►
From YouTube: Planning Committee, 13 September 2018
Description
AGENDA (To view individual agenda items click on the links below)
1. Declarations of Interest 00:03:53
2. Minutes 00:04:01
3. Public Participation 00:04:19
4. Plans List 00:04:31
4a) Crabtree New Farm York Road Deighton York [18/01256/FUL] 00:05:23
4b) Pavers Ltd, Catherine House, Northminster Business Park, Harwood Road, Upper Poppleton, York 00:24:04
4c) Beetle Bank Farm And Wildlife Sanctuary, Moor Lane, Murton, York [18/01411/FUL] 00:43:01
5. Appeals Report 01:34:36
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=10594
A
B
A
B
B
So
I
will
move
on
to
the
plans
list
and
to
tend
to
take
the
the
applications
in
the
order
that
they're
listed
on
the
agenda
so
for
a
crabtree
new
farm,
4b,
pavers
and
4c
beetle
Bank
farm
for
those
people
who
have
not
been
to
here
before
the
way
it
works
is
that
the
beginning
of
each
item,
the
officers,
will
give
us
an
update.
Members
may
or
may
not
ask
the
officers.
Questions
I'll
then
invite
the
registered
speakers
to
speak.
You
have
three
minutes.
Each
and
I'll
give
you
a
30-second
warning.
B
You
may
or
may
not
be
asked
questions
by
members
at
the
end.
When
all
the
people
have
spoken,
then
we
move
into
debate
and
there'll
be
no
no
further
input
from
from
from
from
speakers
or
or
people
of
quantity
errors,
so
that
we
move
straight
on
to
4a,
which
is
Crabtree
New
Farm
York
Road,
to
detail
on
page
13
officer,
update.
C
We
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
even
if
the
proposal
were
to
be
considered
appropriate
facilities
for
outdoor
recreation,
it
would
still
not
fall
within
the
forms
of
development
considered
not
pretty
appropriate
because
of
the
impact
on
openness
which
is
detailed
already
in
the
report,
and
nothing
in
within
this
alters
the
officer
recommendation
and
the
very
minor
change
to
the
recommended
reason
for
refusal,
and
it's
just
the
addition
of
the
words
in
italics
there.
At
the
bottom
paragraph,
we
also
have
received
comments
from
the
drainage
officer
recommending
conditions
if
you
were
minded
to
approve
the
application.
D
E
B
F
Remembers,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
Again.
As
you
are
aware,
we
are
proposing
installation
of
two
small
camping
cabins
at
Crabtree
newfound
item.
We
have
amended
the
plans
a
number
of
ways
following
the
concerns
of
the
Planning
Committee
from
our
previous
submission.
The
cabins
themselves
are
classed
as
non
permanent
leisure
buildings,
so
they
have
no
foundations
and
can
be
moved.
We
have
produced
a
number
of
cabins
and
have
removed
parking
areas
and
paths.
F
It
is
proposed
that
the
car
part
will
be
in
an
air
of
the
farmyard,
together
with
overnight
and
a
bicycle
storage,
to
prevent
any
bikes
being
placed
next
to
the
cabins
and
reduced
visual
impact.
Overhead
powerlines
mean
the
cabins
cannot
be
relocated
nearer
to
the
farm
buildings,
but
have
been
moved
towards
the
farm
tract
to
reduce
the
visible
visibility
from
a
very
small
section
of
the
public
footpath
planting
on
the
field
side
of
the
footpath
will
reduce
this
or
the
cabins
could
be
screened
if
required.
F
The
surrounding
agricultural
buildings
are
ten
meters
in
height,
and
the
cabins
are
2.7
meters
at
the
highest
point,
which
is
less
than
the
adjacent
boundary
edge.
Each
cavern
is
self-contained,
so
no
additional
buildings
will
be
required.
There
are
minimal
visual
impacts
compared
to
the
alternative
agricultural
building
and
diversification
options
and
other
buildings
in
the
area
and
it
easily
associated
with
the
landscape
of
the
farm.
They
have
eco
construction
and
manufacture
from
sustainably
sourced
timber,
which
would
age
in
line
with
the
Yorkshire
boarding
on
the
existing
buildings.
F
In
terms
of
openness,
the
size
of
the
cabins
are
twenty-seven
point:
five
meter
square
per
cabin,
which
includes
a
small
deck
area
to
contain
outdoor
seating.
