►
From YouTube: Local Plan Working Group, 23 January 2018
Description
AGENDA (To view individual agenda items click on the links below)
1. Declarations of Interest 00:02:14
2. Minutes 00:02:28
3. Public Participation 00:05:23
4. City of York Local Plan 00:33:20
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=128&MId=10622
A
Okay,
noting
early
woman
we've
had
this
latest
o'clock
start
I'm
very
keen
to
get
going
bang
on
six
o'clock,
so
we
will
begin
to
make
a
start.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
attending
this
meeting
of
the
local
pun,
working
group
on
Tuesday,
the
23rd
of
January
2018
I'll
start
with
small
bit
of
housekeeping.
If
anybody
can
make
sure
they
have
their
mobile
phones
turned
off
or
on
to
silent,
they're,
quite
happy
for
people
to
tweet
if
they
feel
necessary
during
the
course
of
the
meeting.
Members
of
the
public
haven't
been
here
before.
A
If
you
do
require
the
facilities,
they
are
through
the
door
here
and
to
your
left
and
we
are
not
expecting
a
fire
at
any
point.
So
if
there
is
a
fire
alarm
going
off,
the
building
will
be
getting
warmer
and
after
some
discussion,
we've
worked
out
that
the
correct
route
is
down
the
stairs
out
to
the
front
and
we
meet
outside
the
Hilton
building.
I
have
received
apologies
from
counselor,
do
gone
and
counsel.
Akram
is
in
attendance
from
councillor
owl
and
councillor.
Cuthbertson
is
in
attendance
and
from
councillor
waters
who
doesn't
have
a
substitute.
A
A
B
Just
a
reference
to
page
4
with
the
discussion
on
our
site,
beeps,
56,
I
just
went
to
class
I.
Think
the
officer
was
bombed,
we're
done
well,
the
site
doesn't
necessarily
meet
site
selection
authorities.
It
was
included
the
coast
for
England
terabyte.
It
could
be
included.
North,
Planning,
Commission,
40
minutes
just
missed
out
the
one
point
with
that
the
site
doesn't
set
so
he
meets
like
selection
methodology,
but
these
are
the
reason
by
which
it
has
been
included.
But
I
can
ask
officer
clarification
on
that.
My
memory
of
a
minute
there.
C
So
on
that
point,
I'm
just
at
the
the
minutes
now,
so
that
was
included
in
the
site
selection
because
spotting
to
confirm
that
the
hats,
broad
so
quite
a
replacement
for
the
recreation
of
facilities.
My
advice
at
age,
56,
the
officers
felt
that
this
meant
that
I
was
acceptable.
Finkley
in
local
and
site
selection,
based
on
my
recollection
of
what
I
said.
I
think
that
there
is
accurate
I
that
the
site
age
56
was
in
recreational
use.
But
given
that
st.
C
John's
were
finding
new
position,
it
has
to
be
road
that
led
sportingly
to
take
I'm.
Sorry,
my
purchase
in
terms
of
the
minutes
included
on
page
4
of
the
report.
I
believe
that
correctly
indicates
to
have
enough
to
sit
quickly.
Now
indicates
what
I
said,
which
is
that
basically,
the
site
age
56
was
in
recreational
use,
but
given
that
the
st.
John's
were
reading
recreational
facilities
on
how
to
be
Road
to
enhancing
those
facilities
that
led
Sport
England
to
effectively
withdraw
any
objection
to
the
local
plan
process.
C
B
I
think
of
the
art,
so
I
suspect
it
and
I
suspect
we
couldn't
get
to
a
point
of
agreement
clearly
because
it's
a
matter
of
that
recollection
but
I
was
important.
I
made
the
point
that
my
life
lessons
different
and
I,
don't
imagine
or
they'd
ever
committed
to
a
grade
for
different,
but
that
was
your
perspective.
Thank
you
for
anyway,.
A
D
A
E
E
Right,
probably
won't
take
three
minutes,
never
actually
appeared
at
this
committee
to
speak
before,
but
I
thought
I'd
just
pop
along
and
make
a
couple
of
comments.
If
I
may
it's
two
topic
areas:
firstly,
the
housing
numbers.
What
I
would
say
is
that
I
think
I
support
the
office
is
in
making
the
point
about
the
need
for
higher
housing
numbers.
I.
E
Is
that
there
was
no
good
reason
for
going
for
the
lowest
number
of
sitting
in
overall
sustainability
terms,
a
high
number
provided
a
more
sustainable
output.
So
on
that
basis,
now
I'm
not
going
to
sit
here
and
advocate
any
alternative
number
for
now,
because
I
know
that
several
several
consultants
will
make
a
case
for
higher
numbers,
as
the
examination
goes
along.
E
But
what
I
do
do
is
welcome
the
fact
that
the
report
recognizes
the
need
for
a
higher
number,
because,
ultimately,
if
the
council
chooses
to
go
with
the
remaining
these
existing
lower
number,
then
it's
most
likely
to
fail
getting
very
far
into
the
examination
process.
And
that's
that's
just
a
fairly
obvious
point,
because
we
know
how
those
examinations
and
the
independent
inspectors
will
not
take
kindly
to
it
to
a
number.
That's
not
the
most
sustainable
outcome.
The
second
point
is
a
point
about
site
selection
and
what
I
do
want
to
make.
E
The
point
in
very
briefly,
is
about
some
of
the
sites
that
have
been
selected
as
an
alternative
in
the
paper
suggested
tonight.
My
main
concern
is
that
when
I
speak
to
people
about
York,
the
biggest
point
of
concern
that
they
have
is
congestion
on
the
Ring
Road,
the
environmental
impact
of
congestion
on
the
Ring
Road,
and
what
I
would
say
is
that
some
of
the
sites
that
appears
will
be
selected
as
possible.
E
Fill
arena's
to
make
good
the
housing
number
shortfall
appear
to
be
sitting
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
Ring
Road
and,
as
a
result
of
that,
I
can
only
see
that
some
of
those
sites
which
are
not
connected
to
existing
settlements,
they
don't
make
use
best
use
of
those
services,
will
ultimately
be
satellite
developments
that
might
have
one
corner
shop.
But
ultimately,
almost
every
car
journey
or
every
requirement
for
a
journey
on
those
sites
beyond
the
Ring
Road
will
require
a
trip
by
car,
and
my
concern
is
that
I,
don't
think
proper,
sustainable
appraisal.
E
A
F
Part
1.2
for
being
existing
open
space
and
is
therefore
ineligible
to
be
included
as
a
housing
allocation
in
the
local
plan.
Two
meetings
ago
office
has
provided
you
with
a
completely
flawed
and
in
substantial
response.
It
is
a
fact
that
support
England
have
raised
an
objection
through
the
planning
process
and
in
entirely
ridiculous
to
suggest
that
there
are
objections
somehow
justifies
the
allocation
of
this
site.
F
In
any
event,
sport
England
have
confirmed
that
it
is
beyond
their
remit
to
remove
a
piece
of
land
from
being
open
space,
as
this
must
be
dealt
with
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
NPP
F
I
have
made
the
same
objections
for
the
regulation
8c
in
consultation,
but
it
does
not
appear
in
the
summary
of
responses
being
presented
by
offices
today.
