit
with
that.
So
it's
difficult
to
prejudge
capsule.
K
Wins
I
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
because
I
appreciate
we're
saying:
is
we
report
back
to
members
as
quickly
as
we
can
I
feel
a
lot
more
inclined
to
be
supportive?
If,
if
there
was
something
that
was
a
bit
more
nailed
down,
then
as
quickly
as
we
can,
could
you
put
some
dates
around
that
because
it
may
alter
how
I
vote.
C
Think
I'm
reluctance
said
absolutely
day
because
that
that
work
is
ongoing
and
but
I
I
would
anticipate
that
it
would
be
early
within
the
new
year
and
we
were
being
a
report
back
and
we
would
talk
about
what
it
would
mean
enough
for
now.
So
by
that
I'm
talk
well,
yes
early
next
year,
just
to
be
completely
clear,
not
new
year
generally
per
se.
But
next,
actually
you
know
2017
casa.
F
C
I
understand
you,
your
question:
all
the
sites
have
to
go
through
the
same
methodology
and
have
the
same
level
of
technical
scrutiny
applied
to
them.
So
we
would
apply
the
same
sort
of
methodology
to
to
these
sites.
We
then
make
a
decision
about
whether
or
not
we
as
a
council
believe
that
they
should
be
included
within
the
plan
that
we
submit
and
whether
that
plan
is
sound.
C
So
in
a
sense,
the
inspector
examination
is
considering
whether
the
plan
is
a
sound
plan
for
York
and
the
portfolio
of
sites,
sound
portfolio
of
sites
that
would
help
the
city
meet
its
needs.
So
it's
on
that
basis.
You
wouldn't
exclude
site,
so
you
think,
would
actually
contribute
to
that
portfolio,
and
we
have
a
duty,
therefore,
to
look
at
them
or
to
say
actually
they're
completely
outside
the
process
and
they've
brought
forward
to
the
DM
processes.
C
Windfalls
on
strengths
are
particularly
that
will
be
challenging
because,
through
the
plan
process
will
be
setting
the
Greenbelt
boundaries,
which
therefore
would
require
any
sites
outside
that
to
show
very
special
circumstances,
arguments
which
they
may
be
able
to
do,
but
I
think
the
point
here
is
that
when
we
submit
a
plan,
we
have
to
believe
that
the
housing
need
the
employment
need
and
the
portfolio
site
constitutes
a
sound
of
position
for
York
and
we've
properly
considered
these
alternatives
and
sell.
Within
that
context,.
B
And
a
further
comments:
okay,
I'll
just
add
my
two
pens
with
them
towards
the
end.
I
was
heartened
when
councillor
Barnes
said
he
was
gonna
refer
to
the
consultation
as
nobody
else
in
the
debate.
Actually,
all
the
press
when
they
covered
it
did
cover
that
consultation.
So
I
wanted
to
say
a
little
bit
about
that.
Those
2209
people
have
responded,
I
think
considerably
better
response
and
we've
had
two
previous
local
plan
consultations,
support
for
the
reduction
in
Greenville
and
support
for
the
increase
in
brownfield
land
support,
the
balance
with
the
historical
character.
B
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
work
has
been
done
by
by
Residence
Inn.
In
submitting
those,
there
will
always
be
tension
with
the
views
of
developers,
which
is
all
always
presented
in
the
consultation
as
well.
We're
never
going
to
get
a
plan
that
both
residents
and
developers
and
landowners
all
agree
on.
B
I
think
that
would
be
the
holy
grail
commend
the
work
that
officers
done
in
actually
going
through
those
those
responses
in
detail
and
looking
at
those
I
know,
they
have
had
quite
a
bit
of
practice:
I,
don't
think,
consultations
and
analyzing
the
results
and
uploading
them
on
the
website.
That's
hopefully
touch
on
some
of
the
comments
about
population
projections.
I
think
we
could
have
fun
with
population
projections
all
day
long
I
think
there
will
always
be
new
population
projections,
and
the
new
population
projections
will
be
different.
The
last
lot
of
population
projections.
B
It's
always
a
problem
that
we
have
I
had
to
come
back
to
council
the
waters,
comments
about
immigration
being
out
of
control,
I
think
I
suspect.
As
someone
who
works
in
the
health
and
social
care
sector,
I
suggest
you
go
out
and
speak
to
the
clinical
commissioning
groups
speak
to
GPS,
speak
to
those
who
work
in
the
health
service
who
absolutely
fundamentally
rely
on
people
coming
to
this
country,
to
run
our
hospitals
to
run
our
health
and
social
care
services,
which
would
absolutely
crumble.
B
If
some
of
the
loose
talk
and
immigration
was
to
go
on,
I
think
Counsell
Williams
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
It
is
an
issue
of
risk.
This
the
whole
Local
Plan
process
of
thing
from
with
the
LDF
process,
I
was
involved
in
I.
Think
how
my
proposed
we
all
have
a
lot
of
badges.
Perhaps
it's
a
all
right.
How
long
we've
been
on
the
particular
committee,
but
it
always
has
been
a
risk.
It
always
has
been
a
case
for
balancing
risk.
B
B
What
what
sits
with
me
a
lot
is
this
feels
to
me
a
lot
like
a
flagship
policy.
It
feels
like
something
that
the
government
will
want
to
happen.
They
will
want
to
quote
the
figures,
it's
something
they
want
to
rest
their
levels
on
and
I.
Think
that
does
give
it.
In
my
political
mind,
a
little
bit
more
impetus
and
I
think
the
fact
this
there
makes
it
really
difficult
to
ignore
and
I
think
Martin
made
the
point
that
we're
looking
at
a
two
year
to
your
land
supply
within
the
15
years.