The
rest
of
the
field
will
remain
cropped
and
not
filled
with
other
glamping
paraphernalia.
To
put
this
into
perspective,
the
cabins
cover
naught
point
three:
eight
percent
of
the
six
acre
field,
leaving
ninety-nine
point
six.
Two
percent
of
the
field
open
anthem-
we've
had
no
objections
again
from
any
other
parties,
including
the
Parish
Council,
and
have
had
support
from
local
businesses.
F
Ask
you
to
look
favorably
upon
this
application
due
to
the
unique
and
special
circumstances
of
our
business
we've
at
hamburger
farm
tendency
on
other
land
due
to
financial
pressures
of
high
rank
in
comparison
to
low
commodity
prices
and
high
input
costs.
It
is
therefore
essential
for
the
business
on
the
remaining
land
versifying.
There
were
no
other
cabins
of
this
size
of
sort
to
the
south
of
York.
Another
accommodation
is
primarily
hotels
or
bed-and-breakfast,
so
this
also
covers
a
gap
in
the
market.
F
We
have
excellent
access
routes
on
to
York
cycle
track
and
the
avec
walking
way
together
with
regular
public
transport
links.
We
for
your
tourism
will
be
a
suitable
and
sustainable
addition
by
providing
stability
in
the
long
term
for
the
farm
business
and
our
young
family.
We
appreciate
the
requirement
for
a
green
belt
around
the
City
of
York
and,
as
we
also
live
and
work
on
the
farm,
we
do
not
wish
to
construct
anything.
That
is
this.
Nor
do
we
want
to
alter
the
character
of
the
countryside.
Only
enhance
them.
F
G
You
obviously
have
got
an
agenda
in
front
C,
but
I'll
read
you
this
sentence.
Their
appearance
is
not
considered
typical
of
an
agricultural
building,
while
curved
buildings
of
this
farm
can
be
seen
on
farms
that
would
typically
be
constructed
from
corrugated
metal,
not
Ward.
The
large
glazed
element
to
one
end
of
the
building
further
adds
to
the
non-agricultural
character
of
the
building.
I
just
wondered
if
there'd
been
any
discussions
with
officers
asked
to
read
clad
in
it
with
corrugated
sheeting.
So
it
looks
almost
like
in
this
knot,
which
you
typically
see
on
a
farm.
F
There
hasn't
me
that
wasn't
brought
up
as
an
issue
before
I
mean
I.
Suppose
we
could
do
that.
I
could
may
look
worse
and
would
probably
think
it
fees
will
age
in
time
and
they
look
the
same
shade
as
the
agriculture
building
that
it's
next
to
in
the
same
wood
tone.
As
that,
but
I
mean
if
it
was
an
issue
we
could
do
that.
We
could
address.
G
I
I
B
J
This
reference
there's
reference
to
page
top
of
page.
What's
on
page
17
top
of
page
18
makes
reference
to
addition
of
planting,
which
would
further
harm
openness
by
adding
further
intrusion,
I've
led
to
believe
that
we
weren't
supposed
to
take
planting
into
consideration
any
outfits.
If
it's
green
belt,
because
you
know
trees
and
vegetation,
isn't,
doesn't
really
have
any
bearing
on
on
the
openness
it's
either
there
or
it
isn't.
K
Just
it
says,
I'm
the
information,
it
said
just
a
second
yeah
additional
padding
around
the
cabins
is
mentioned
with
into
submission,
but
not
shown
on
the
plans.
I
think
officers
are
just
covering
that
point
to
say
that
potentially
there
could
be
additional
planting,
but
we
don't
think
it
will
be
acceptable
either
way.
Whether
or
not
you
have
the
planting
or
not.
J
K
E
Sorry
I'm
I'm,
I'm
I
know.
Perhaps
this
should
have
been
a
question
to
the
applicant,
but
I
struggled
with
the
idea
that
a
farm
producing
you
know
dealing
with
arable
crops
at
47
acres
could
be
viable
almost
at
all
I'm
referring
there
to
page
18,
paragraph
four
point,
one
for
the
second,
the
first
bullet
point
and
given
that
it
was
reduced
from
three
hundred
and
twenty
five
acres
and
I
struggled
with
the
the
idea
that
it
was
viable
in
the
first
place.