Why
has
this
objection
been
excluded?
F
Office
has
stated
that
the
site
must
be
allocated
and
would
be
removed,
regardless
of
regardless
of
regulation
dates
in
consultation,
response
on
the
grounds
that
the
site
had
an
existing
planning
permission.
This
is
untrue.
The
site
does
not
have
an
existing
planning
permission.
The
status
of
the
planning
application
is
undetermined.
It
has
been
undetermined
for
approximately
a
year
and
a
half
since
October
10
2016,
the
local
authority,
had
an
obligation
to
determine
planning
applications
within
13
weeks
in
accordance
with
the
planning
guarantee.
F
The
applicant
should
already,
after
26
weeks,
have
been
refunded
their
planning
application
fee
for
non
determination
with
the
prescribed
statutory
time
limits.
Officers
are
well
aware
that
the
RSS
is
the
development
plan,
not
the
2005
draft
local
plan,
since
the
planning
application
violates
national
policy
and
the
green
value
cannot
be
determined
and
therefore
be
considered,
unavailable.
The
planning
practice
guidance
states
that
even
a
site
with
planning
permission
could
not
be
allocating
a
local
plan
if
it
is
not
available.
F
Given
the
significant
obstacles
to
development
on
this
site,
including
the
presence
of
green
belts,
existing
sporting
use,
possible
contamination,
lack
of
electrical
grid
infrastructure
dependence
on
the
sale
of
the
land,
no
developer
in
place,
issues
with
drainage
and
the
impact
of
heritage
assets,
including
affecting
the
setting
of
a
scheduled
ancient
monument
of
national
importance.
So
there
is
absolutely
no
possibility
that
the
site
could
be
developed
within
five
years
as
put
forward
by
this
plan.
F
Sites
must
not
be
unnecessarily
held
for
uses
which
they
are
known
to
be
undeliverable,
site,
h,
56
and
any
other
allocation
that
overlaps.
The
geographical
area
of
windmill
loan
playing
fields
as
first
submitted,
must
be
removed
from
the
local
plan
and
the
site
allocated
as
local
green
space,
in
accordance
with
the
overwhelming
public
opinion.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
You
chair
I'm
here
tonight
to
speak
on
behalf
of
New
York
and
not
Yorkshire,
chamber
of
commerce
and
your
property
forum,
of
which
I
am
the
chair.
My
comments
are
directed
towards
the
key
strategic
issues
in
the
local
plan
and
not
on
the
merit
of
any
particular
site.
We
need
a
lo
of
a
plan
to
provide
certainty
for
the
local
economy
and
to
guide
future
and
housing
unemployment
development.
These
comments
reflect
what
was
submitted
in
our
representations
and
the
views
of
our
members.
We
have
two
simple
points
to
make.
G
First,
at
the
local
plan,
as
the
currently
stands
makes
inadequate
provision
for
the
future
housing
needs
of
the
city
and
second,
it
does
not
provide
enough
employment
land
to
meet
the
existing
and
future
demands
of
the
economy.
Before
dealing
with
the
two
points,
it
was
worth
reiterating
that
this
local
plan
will
be
fixing
the
boundaries
of
the
green
belt
for
the
first
time
in
a
statuary
local
plan.
This
is
the
moment
not
to
include
land
that
is
required
to
meet
the
future
housing
unemployment
needs
of
the
city
for
the
next
25
to
30
years.
G
On
the
issue
of
housing,
our
viewers
of
the
proposed
annual
provision
of
867
dwellings
will
not
address
the
housing
crisis
in
the
city.
We
must
remember
that,
since
2008,
we
have
failed
every
year
to
build
enough
houses
to
meet
the
house
of
the
city's
housing
requirement
or
to
meet
the
city's
housing
requirement.
So
before
the
planet
even
approved,
we
are
starting
with
a
massive
backlog.
G
The
current
proposal
of
867
dollars
per
annum
is
lower
than
the
figure
recommended
by
the
council's
on
consultants.
It
is
lower
than
the
figures
suggested
by
the
government's
proposed
Universal
methodology
for
calculating
has
requirements
and
is
lower
than
the
figures
suggested,
but
the
housing
assessments
submitted
by
many
respondents
that
the
local
plan
failure
to
provide
adequate
housing
is
having
and
will
have
long-term
negative
impacts.
People
living
in
overcrowded
or
poor
housing
have
negative
health
outcomes
that
children
have
reduced
education
outcomes.
The
absence
of
housing
means
young
couples
have
to
delay
or
even
forego
having
children.
G
Lack
of
housing
fuels
hyper
house
prices,
and
this,
combined
with
the
shortage
of
supply,
adds
to
costs
for
employers
and
makes
the
city
less
attractive
for
inward
investor.
Ism.
The
council
has
previously
said
that
this
will
be
an
evidenced
based
plan.
The
overwhelming
weight
of
evidence
indicates
that
the
current
annual
housing
requirement
of
867
dwelling
is
wholly
inadequate
and
a
figure
of
at
least
a
thousand
houses
per
annum
and
possibly
more,
is
required
on.
G
A
G
However,
of
this
36
hectares
is
already
allocated
for
specific
users.
Well,
the
report
before
you
allocates
some
additional
land
over
what
was
proposed
in
the
pre-publication
draft
plan.
Further
employment
land
allocations
are
required
to
widen
the
site
portfolio
so
that
the
local
economy
can
respond
to
ever
rapidly
changing
economic
circumstances.
The
chamber
is
concerned
that
the
draft
plan
does
not
present
the
positive
or
ambitious
response
to
the
challenges
set
out
in
the
background
chapter
of
the
plan.
The
city's
economy
continues
to
do
well
was
facing
considerable
challenges
in
the
years
ahead.
A
growing.
G
D
D
D
Members,
the
University
of
York
is
a
major
asset
to
the
city
in
terms
of
employment
status
and
the
facilities
that
the
general
public
are
able
to
share.
The
draft
policies
in
the
pre-publication
local
plans
support
the
further
growth
of
the
university
in
2007,
the
secretary
state
granted
permission
for
the
campuses,
116
hectares
of
Greenbelt,
concluding
that
the
benefits
of
the
university
to
higher
education,
employment,
culture
and
sport
outweigh
the
harm
to
Greenbelt.
The
26
hectare
site
shown
on
the
plan
is
required
to
meet
the
university's
growth
strategy
over
the
period
2037
to
2038.
D
The
rate
of
development
experienced
on
campuses
justifies
this
request.
35
hectares
have
been
built
out
in
10
years,
with
30
hectares
remaining
without
the
larger
extension
site,
the
university
will
run
out
of
land
well
within
the
plan
period.
The
21.5
hectare
site,
which
is
on
the
right
in
the
page,
includes
the
included
in
the
pre-publication
draft
local
plan.
The
site
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
air
64.
Half
of
it
would
need
to
be
set
aside
for
landscape
water,
buffer
acoustic
barrier.
D
The
remaining
11
hectare
development
site
would
prove
less
than
50
provide
less
than
50%
of
the
university
land
requirements,
and
this
could
inhibit
the
conformation
of
Greenbelt
boundaries.