B
That's
a
big
chunk
of
that
particular
land
supply
and
I.
Think
some
of
the
comments
I
was
kind
of
bouncing
off
soon.
What
can
we
go
ahead
and
do
the
work
and
still
include
it
as
a
windfall
seems
to
be
contradictory,
because
if
I
was
looking
at
that,
I
would
be
saying.
Well,
if
you're
doing
all
our
technical
work,
you've
clearly
know
it's
going
to
happen.
So
you
clearly
know
it
isn't
a
win
for
in
many
ways.
B
If
you
want
to
include
as
a
windfall
you
have
to
just
kind
of
clothes,
you
close
your
eyes
and
shoot
you
ears
and
pretend
it's
not
even
happening
so
I
don't
see
that
we
can
do
the
work
and
still
pretend
still
pretend
that
it's
not
happening
so
I.
Think
with
with
all
those
caveats,
I'm
quite
happy
to
prove
the
recommendations
of
it.
Then
we'd
like
to
move
approval,
you've
moved
it
seconded.
It's
a
very
happy
then
to
Georgia
want
to
vote.
B
L
Right,
oops,
the
reporter
touch
members
to
acknowledge
the
receipt
of
a
petition
entitled
ownership
of
property
and
land
in
your
plans
and
how
it
should
be
best
dealt
with
by
the
council.
The
actually
petition
is
attached
to
it
pauses
annex
a
it
was
submitted
by
the
petitioner,
Jeff
beacon
and
runs
mate
Gorgas
to
twin
town
centre
September
become
take
14
signatures.
It's
helpful.
L
The
petition
is
aimed
at
publishing
the
identities
of
owners
and
beneficial
owners
of
the
land.
Sorry
yeah,
so
the
petition
is
aimed
at
publishing
the
identities
and
sova
of
owners
and
beneficial
owners
of
land
when
this
donation
value
exceeds
1
million
pounds
with
advantage
and
mission
or
what
options
were
purchased
and
the
land
in
question.
L
Additionally,
due
to
phasing
of
allocations,
the
granting
of
planning
mission
is,
in
some
cases
we're
not
be
till
the
end
of
the
load
planner
time
scale
anyway.
Consequat
given
is
the
status
of
that.
It's
considered
that
best
dressed
by
the
executive
member
of
transporting
planning,
as
it
close,
relates
very
closer
to
plank
mission
being
granted
round
the
Local
Plan
process.
L
B
We
have
a
recommendation
on
page
23,
which
is
to
refer
it
to
the
exact
amount
of
transport
planning.
Ad
I
would
suggest
if
anybody
has
any
detailed
questions
about
it.
That
would
be
the
best
form
to
take
it,
and
we
should
probably
just
debate
whether
we
want
to
refer
it
or
not,
rather
than
the
technicalities
of
the
paper.
Otherwise,
deferral
becomes
pointless.
So
if
anybody
has
any
questions
around
whether
we
should
take
the
decision
to
defer
or
Maps.
F
Wanted
a
clarification
on
paragraph
11
legal
suggests
that
we're
going
to
get
legal
advice,
I'm
just
concerned
that
we're
going
to
be
employing,
barristers
or
whatever
to
investigate
something
which
presumably
just
needs
a
planning
lawyer
or
senior
planner.
So
give
us
advice
on
whether
or
not
matron
is
required.
Who's.
C
A
Stuart
thanks
yet
Arthur's.
This
is
an
absolute
nonsense.
I
think
we've
already
given
it
far
more
of
a
hearing
than
we
should
have
done.
Although
that
said,
we
are
entirely
in
the
course
of
council
procedures,
I'm,
not
criticizing
that
the
petition
is
entirely
vague
about
when
this
should
be
done.
It
then
basically
commits
us
to
a
load
of
work
about
the
value
of
land
which
is
highly
subjective
for
us,
then,
to
magically
potentially
say
this
land
here
is
worth
1
million
pounds
this
land
here
isn't.
A
Presumably
that's
only
so
that
person
who
owns
the
land
can
be
demonized.
There
could
be
no
other
reason
for
it
than
that,
and
this
has
been
signed
by
14
people.
Nobody
has
come
to
talk
about
this
tonight.
I've
not
had
any
representation
on
it
I'm,
so
the
same
is
true
of
other
people.
It
just
seems
an
absolute
nonsense
that
we
would
even
consider
this
if
this
motion
was
signed
by
10,000
people,
a
thousand
people
and
I
would
say
well.
Why
do
you
want
to
know
this?
This
just
looks
like
14.
A
B
B
C
I
think
the
the
point
here
is
that
local
time
working
group
can't
make
a
decision
without
throwing
the
recommendations
to
the
executive
or
the
executive
member
briefing
session.
So
on
that
that
basis,
I,
think
that
the
comments
who
you're
making
plans
you
can
be
fed
through
a
military
and
fled
through
to
the
executive
member
briefing
session.
So
they
can
make
a
decision.
C
So
in
this
sense,
look
I'm
working
through
it
can
debates
it
if
they
wish
and
can
make
comments
on
it,
but
it
would
either
have
to
be
referred
to
the
executive,
which
seems
inappropriate,
given
the
numbers
involved
in
issues
involved.
I
needs
to
go
to
the
exact,
remember
briefing
session,
which
you
can
also
make
a
decision.
Is
there.
A
K
Agree
with
Chris's
point
about
that.
What's
written
there,
because
I
think
it
is
a
nonsense,
but
actually
because
it's
a
lot
since
it
does
need
a
response
and
they're
a
bust
one
from
the
executive
member.
So
actually
I
think
it
should
go
there
to
be
given
the
appropriate
response,
which
I'm
sure
will
be
a
no
I.