So
I'm
not
convinced
that
the
financial
arguments
are
actually
stack
up.
E
E
Workable,
financially
for
a
foreseeable
period
of
time,
I
might
understand
the
argument
better.
So
I'm
left
with
the
situation
that
we're
being
asked
to
approve,
approve
an
application
for
to
clumping
cabins
in
the
middle
of
a
rather
large
open
space,
and
despite
the
fact
that
it's
a
very
small
percentage
of
that
open
space,
that's
being
used,
I
think
the
MPP
F
is
quite
clear.
L
Thank
You,
chair
I'll,
start
by
saying
I
have
great
sympathy
for
the
applicant
in
the
financial
situation
that
she's
in
and
I
applaud
any
effort
to
diversify
when
a
business
is
in
trouble.
However,
we
have
to
consider
the
impact
that
this
application
will
having
on
the
openness
of
the
green
belt
and
I
believe
that
installing
these
campingplatz
does
not
make
any
beneficial
change
to
the
openness
of
the
green
belt
and
I,
don't
believe
from
from
the
application
that
we
have
seen.
M
N
M
M
Buildings
are
here
so
all
the
buildings
of
that
okay,
so
from
from
the
description,
they're
going
to
be
quite
low
and
blend
in
much
more
and
hopefully
make
this
build,
this
business
viable,
so
I
do
have
some
difficulty
in
understanding.
Why
we'd
want
to
oppose
it?
If
there
are
other
buildings
very
close
by
that
it's
going
to
blend
in
with.
O
Having
said
that,
chair
and
I
don't
want
to
cause
any
offence.
I
think
it
has
been
difficult
to
have
found
a
worse
site
than
that
where
it's
gonna
stand
out,
surrounded
and
I
would
have
thought
chair
and
having
been
on
site
on
the
original
application.
If
they've
been
nearer
the
farm
buildings
I
think
it
would
have
been
easier
for
us
to
probably
give
a
different
what
I
suspect
he's
going
to
be
a
different
decision.
O
I
do
struggle
and
I
do
reckon
that
diversification
has
got
to
happen
and
I
think
it
is
sad
in
a
way
that
the
Greenbelt
is
used
and
I
understand
why
I
ought
to
go
through
all
the
legalities.
But
it's
sad
in
a
way.
The
Greenbelt
doesn't
recognize
the
need
for
diversification,
where
it
is
at
least
done
with
a
degree
of
consideration
to
the
openness
and
of
the
buildings
cannot
meet
it
like
that.
I
can't
support
the
supplication
as
it
stands,
but
I
think
it
does
deserve
a
look
at
for
reciting
within
the
farm
complex.
A
P
Thank
You,
chair,
I,
think
yeah
as
everybody
else
us
everything.
We
all
have
sympathy
to
the
upper
gate
in
terms
of
what
they're
doing
I
think
some
of
my
concerns
is
that
reduction
of
land
from
the
larger
holding
to
a
smaller
holding
and
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
something
that
encouraged
people
have
had
larger
holdings
or
to
buy
larger
or
he
farms
and
then
I.
P
My
suggestion
that
you
could
buy
32
320
acre
farm
with
the
intention
of
just
having
off
small
parts
of
it
and
then
uses
a
glamping
pod,
but
it
could
become
soft
business
model
to
to
encroach
acosta
Greenbelt
all
the
way
across
and
I
think.
My
other
suspicion
is
that
this
concert
is
the
issue
around
diversification.
I
think
councillor
carvings
right
that
we
do
need
to
look
to
diversify,
but
there
is
no
evidence
on
this
application.
P
I
said
on
paragraph
4,
/
1/5
of
any
other
attempts
to
diversify
any
of
the
diversification
that
may
have
been
more
sympathetic
to
green
belt
land
I.
Think
often
the
glamping
pod
seems
to
be
the
first
option
that
people
sort
of
rush
to
and
caravans
wish
to,
rather
than
actually
looking
see
if
there's
anything
else
in
the
land
and
I
think
in
terms
of
future
applications
and
ability
to
demonstrate
that
that
attempted
diversification
has
really
been
exhausted
before
coming
to
more
harmful
impacts
on
the
green
belt.
I
think
needs
to
be
the
case.