The
26
hectare
site,
submitted
by
the
university
south
of
the
campus
lathe,
has
a
separate
wide
buffer
up
to
the
a
64
so
that
the
whole
of
the
62
vectors
would
be
developable
as
set
back.
It
would
be
less
visible
from
the
bypass
and
the
30
hectare
external
buffer
in
the
university's
control
to
shape
and
plant.
D
The
proposed
development
would
be
no
closer
to
the
village
of
Heslington
and
not
approved
by
the
secretary
staff
has
been
to
nice.
Vehicle
access
would
be
from
whole
Road
at
Grimstone
bar
due
to
the
significance
of
successes
of
the
versus
green
travel
plan
over
the
last
10
years,
traffic
from
the
whole
of
the
26
hectare,
expansion
can
be
accommodated
within
the
levels
approved
at
the
outline
coalition.
In
addition
to
academic
building
student
housing
and
university
facilities,
the
scope
for
new
knowledge
led
Ned.
D
A
business
development
on
the
larger
extension
site
would
be
beneficial
to
the
university.
The
city
in
the
region
complying
with
strategic
employment
policy.
Ss-20
to
few
universities
in
the
universe
in
the
region
have
expansion
land
on
their
doorstep
of
comparable
potential.
This
proposal
meets
this
supportive
policy
context
in
the
emerging
planned
policy
ss-20
to
strategic
employment,
Science
University
growth,
IDI
one
on
IDI,
3
and
H
7
on
the
provision
of
student
housing.
A
H
H
You
might
remember
me,
as
the
director
of
teas
Valley,
the
Housing
Association,
which
took
on
the
challenge
of
redeveloping
the
Disqus
bungalow
site,
creating
200,
much-needed
new
homes
for
people
of
all
ages
and
budgets
here
in
York,
I
would
like
to
emphasize
tonight
how
we
have
listened
to
the
issues
of
your
presidents
and
I
want
to
dispel
some
misunderstandings.
Regarding
this
scheme.
We
have
been
promoting
this
scheme
in
the
northeast
of
York
for
over
six
years
and
by
listening
we
have
made
several
important
improvements
to
the
scheme.
We
are
not
late.
Comers
to
the
table.
H
Your
residents
are
worried
about
traffic.
We
have
recited
our
scheme
away
from
existing
villages,
so
it
is
an
entirely
independent
standalone
village,
not
an
urban
extension.
It
can
be
accessed
directly
from
the
a
64
and
the
Ring
Road.
Our
plan
is
to
embrace
the
need
to
build
a
mixed
community
and
I.
Can
tonight
commit
to
providing
30%,
affordable
homes
at
a
time
when
we
know
other
developers
fear
to
make
this
commitment?
Our
proposal
is
that,
rather
than
selling
the
500
affordable
homes
to
a
Housing
Association,
we
will
offer
them
to
you,
the
council.
H
This
will
enhance
the
prospects
of
the
council's
new
development
company
or
simply
increase
the
numbers
of
existing
council
homes.
The
council
will
be
able
to
benefit
from
the
long
term
income
streams
that
these
homes
will
produce
for
the
future.
We
are
also
offering
to
speed
up
the
process
that
council
can
own
all
the
properties
say
within
five
years.
We
want
to
fast-track
the
council's
designs.
H
For
the
future
and
will
create
a
Country
Park
that
will
be
open
for
everyone.
So
that's
what
we're
offering
to
the
council
and
the
people
of
York.
We
know
that
you
have
some
difficult
decisions
to
make.
We
believe
passionately
that
York
needs
more
homes
and
might
well
need
over
a
thousand
new
homes
a
year.
Let
us
help
you
reach
whatever
target
you
set
for
the
city.
Let
us
help
you
make
the
York
local
plan
a
plan
that
really
does
provide
homes
for
more
local.
H
H
I
Minutes,
mister
won't
thank
you
chair.
As
you
say,
I
act,
the
promoters
of
languid
golden
village,
southeast
of
the
city.
Your
council
have
given
long-standing
support
to
a
garden
village
in
this
particular
part
of
the
city.
I'm
also
instructed
tonight
at
late
stage
to
act
and
adviser
on
TW
fields,
promoters
of
FST,
seven
and
st
14.
You
have
seen
from
my
letter
to
your
officers
explaining
why
we
support
your
officers.
Advice
I,
wish
to
draw
on
three
particular
matters
this
evening.
I
Firstly,
the
need
for
you
to
plan
for
an
if
enough
new
homes
to
correct
to
meet
current
and
future
generations
in
the
city,
the
proposed
changes
to
st
15,
similarly
st
17
and
st
14,
which
are
fundamental
to
the
soundness
of
the
plan
and
also,
thirdly,
to
explain
why
it's
important
to
make
some
minor
changes
to
the
proposed
boundary
of
st
15
dealing
with
the
first
matter.
It's
important
that
your
city
meets
is
objectively
assess
housing
paint.
I
It's
also
important
that
you
support
your
office,
had
officers
advised
to
plan
for
more
housing
than
the
figure
adopted
by
ourselves
in
summer
2017
to
make
the
plan
more
robust
and
better
capable
of
withstanding
any
challenge.
In
my
professional
opinion
and
experience,
your
plan
needs
to
respond
to
market
signals,
and
if
you
don't
plan
for
more
than
eight
hundred
and
sixty
seven
units,
then
I
believe
your
plan
will
be
found
and
sound.
The
second
matter
dealing
with
the
second
point
is
this
new
settlement
consulted
upon
last
summer
for
SD
15
is
simply
unviable.
I
We've
provided
evidence
to
show
that.
Similarly,
I'm
also
informed
that
st
7
and
SD
14
are
also
unviable
without
changes
to
their
boundaries.
The
alternative
boundary
proposals
which
are
set
out
in
table
to
the
officers
recommendation
are,
however,
deliverable
viable
and
achievable
any
decision
to
revert
your
regulation
eight-team
plan
proposed
boundaries.
Would
your
plan
could
fundamentally
unsound
because
supporting
any
of
those
viable
allocations
tonight
would
reduce
by
third
the
total
number
required
by
your
council
even
adopting
the
867?
I
This
would
present
a
fundamental
hole
in
your
local
plan,
meaning
that
I
believe
that
there's
no
prospect
of
you
achieving
your
housing
requirement
and
the
plan
would
therefore
be
fundamentally
unsound.
Finally,
we
presented
substantial
evidence
to
demonstrate
why
the
allocation
needs
to
be
extended
and
that's
SD
15
in
the
manner
generally
shown
by
officers.
There's
considerable
off
after
the
30
seconds.
Considerable
supports
to
the
extended
proposals.
I
J
Name
is
Robert
Powell
I've
had
30
years
in
the
arts
and
urban
design
and
I'm.
Now
a
citizen
of
York
with
a
few
others,
we've
organized
three
public
meetings
over
the
last
18
months
regarding
the
arts
and
culture
in
the
local
plan,
attended
by
over
150
people,
including
councillors,
some
of
them
here
and
Martin
Granger
from
the
planning
team.
I
want
to
start
by
congratulating
the
planning
team
and
the
council
for
the
resulting
strength
of
the
statements
and
policies
on
the
arts
and
culture
in
this
local
plan.
They
are
quite
innovative.
J
We
understand,
however,
that
there
may
be
some
pressure
on
them.
They
may
be
a
question.
The
arts
and
culture
may
be
seen
as
less
important
or
peripheral
or
an
extra
burden
on
developers
and
indeed
on
officers,
but
the
case
for
them
is
quite
simple
and
clear.
First
of
all,
to
be
successful.
York
needs
not
only
to
continue
to
be
a
beautiful
historic
city,
but
to
be
a
beautiful,
innovative
and
forward-looking
city.
The
arts
and
culture
connected
as
they
are
to
economic
and
social
well-being
are
key
aspects
of
successful
placemaking
and
therefore
to
York's
future.
J
They
express
the
city's
creativity,
its
capacity
for
imagination
and
they
help
to
draw
tourists
investment
and
to
encourage
graduate
retention.
Now,
how
are
these
matters
relevant
to
a
local
plan,
which
is
a
spatial
strategy
document?
The
local
plan,
of
course,
is
governed
by
the
NPP
f,
as
you
well
know,
and
one
of
the
key
principles
in
the
NPP
F
is
cultural
well-being.
So
simply
we
need
to
acknowledge
that
in
our
plan,
the
arts
and
culture
are
not
add-ons
in
planning
terms.
J
J
So
what
I
want
to
say
is
that,
both
in
terms
of
the
city's
ambitions
to
be
a
creative,
an
innovative
city
and
in
practical
planning
terms,
it's
right
for
the
council
to
ask
developers
to
consider
the
arts
and
culture
through
a
cultural
well-being
statement,
just
as
they
must
rightly
consider
the
environment,
archaeology,
design
and
access.
And
it's
also
right,
of
course,
for
the
council
to
devise
guidance
and
policy,
including
a
settlement.
K
J
Planning
document
to
facilitate
that
process,
these
are
simply
the
right
things
to
do
so.
We
urge
the
working
group
and
the
council
to
guard
and
fully
retain
these
aspects
of
the
draft
plan,
and
we
urge
officers
urban
designers
developers
to
meet
and
work
together
with
the
arts
sector
to
understand
and
learn
to
implement
them
for
the
benefit
of
the
citizens
of
York
and
for
York's
businesses
as
well.
Thank
you
all
very
much.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Powell,
our.
A
L
It's
always
had
an
interest
in
place
and
in
the
quality
of
public
realm,
and
it
was
in
fact
a
couple
of
years
ago
that
new
councillor
ere
suggested
that
we
should
become
more
involved
in
the
development
of
the
draft
local
plan
and
my
colleague,
Powell
you've,
just
heard
from,
has
laid
walk,
enlarges.
Work
in
that
area,
including
setting
up
the
three
public
meetings
to
which
he
referred.
L
And,
firstly,
the
economic
strategy,
quite
rightly
lays
stress,
on
high-value
graduate
jobs
and
on
retaining
talented
graduates,
as
well
as
providing
opportunities
for
local
young
people,
and
the
cultural
and
creative
sector
is
singled
out
as
a
priority
sector
in
that
they
think
rightly,
given
the
reputation
the
track
record
it
has
for
growth
within
the
city.
York
is
also
at
the
moment
unique
in
this
country.
A
That
concludes
our
public
speakers.
I
will
remind
the
committee
that
we
did
also
receive
three
written
representations.
One
from
mr.
Waring,
from
quote
in
regards
cite
st
15
one
from
mr.
Andy
Bell
in
the
guard
cite
st
33
and
st
15
a
and
one
family
in
Tate
from
Barrett
and
David
Wilson.
Holmes
suggestions
to
consider
cites
previously
assessed
in
st
11,
st
12
and
she'd
Oliver
seed.
M
You
chair
good
evening
members,
this
report
on
these
annexes
effectively
updates
you
on
the
outcome
of
the
consultation
last
September
and
October
in
relation
to
the
pre-publication
draft
plan.
Proposals.
No
technically
is
a
regulation.
18
consultation,
the
report
and
the
annexes
before
you
present
information
and
officer
comment
in
response
to
the
representations
offering
members
a
number
of
options,
alternatives
and
opportunities,
particularly
in
relation
to
the
allocation
of
land
for
future
housing
and
employment,
uses
to
be
included
in
the
draft
Local
Plan.
M
The
views
of
the
working
group
from
this
evening
will
be
reported
to
the
executive
on
Thursday,
at
which
time
approval
is
being
sought
to
progress.
The
local
plan
to
the
next
and
final
consultation
stage
before
submission
to
examination
it
envisage
there
would
be
potentially
a
special
full
council
meeting
in
May.
It's
a
requirement
that
has
to
be
held
before
you
submit
the
plan.
M
C
So
I
think
the
amendments
have
been
circulated
include
a
boundary
change
to
York
Central,
so
I
should
say
the
amendments
were
they
to
annex
a
at
the
report.
So
there's
a
potential
boundary
change
to
York
Central,
which
better
reflects
the
ongoing
work
on
that
site.
There's
some
textural
amendments
to
s
s12
glance.
C
If
I
can
respond
to
that
chair,
though
it's
a
matter
of
judgment,
so
it's
not
a
black-and-white
issue,
and
you
can't
say
this
would
lead
to
gain
for
further
consultation.
This
wouldn't.
But
what
we've
done
is
with
each
of
the
tables,
that's
included
in
the
report,
starting
with
table
one
after
paragraph
28
and
table
2,
and
so
on.
Three
and
four.
We
try
to
quantify
that
risk.
C
So
the
basic
rule
is
that
if
something
has
been
consulted
on
before
and
you're
not
amending
the
boundary
of
your
million
numbers,
but
that's
obviously
safer
if
you're
amending
the
boundaries
that
creates
a
greater
element
of
risk.
But
if
it's
been
consulted
on
before
in
a
local
time
before
that's
safer,
if
a
site
has
been
in
the
evidence
base
but
rejected,
bringing
that
site
in
creates
more
risk
in
terms
of
need
for
consultation
and,
finally,
something
that's
wholly
new
would
be
at
the
riskier
end
of
the
scale.
C
So
we've
tried
to
set
that
as
clearly
as
we
as
we
can
and
certainly
I,
think
that,
if
you
starting
to
include
whole
new
sights,
we
would
strongly
recommend
against
that.
The
problem
with
that
would
be
that
would
require
further
consultation.
We
should
put
that
push
back
the
potential
submission
of
the
plan
from
from
a.
K
Thank
You,
chair
I,
have
a
question
regarding
the
first
suggested
boundary
meant
and
regarding
the
york
central
site.
So,
but
when
I
look
at
the
new
site
and
decides
on
page
74
of
the
papers,
we
have
the
pre-publication
boundary
the
potential
occasion
boundary
and
now
this
new
suggested
boundary,
which
more
or
less
shows
that
we
going
from
the
outer
boundaries
again
further
to
the
bleep
application
boundaries.
But
the
only
explanation
you
you
gave
was
that
is
due
to
the
ongoing
work
on
the
site
and,
if
I
remember
the
York
Central
Community
forum.
K
When
the
question
has
been
asked
regarding
the
boundaries,
the
answer
they
out
wasn't
more
specific
than
that.