A
B
You're
right
I
think
we
all
have
have
sympathy
and
we
with
the
problems
of
farmers
and
also
you're
right
that
there
are.
You
know
people
want
to
get
out
and
use
the
countryside,
and
so
these
facilities
have
to
go
somewhere,
and
it's
always
difficult
for
us
in
York.
In
that
we
we
have
lots
of
been
very
little
open
space
where
open
countryside,
where
clearly
you
can
put
things
on
open
countryside,
is
it
more
easily
than
you
can
put
them
on
Greenbelt.
B
Having
said
that,
it
we
went
last
time.
It
was
a
very
open
sight,
very
obvious,
that
these
are
going
to
be
be
here.
I
know
that
they've
they've
moved
the
parking
into
the
farmyard
proper,
but
and
that
these
our
self-contained
but
they're,
not
self-contained
people
will
want
to
sit
outside
in
the
evening.
They'll
want
to
have
a
barbecue.
They
want
to
chat,
they'll
want
to
hang
their
washing
up.
There
will
be
things
out
and
around
the
building
as
well,
with
the
best
will
in
the
world.
B
People
don't
go
on
holiday
to
sit
in
a
glamping
pod
all
day
when
they're
not
out
and
about
in
their
bicycles,
so
it
I
think
the
NPP
F
is
quite
clear.
I
I
don't
believe
that
there
are
very
such
special
circumstances
in
this
application
to
allow
us
to
to
approve
this
application.
Have
you
moved
refusal.
B
A
B
G
G
Don't
know
quite
a
bit
about
the
landscaping
around
that
site,
especially
that
conifer
edge,
because
I
planted
a
lot
of
it
many
years
ago
and
I
do
follow.
What's
in
this
agender
about
increasing
the
width
of
that
landscaping
band
because
to
be
very
little,
you
could
plant
close
to
that
conifer
edge.
G
A
B
Do
I
don't
think
every
application
should
be
lifetime,
but
I
and
I
don't
think
it's
for
officers
to
actually
say
that
I
think
it
is
for
us
to
to
revise
that
condition
if
we
feel
that
we
need
to.
It
is
certainly
a
very
well
screen
sight
at
the
moment
and
I
think
that's
that
helps
it
along.
So
I
think
in
this
assistant,
I
would
I
would
agree
with
you,
but
I
do
think.
It
is
something
that
members
need
to
to
consider
each
time,
because
it
isn't
always
the
case
that
it
should
be
a
lifetime.
L
You
chair
with
regard
to
condition,
10
I,
would
like
to
ask
that
the
charit
and
officers
be
given
delegated
mission
to
negotiate
the
maximum
provision
of
electric
parking
spaces
that
is
viable.
Whilst
it
may
be,
the
two
spec
spaces
is
viable.
It
might
be
that
more
than
two
spaces
can
be
provided.
We
should
be
doing
everything
we
can
to
encourage
more
and
more
electric
car
parking
spaces
to
encourage
green
reforms
of
Earth
travel.
R
L
R
J
Just
relating
to
the
points
that
were
made
by
counselor
waters
in
paragraph
four
point,
one
eight
is
reference
to
the
screening
provided
by
the
existing
Evergreen
hedging
and
the
recommendation
of
additional
soft
landscaping,
which
would
actually
provide
a
more
natural
sort
of
boundary.
Is
that
something
that
we
can
condition
as
part
of
landscaping
that
there
is
a
a
landscaping
program
that
over
time
will
replace
the
non-native
species
with
more
of
a
mixture
so
that
there
is
a
more
natural
screening
from
the
green
green
belt,
which
is
what
the
main
purpose
of
that
being
there?
K
J
Current
building
is
barely
visible
from
outside
the
site
by
virtuous
green
screening,
conifer,
hedging,
conifer
hedging
being
shown
as
being
retained
and
retention
coming
condition
together
with
additional
soft
landscaping
to
the
boundary,
and
this
would
scream
in
a
similar
manner
to
the
house
building
and
by
virtue
of
the
screening.
It
is
not
considered.
There
is
harm
to
the
landscape,
and
so
you
know.
J
Boundaries
fairly
crucial
in
terms
of
the
appearance
not
being
detrimental
to
the
landscape,
but
it
is
all
in
Council
water
said
it's
confirmed
it.
So
it's
all
non-native
species
which
is
not
a
sort
of
a
natural
boundary.