Could
you
give
them
a
bit
more
information,
particularly
when
we're
looking
at
the
boundaries
which
are
extending
further
to
the
pre-publication
boundary
or
the
potential
allocation
boundaries?
Thank
you.
C
The
the
boundaries
that
have
been
suggested
reflects
discussions
with
the
York
central
partnership.
We
are
happy
to
put
that
boundary
forth
members
consideration
because,
though
it
expands
the
boundary
outwards
to
include
the
station,
for
example,
anything
else
as
you,
as
you
rightly
say.
We
think
it's
important
that
we
see
that
sight
in
the
context
of
the
buildings
and
land
around
it.
So
it's
not
actually
increasing
the
numbers
or
the
proposed
numbers
on
the
site.
C
It's
actually
just
allowing
for
the
site
to
be
seen
in
context
now
whether
members
wish
to
accept
that
that's
clay,
something
that
you
need
to
vote
on
and
consider,
but
from
our
perspective,
including
extra
land
in
there,
doesn't
necessarily
open
that
wound
up
for
development.
What
it's
doing
is
its
allowing
that
to
be
seen
as
a
wider
site
allocation,
an
area
of
change.
K
Particularly
when
I'm
looking
at
the
eastern
boundaries,
so
the
one
that
you
said
is
in
in
the
area
of
the
railway
station.
Well,
we
can
see
in
the
original
a
potential
allocated
boundary.
There
was
just
the
the
little
inclusion
of
the
one
one
street,
including
the
triangle
garden.
My
concern
is
now
what
the
consequence
will
be
when
we,
including
all
the
other
green
spaces,
which
are
they
around
the
little
parks,
the
War,
Memorial
and
so
on,
which
potentially
could
that
affect
these?
These
green
spaces
that
we
now
including
I
I.
C
Think
not
necessarily
I
think
that,
basically,
my
my
view
would
be
that
in
extending
the
boundary,
what
you're
doing
is
you
allowing
that
site
and
the
development
to
be
seen
in
the
context
of
what's
there?
So
there's
policies
in
the
plan
that
relate
to
listed
buildings,
for
example
like
the
stationers
policies
in
the
plan
that
protects
open
space
in
recreation,
open
space?
So
really
what
it's
doing
from
my
perspective
is
in
avoiding
that
out.
C
It's
allowing
those
things
to
be
considered
when
that
development
goes
forward
and
when
that
application
goes
forward,
which,
in
a
sense,
I
think
is
a
is
a
good
thing
now.
Clearly,
members
can
make
a
judgment,
but
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
York's
heritage
and
open
space,
nothing
there's
enough
policies
in
the
plan
that
give
protection
to
those
things.
And
what
this
is
doing
is
it's
forcing
that
wider
consideration,
rather
than
looking
at
a
site
boundaries
in
a
closer
sense?
C
A
B
I'm,
sorry,
just
in
response
to
councillor
Derbyshire
second
question,
I
didn't
quite
get
the
clarification.
I
want
is
just
on
page
36
when
you're
presenting
the
options,
language
to
said,
option
one
option
two
and
option
three
as
well
to
clarify
seeking
the
working
group
to
settle
on
one
wash
and
wear
option.
Three
is
a
composite
of
option.
One
or
two:
are
they
individual
recommendations
to
be
taken
in
term
I.
A
Think
that's
a
question
for
me.
Councillor
balance
in
terms
of
how
we
retain
the
meeting
I
think
the
recommendations
we
have
are
the
ones
on
page
17
to
to
page
18,
and
it
will
in
many
ways
for
the
committee
to
decide
whether
we
take
that
as
an
individual
vote
policy
by
policy
or
whether
we
take
them
on
a
particular
box.
But
if
we
deal
with
questions
to
officers
regarding
technical
details,
first
then
we'll
look
at
how
we
move.
The
recommendation
was
following
that.
B
So
I'm,
not
quite
the
question
I
was
asking
so
our
option,
one
on
two:
it's
that
individual
option
is
to
be
taken
option
three
or
the
change
it
proposes
and
one
or
are
they
when
I
was
reading,
annex
a
I
can
see
the
change
it
made
in
eggs.
A
are
essentially
those
additional
hours
in
size
or
further
employments.
I.
Ask
why
I'm
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
is
with
which
of
our
they
suffer
recommendations.
Or
are
they
one
option
to
be
picked
from
the
three
options.
C
Like
I
think,
if
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
please
excuse
me,
but
I
think
what
we're
doing
is
we're
setting
out
the
potential
options
that
members
may
wish
to
consider.
So
in
that
sense,
it's
not
saying
you
should
include
or
not
include
sites
in
Clickbank
I've
put
forward
in
tables
one
two,
three,
four:
five:
six
and
seven.
It's
saying
that
members
need
to
look
at
those
potential
sites.
C
If
they
are
in
place,
they
would
be
relevant
for
this
plan.
That's
that's
correct,
though
I
think
the
indication
from
government
is
that
that
I
think
that's
likely
to
slip
because
they're
talking
about
chain
making
changes
to
the
MPP
F
in
summer,
but
so,
but
we
can't
say
with
any
certainty
exactly
when
those
changes
are
going
to
effect
and
also
in
terms
of
the
extent
to
which
the
government
will
listen
to
consultation
responses.
We
don't
know
so.
The
information
that
we
have
currently
available
is
reflected
in
the
in
the
report.
N
M
Thank
you
chair.
The
bottom
line
is
we
don't
know
what
the
outcome
of
this
consultation
is
going
to
be?
How
prescriptive
it's
going
to
be?
What
leeway
we'll
be,
what
the
provisions
will
be
for
review
and
there's
no
indication
coming
out
of
D
CLG
about
what
what
direction
it
is
going
to
be
wanted
to
remind
members
that,
from
meetings
with
D
CLG
last
year,
before
Christmas,
we
set
out
our
timetable,
which
is
pretty
much
the
same
time
too.
M
You
have
before
you
now
and
at
the
last
meeting,
we
set
out
a
timetable
to
get
us
to
submit
a
plan
by
May
of
this
year.
Indication
from
the
civil
servants
was
acknowledged
moment
that
nobody
could
go
any
faster
than
that
timetable,
so
in
that
sense,
that's
been
accepted
as
the
earliest
possible
date
for
the
council
to
find
itself
having
followed
due
process
to
be
in
a
position
to
submit
a
plan,
as
Martin
has
already
answered.
M
C
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
got
a
series
of
recommendations
on
page
17
and
page
18,
the
first
of
which
is
to
consider
any
potential
changes
to
the
pre-publication
draft
local
plan,
of
which
officers
have
been
provided
a
number
of
options
as
either
to
accept
those
changes
to
reject
those
changes
or
anywhere
in
between.
So
we'll
open
that
to
debate
to
members
in
terms
of
how
they
want
to
approach
a
recommendation.
O
To
my
mind,
the
decisions
that
we
made
in
July
and
the
reasons
we
made
them
haven't
really
changed.
I
think
on
the
point
that
councilor
Derbyshire
was
making
about
government
policy
I
think
it
is
absolutely
impossible
for
us
or
officers
to
second-guess
what
this
government
or
any
other
government
might
decide
on
planning
policy.
We
have
to
make
a
decision
on.
O
In
paragraph
11,
we
see
that
the
national
population
projections
suggest
a
slower
growth
rate
in
paragraph
13.
The
government
does
acknowledge
that
our
Greenbelt
is
a
restraint
in
paragraph
44.
Let's
talk
about
the
concerns
that
traffic
impacts
have
on
residents
and
I.
Think
we
all
we've
all
seen
the
comments.
We
all
know
the
some
residents
saying
the
growth
is
all
very
well,
but
the
infrastructure
has
to
come
with
it
as
well.
For
my
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
that
perhaps
there's
lots
in
here
about
developers
and
what
they
would
like
to
see
happen.
O
O
Think
that
the
with
that
the
York
central
figure,
revised
figure
there
is
acceptable
because
it
ties
in
with
what
the
executive
agreed
on
the
York
central
site
a
couple
of
executives
ago
and
I
think
on
the
strength,
cyl
site.
I
think
we
need
to
take
the
advice
there
that,
because
of
the
of
the
adjacent
Nature
Reserve
and
that
sort
of
thing
that
numbers
should
should
should
reduce
slightly
so
I,
don't
have
a
problem.
The
table
1
table
2
I
I
personally,
would
not
want
to
accept
that
I
do
think.
O
These
are
completely
new,
so
there's
obviously
a
greater
risk.
There,
no
sorry
table
3,
sorry,
looking
the
wrong
one.
Those
are
sites
that
we've
previously
looked
at
and
rejected,
so
they
seem
to
have
come
around
again
and
I.
Don't
see
any
any
reason
to
accept
those
and
I
would
say
I
know.
We've
heard
passionately
tonight
about
the
cultures
farm
site,
but
you
do
know
that
this
queries
in
in
that
area
about
how
much
there
has
actually
been
consultation
over
that
site.
So
I
think
we've
run
the
risk
of
challenge
there
and
table
4.
O
We
definitely
run
the
risk
of
challenge
on
table
4.
So
if
those
the
housing
site
side
would
only
be
prepared
to
accept
table
1
and
on
the
employment
sites,
5
again
is
York
Central
and
that
relates
to
the
decision
that
the
executives
always
made
and
table
6
again
is
developer.
Proposals
and
7
is
already
rejected
employment
sites,
so,
for
my
mind,
chair,
I
I
would
I
would
accept.
5
and
I
would
I
would
reject
the
table
6
and
7.
O
O
On
page
2
and
so
would
read,
agree
the
changes
to
the
pre-publication
draft
local
plan
regulation
18,
as
set
out
in
the
report
in
annexes,
with
the
exception
of
the
following
tables
housing
table,
1,
accept
tables,
2,
3,
&,
4,
reject
employment,
table,
5,
accept
and
tables
6
&
7
reject
and
those
amendments
would
relate
to
the
boundary
changes
and
proposed
changes
to
housing
numbers,
but
would
be
reflected
in
amendments
to
all
specified
policies.
Detailed
in
the
report,
so
any
conscious
minor
changes
towards
his
consequent
consequential,
a
minor
changing
to
wording.
O
O
P
Thank
You
chair,
having
listened
to
the
developers,
representations
with
regard
to
Sai
St
15,
and
we
copied
into
many
of
the
local
residents
submissions
during
the
consultation
period
to
not
take
advantage
of
the
increased
numbers
to
benefit
the
local
community
with
the
additional
secondary
school
and
the
junction
on
the
a
64
is,
to
my
mind,
very
short-sighted.
The
new
road
would
also
serve
one
of
the
three
industrial
estates
within
Elving
ttan
and
would
go
some
way
to
alleviating
traffic
problems
in
and
around
the
village.
P
With
reference
to
pages
two
four
nine
two,
two
five
one
further
to
the
objections
listed
I,
have
been
contacted
by
residents
to
raise
the
points
that
cite.
Sp1
has
increased
from
one
plot
to
three
plots.
Despite
being
refused
paneling
five
times
since
2010,
it
was
granted
temporary
permission
for
five
years
by
the
planning
inspector
in
2011,
on
the
condition
that
an
alternate
sorry
that
an
alternative,
appropriate
site
was
found
before
the
end
of
the
temporary
term,
and
that
this
site
should
be
returned
to
Greenbelt
in
June
2016.
P
A
N
N
Even
the
minor
amendments
that
councilor
Reid
is
prepared
to
tolerate
will
not
be
sound.
Why
do
we
want
to
plan
that
Bristol
will
impose
on
us?
We
were
all
elected
to
serve
the
people
who
voted
for
us.
I.
Do
not
want
to
be
prevailing
over
something
that
is
imposed
on
us
by
Bristol
by
people
who
have
to
come
in
and
rescue
us
from
our
own
inefficiency
and
appalling
lack
of
vision
and
insight,
because
we
haven't
got
the
guts
to
do
what
we
paid
to
do.
Q
When
in
office,
there
were
many
occasions
when
I
had
to
sit
through
meetings
when
there
was
a
list
of
public
speakers
who
would
speak
contrary
to
the
way
that
I
was
planning
to
vote
later
in
the
meeting,
so
I
have
some
sympathy
for
colleagues
opposite
who
were
listening
to
a
string
of
speakers
from
the
private
sector,
joining
the
chamber
of
commerce
from
developers
and
others
who
were
speaking
interview,
that's
entirely
contrary
to
the
way
that
they're
about
to
vote.
But
my
sympathy
only
goes
so
far
as
you
I'm
sure
you
would
imagine,
let's
be
clear.
Q
The
coalition
that
forms
the
administration
came
together
primarily
to
stop
the
labor
group
having
an
influence
on
the
local
plan.
This
was
the
biggest
issue
that
we
were
unable
to
get
coalition
talks
forward
on.
That's
fair
enough.
That's
a
legitimate
point
of
view.
My
one
observation
is
that
they've
made
a
total
and
utter
mess
of
it.
We
are
if
this
proposal
of
a
counselor
readers
proposed
the
seconded
by
Councillor
steward,
gets
voted
through.
Q
We
are
proposing
to
adopt
a
plan
that
essentially
is
going
to
be
unsound
and
we
are
voting
or
they
will
be
voting
because
I'm
not
gonna
vote
that
same
way.
They
are
voting
to
abdicate
responsibility.
Now
they're
of
the
47
counters
in
York
I
think
there's
only
one
counselor,
who
is
consistently
to
his
credit,
spoken
to
suggest
that
he
thinks
the
government
should
take
this
decision,
not
the
council
and
that's
counselor
waters.
It's
a
pity.
He
isn't
here.
That's
not
tonight,
because
I'm
sure
he
would
have
made
that
point.
Q
I
disagree
with
him
on
that
as
I
disagree
with
him
on
just
about
everything
else,
but
to
be
fair,
he's
being
very
consistent
about
that
point,
every
other
member
of
the
council
has
said
we
want
this
decision
to
be
determined
locally,
but
that's
not
what's
going
to
be
the
outcome.
If
we
wrote
for
this
proposal
because
it
isn't
sound
and
while
we
yet
again
get
on
with
a
position
where
we
wrangle
about
it,
we
argue
about
it
and
we
end
up
submitting
something
that
isn't
good
enough.