It's
not
the
sort
of
thing
you
would
find
other
than
that,
where
it's
being
planted
for
screening
in
the
greenback,
which
is.
But
if
this
is,
you
know
the
edge
of
a
Greenbelt
as
I
understand
it.
K
Okay,
well
condition
five
retains
the
existing
boundary
hedge.
Are
you
wanting
to
amend
that
condition?
Five,
sorry
page
38
condition
five
says
the
existing
boundary
henry
hedge,
which
bound
the
site
to
the
nafs'
aisle
from
west
of
the
site,
as
shown
to
be
retained
on
drawing
number,
so
it
shall
be
returned
shall
not
be
removed
or
reduced
in
height
below
11
meters.
J
Then
substituting
he
goes
on
to
say
if
in
circumstances
the
hedge
will
part
of
a
header
to
remove
details
illustrating
number
species,
height
and
position
shall
be
submitted
and
approved
in
writing.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
that
that
should
be
part
of
the
plan
to
actually
change
the
nature
of
that
to
a
more
natural
boundary
over
a
period
of
time,
but
retaining
that
screaming
throughout
that
period,
as
far
as
possible,
I
mean
mostly
council
waters
does
not.
J
J
B
J
I
appreciate
that,
but
what
I
would've
thought
is
they
plan
to
thicken
that
boundary
by
planting
some
additional
another
line
of
trees,
which
were
then
eventually,
as
in
fullness
of
time,
replace
the
boundary
that
there
would
be
a
boundary
throughout
the
time
that
it's
in
place?
But
you'd
have
a
new
more
by
diverse
planting
on
on
the
inside
of
that
hedge
I.
B
G
J
What
what
I'm
suggesting
isn't
an
amendment
to
that,
or
in
addition
to
that
that
says
there
should
be
a
landscaping
strategy
to
be
agreed
with
officers
to
introduce
a
more
diverse
range
of
species
in
that
screening
that
screening
belt,
so
that
over
the
course
of
time
we
will
have
I.
Don't
worry
that
a
stern
old
finish
in
various
native
species
providing
that
screening,
rather
than
all
evergreen
trees,.
B
Q
G
Q
K
The
that
recommendation
is
basically
to
say
if
we
think
that
the
any
drainage
issues
can
be
covered
by
condition.
We
will
cover
it
via
condition
that,
if
the
drainage,
broad,
don't
objects,
and
if
our
internal
drainage
engineer
is
okay
with
it
and
they're,
okay
with
conditions,
we
will
then
pass
it
through.
Until
that
we've
got
that
process,
we
won't
make
a
decision
on.
It
will
obviously
have
members
minded
to
approve,
but
we
will
actually
approve
it
until
we've
got
those
consultations
in
place.
I
would.
G
J
Just
found
the
paragraph
Oh
looking
forward
page
27,
paragraph
three
point:
three
management
of
vegetation
should
aim
to
gradually
replace
the
conifer
belts
to
provide
a
mixed
shelter
belt
in
the
long
term,
which
would
have
great
aesthetic
appeal
within
an
outsider
site
and
greater
biodiversity.
Fanny
Betsy
advice
from
our
offices
for.
K
B
B
Think,
given
the
context
of
the
changes
to
Northminster
in
the
local
plan
or
the
draft
local
plan,
I
think
that
it
will
be
within
policy
within
that
I
will
be
happy
to
change
condition
for
to
allow
the
landscaping
to
be
for
the
lifetime
of
the
development.
Is
everybody
happy
with
that
and
then
condition
10
the
changes
to
condition
10
to
ask
for
asking
that
provides
a
minimum
of
two
recharging.
B
G
G
B
B
R
J
Think
really
I
mean
the
hedge
is
not
going
to
replacement.
Edging
up
would
appear
overnight,
I
think
what,
in
terms
of
a
long-term
strategy,
this
should
actually
be
a
scheme
which
in
achieving
in
the
course
of
time,
and
the
additional
condition
is
if
there's
a
gap
appears
for
whatever
reason
that
is
is
address.
But
you
need
a
long-term
plan
to
replace
to
replace
that
with
a
more
diverse
hedging.
B
Yeah
officers
are
advising
that
it
will
be
difficult
at
this
stage
to
ask
for
a
wholesale
removal.