Q
Q
Aware
that
me
raising
the
housing
crisis
in
the
local
plan
meeting
qualifies
for
a
nectar
to
drink
in
the
York
council
drinking
game,
but
nonetheless
I'm
going
to
raise
it
and
I'm
going
to
keep
banging
on
about
it,
because
it
is
the
most
pressing
issue
we
face
in
this
city.
Today
we
have
a
desperate
situation
where
people
cannot
afford
to
get
on
the
housing
ladder,
because
the
house
prices
are
significantly
around
nine
times
above
average
incomes.
No
mortgage
provider
loans
at
nine
times
the
level
of
your
gross
annual
income.
Q
We
have
private
rental
sectors
where
it
is
very
common
for
people
on
average
incomes
to
be
paying
far
in
excess
of
fifty
percent
of
their
income
and
a
monthly
basis
to
pay
for
rent.
That's
unsustainable
and
the
simple
reason
that
that
exists
is
because
we
are
not
building
enough
houses,
we're
not
building
enough
houses.
Anything
like
the
level
we
need
to
and
I
accept
councillor
Reid's
gonna
pull
me
up
on
it
cuz.
She
always
does
that
a
plan
doesn't
deliver
the
building
of
houses.
Absolutely
right,
don't
argue
with
that
at
all.
Q
It's
bursting
at
the
seams
now
with
our
current
housing
levels
and
if
you
grow
the
community
more
as
we
propose
to
do,
but
don't
provide
the
infrastructure
to
support
it.
We
have
just
voted
to
make
that
situation
worse
and
by
reducing
the
numbers
in
the
site
allocation
that
wig
that
they're
going
to
be
voting
for
tonight.
They
are
voting
for
the
people
of
Heslington
and
Fulford
and
Eldin
ttan
and
well
Drake
and
other
areas
that
attend
that
school
Burlington
as
well
to
have
out
of
much
more
serious
education
crisis
in
the
city.
Q
K
Catholic
Rama
Thank
You
chair
last
time,
I
substituted
in
this
working
group.
We
had
a
very
nice
discussion
about
evidence
where
both
sides
of
this
table
agreed
on
that
we
wanted
an
evidence-based
plan.
But
then
the
big
discussion
started
about
what
is
accepted
as
evidence
and
what
not
and
I
made
very
clear
at
that
meeting
that,
for
me
it's
very
important
that
a
plan
is
better
than
no
plan,
and
that
is
something
that
which
I
still
say.
It
is
better
to
have
a
local
plan.
K
Was
no
plan
at
all
or
was
an
imposed
plan
which
is
not
taking
a
lot
of
the
discussions
that
we
had
here
into
account
there
elements
of
this
plan
like
and
as
you
can
see
from
the
Commons,
we
work
quite
hard
on
different
policy
statements,
and
there
are
policy
statements
that
I
really
like
and
I
would
be
very
sad
if
we're
losing
these
in
the
process
of
having
no
plan
at
all.
But
it
all
comes
back
to
the
question
of
what
are
we
singing?
K
Is
the
right
housing
number
in
this
plan,
and
will
it
be
accepted
and
again
that
pulls
to
you
on
the
other
side
of
this
table
that
comes
to
you,
with
your
majority
here
and
later
in
the
executive
to
decide
what
this
Authority
is.
Thinking
is
a
sound
plan
and
will
be
approved
as
a
sound
plan
at
the
moment,
I'm,
not
very
confident
that,
what's
on
the
table
will
be
a
sound
plan
approved.
Are
we
ending
up
with
no
plan
at
all.
R
Thank
you
very
much
like
councillor
crumb
I
was
actually
very
keen
that
we
should,
if
we
could
achieve
a
cross-party
consensus
on
the
local
plan
and
I,
having
had
some
briefings
as
I'm
sure
all
of
us
have
had
with
with
officers.
Over
the
last
few
weeks,
I
went
round
and
talked
to
various
members
of
the
coalition.
I
spoke
to
the
leader
of
the
conservative
group.
I
spoke
to
the
leader
of
the
Liberal
Democrat
group.
I.
Had
him
formal
discussions
with
a
few
other
people
pushing
forward
the
basis
that
I
thought
there
were
within
this.
R
These
changes
I
thought
there
were
opportunities
where
we
might
have
met
each
other
halfway
and
said.
Yes,
we
could
agree,
such-and-such
and
perhaps
not
agree.
The
other
I
would
have
been
very
happy
to
enter
into
on.
Behalf
of
my
group
and
I
have
discussed
it
in
full
with
the
Labour
group
that
there
were
opportunities
for
us
not
to
get
our
ideal
plan
not
to
get
your
ideal
plan,
but
a
plan
that
we
could
both
agree
and
sign
up
to
which
I
think
would
have
carried
some
significant
weight
as
it
went
through
to
the
inspector.
R
R
So
I
was
very
up
for
some
discussions,
but
it
proved
fruitless.
I
had
my
meetings,
I
reported
back
to
the
group
and
we
said
well.
We
would
just
wait
and
see
what
happened
this
evening.
We
have
waited
to
see
what
happened
this
evening
and
I
think
I'm
even
more
disappointed.
Then
I
was
half
2
or
3
hours
ago.
I
really
was
I
thought
there
were
things
in
here
that
we
could
all
have
said.
Yes,
we
can
go
with
this.
R
The
fact
that
table
1
and
table
5,
which
are
the
two
proposals
to
pile
as
much
as
you
can
into
York
central,
is
very
disappointing.
The
quality
of
the
development
in
that
area.
Of
course,
we
all
want
to
see
development
in
York.
Central
I
want
to
see
absolutely
high
positive
quality
in
York
central,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
just
dump
everything
in
there
and
hope
for
the
best,
whereas
actually
was
managed
on
the
other
side.
The
opportunities
around.
R
Is
it
the
land
without
muddled,
where
there
would
have
been
the
opportunity
to
create
a
much
more
sustainable
development,
because
it
would
have
had
the
enough
development
to
enable
you
to
put
in
the
additional
secondary
school
and
by
golly
that
side
of
your
needs
another
secondary
school.
And
where
are
we
going
to
get
it?
If
we
don't
get
it
in
this
way?
The
is
a
disappointment
and
I
think
there
are
other
areas
you
get
better
quality
of
life
for
the
for
the
residents
of
York.
R
This
would
have
been
a
wonderful
opportunity
to
get
it
right
to
do
it
right,
so
I'm
very
disappointed,
stupid,
probably
I
shouldn't
have
been,
but
I
am
so
I
am
sorry
that
we
seem
to
be
going
down
a
route
that
I
had
hoped
we
might
have
reached
some
accommodation
over
and
the
door
is
still
open.
You've
got
till
Thursday.
If
you
want
to
have
us
have
a
good
discussion.
We
are
up
for
it.
S
We've
said
all
this
before,
but
let
me
use
the
hackneyed
phrase
again,
which
I'm
sure,
counsel
Williams
or
criticized
before,
but
we
believe
this
plan
is
the
right
plan
for
York.
It
strikes
that
balance
between
providing
the
homes
and
jobs
that
we
need
and
preserving
what
is
unique
and
precious
about
your
commerce,
its
historic
character
and
setting.
S
You
know
we
can
go
on
forever
about
how
many
houses
we
need.
We
can
talk
about
evidence,
but
all
I
hear
from
the
other
side
is
that
they're
confusing
evidence
with
forecasts
and
forecasts
are
notoriously
difficult
to
pin
down
so
I
I
do
support
this
plan.
I
support
the
emotion,
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
to
be
gained
by
regurgitating
all
the
stuff
that
we
did
in
in
July
I
think
we
should
go
forward
and
get
this
approved
as
quickly
as
possible.
A
M
A
Towards
the
left
myself,
councillor,
Williams
I
think
it's
quite
clear
from
this
paper.
The
way
it's
written,
that
there
is
risk
inherent
in
what
we
do
with
this
local
plan.
Whichever
option
we
take,
if
we
take
the
additional
housing
figures
have
been
submitted
in
all
of
the
tables,
there
is
significant
risk
without
going
to
further
consultation.
If
we
took
them,
I
went
to
further
consultation.
A
We
certainly
wouldn't
meet
the
current
timeline
and
likelihood
would
be
that
we
would
abdicate
responsibility
for
having
the
plan
and
if
we
do
put
forward
the
proposal
that
counselor
readers
book
suggested
it's
equally
risky.
There
is
always
risk
inherent
in
a
local
plan
development.
It
is
not
an
exact
science,
as
we
often
wonder,
and
get
get
caught
up
and
bogged
down
and
submit
technicalities.
There
is
a
certain
amount
of
prediction
and
a
certain
amount
of
leeway
in
terms
of
how
we
balance
it.
We
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
the
government
figures.
A
A
The
government
cannot
even
agree
what
is
the
right
evidence
to
measure
against
their
putting
forward?
They
have
their
own
current
methodology,
they're
proposing
a
new
methodology.
There
is
much
disagreement
about
that,
so
to
suggest
if
the
government
is
somehow
100
percent
certain
on
what
the
accurate
methodology
is
and
we're
really
against.
That
is
just
not
true.
A
There
is
fluid
in
their
determination
of
how
this
number
should
be
calculated,
as
we
are
the
figures
that
the
members
to
my
left
are
some
gas
that
the
appalling
figures
that
we're
putting
forward
that
was
going
to
cause
a
massive
housing
crisis.
I
just
had
a
consideration.
You
look
at
the
figure
of
eight
six
seven,
it's
precisely
the
figure
rounded
about
what
was
in
the
RSS
before
was
abandoned.
A
It's
the
same
figure
that
we're
asking
for
cross-party
consensus
that
my
colleagues
in
the
labor
party,
in
fact,
counsel
most
is
here,
and
that
time
has
been
X
counsel.
Merritt
is
here
and
has
been
sat
in
this
chamber,
arguing
that
this
this
particular
level
of
figure
is
precisely
the
right
number
for
that
point
at
that
particular
time.
A
The
council,
the
figure
you
put
forward,
is
850,
which
is
less
than
the
figure
that's
in
this
plan,
and
you
argued
at
850
who
then
we
do
that
and
put
forward
a
higher
figure,
but
850
is
a
figure
that
the
Labour
Party
has
to
forward
undefended,
it's
the
same
as
the
RSS.
In
terms
of
figure
from
developers
there
was
a
group
of
developers
and
a
reason:
pastor,
banded,
together
and
under
the
banner
of
I,
think
it
was
love.
Your
collective
plan
and
the
figure
they
came
up
with
is
the
right
figure
for
York.
A
The
figure
that
members
have
to
do
was
around
about
860,
so
the
one
consensus
figure
that
everybody
around
this
table,
except
perhaps
the
majority
of
residents
of
my
ward,
is
about
860.
So
it
isn't
a
ridiculous
figure.
It's
miles
out.
It's
a
figure
that
at
some
point
in
the
last
six
or
seven
years,
has
been
supported
by
all
groups
in
this
city.
A
Councillor
carve
alluded
to
it.
We
are
in
situation.
New
York
is
unique
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we're
having
to
set
our
Greenbelt
boundaries
for
the
very
first
time
this
does
complicate
matters.
When
we
talk
about
the
government
methodology,
those
figures
relate
only
to
the
first
ten
years
of
the
plan,
so
circa,
ten
thousand
housing,
with
just
that
particular
methodology,
silent
about
what
happens
in
years,
10
to
15
years,
15
to
20
years
20
to
25.
A
There's
conversation
about
from
councillor
Williams
in
terms
of
the
housing
crisis
and
how
we
make
make
houses
more
affordable.
It
is
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
it's
not
something
I
think
councillor
Reid
has
said
over
and
over
again
you
can't
build
your
way
out
of
affordability.
It's
something
needs
to
be
done
to
to
the
process.
The
biggest
step
change
that
we
will
get
in
delivering
lower
housing.
A
Pricing
in
the
city
is
actually
opening
the
number
of
houses
we
deliver
and
upping
the
number
of
housing
we
deliver
will
be
done
by
delivering
a
local
plan.
That
has
a
support
of
the
majority
of
the
city
and
this
particular
plan
that
we
have,
as
we
mentioned
the
last
time,
this
was
debated,
will
see
a
significant
step
change
in
delivery
rates
that
this
city
has
not
seen
before.
A
The
figure
of
a
thousand
we
always
discussed
has
only
ever
been
touched
in
my
recent
memory
on
earth
in
one
occasion,
in
one
particular
year,
that
was
a
time
we
had
a
large
high
scale
development
around
Hungate.
That's
the
only
time
we've
achieved
anywhere
near
the
thousand
that
we're
talking
about
the
sites
that
was
a
living
now.
If
this
plan
is
approved,
would
see
somewhere
around
a
50
to
25
percent
increase
in
the
height
delivery.
A
Annual
rates
of
the
city
has
ever
seen,
and
the
other
thing
that
we,
as
an
administration
vowed
to
do,
was
to
deal
with
the
problem
of
derelict
brownfield
sites
and
regeneration
in
our
city
center.
Anybody
that
walks
around
now
conceal
and
Satre
jason-2,
the
Barbican
that
has
sat
there
with
plan
permission
for
a
significant
number
of
time
is
now
in
many
ways
becoming
a
piece
of
Greenbelt
in
its
own
in
Council
of
Williams
Ward
and
on
my
way
to
work
every
day.
A
I
cycle
pass
to
earth
green,
something
that's
been
sat
there
at
infinitum
doesn't
seem
to
have
any
suggestion
of
moving
things
forward.
We've
always
said
that
an
over
subscription
of
Greenbelt
land
will
drive
developers
out
and
city
and
make
sure
that
these
urban
sites
do
not
face
any
sort
of
regeneration
in
the
next
10
to
15
years.
Only
through
setting
accurate
policies
for
accurate
housing
we'll
be
able
to
deliver
that
brownfield
first
alongside
green
belt.
A
A
Six,
all
those
against
and
any
abstentions
day
that's
passed
on
post
eight,
six
of
your
papers.
It
has
been
noted
to
me
that
the
recommendation
by
council
read
only
really
covers
options,
one
and
two
and
that
option
three,
which
refers
to
the
policy
changes
other
than
those
in
the
tables
we
do
need
to
formally
approve
that
those
minor
amendments
are
also
accepted.
Sorry.