We
can
say
if
it
dies
so
now,
which
is
what
well.
Naturally,
you
are
that's
what
you're
asking
over
time
the
wholesale
change
from
Leyland
II
to
native
species.
What
this
is
saying
is
if
the
Nolan
D
dies,
they
were
replaced
by
native
species,
which
is
reasonable,
but
we
can't
ask
them
to
go
along
and
replace
them
unless
they're
dead,
no.
B
B
I
think
we're
I
think
officers
are
advising
that
that's
perhaps
not
reasonable,
given
that
there
is
already
a
there
is
already
an
adequate
there's
already
an
adequate
hedge
which,
if
it
dies,
will
be
replaced
by
something
that
is
more
suitable,
but
that
is
an
unreasonable
to
expect
them
to
do
additional
planting.
That
is
not
needed
for
the
purposes
of
which
the
edge
is
there.
B
K
B
B
K
B
Okay,
if
we're
all
happy
with
those
three
amendments,
those
in
favor,
please
show:
oh
sorry,
as
a
seconder,
I
moved
it
is
there
a
second,
oh
yeah,
councilman.
Thank
you
right
all
in
favor,
please
sure
any
against
that's
carried
unanimously.
Thank
you
very
much
right,
move
on
to
item
4c,
which
is
beetle
Bank
farm,
the
erection
of
a
steel
container
for
use
as
astronomical
observatory.
We
have
quite
a
long
number
of
sheets
of
as
an
update
that
came
in
from
the
applicant
yesterday.
B
P
S
S
P
Quite
previously,
it's
quite
extensive,
that's
what
so
that
just
sits
under
the
associated
facilities,
part
of
the
original
that
was
a
bit
confusing.
Okay.
The
second
question
was
around
paragraph
4.1
for
some
of
the
assessment
that
the
uses
and
Observatory
does
not
require
this
level
of
open
space
to
function.
I
wonder
if
there
was
any
sort
of
scientific
test
on
how
far
away
from
buildings
you
need
to
be
tuned
to
functional
Observatory.
S
P
Question
was
kind
of
the
polygon
I'm,
surely
going
to
argue
that
they
need
to
be
as
far
out
the
city
center
as
possible
to
get
good
views.
The
night
sky
I
wondered
if
there
was
anything
from
epu
anything
that
suggested
a
separation
distance
requirement
from
four
major
buildings
to
be
able
to
get
a
decent
view.
I.
G
Just
if
it
might
assist
I
know,
there's
mention
of
the
original
planning
permission
in
2013.
It
would
have
assisted
if
we'd
had
a
bit
more
detail
on
that,
because
at
the
time
and
looking
around
this
table,
I
think
it
was
only
possibly
to
was
on
that
committee
that
approved
it,
but
it
was
actually
approved.
The
proposals
were
approved
because
they
were
within
the
existing
built
infrastructure
that
was
on
the
site
at
the
time.
G
The
site
was
chosen
so
as
to
reduce
the
visual
prominence
of
the
fair
and
it
was
to
make
use
of
existing
built
infrastructure
to
be
as
sustainable
as
possible,
and
the
most
two
of
the
most
important
points
were.
The
new
buildings
were
confined
to
an
amenity,
an
agricultural
building
and
the
essential
use
remained
at
farming,
and
that
was
the
basis
upon
which
baitul
Bank
farm
was
approved
for
its
various
operations.
At
the
moment
that
assists
anybody.
B
B
T
This
is
a
simple
case
and
we
are,
but
we
are,
we
are
serious
about
the
green
belt.
The
emerging
local
plan
of
course
follows
the
National
Planning
policy
framework,
which
makes
it
absolutely
clear
that
inappropriate
development
is,
by
definition,
harmful
for
the
green
belt
and
should
not
be
approved,
except
in
very
special
circumstances.
T
Further,
even
if
the
development
is
desirable,
it
must
not
conflict
with
the
openness
of
the
green
belt.
This
was
also
clearly
recognized
by
the
applicant
in
the
original
proposal
to
develop
this
open
forum
when
it
was
stated
that
the
application
proposes
to
minimize
the
need
for
new
existing
build
structures,
thus
negating
the
need
for
multiple
additional
buildings.
T
Indeed,
thanks
to
the
planning
officer
that
development
on
the
site
was
visually
contained,
yet
we
are
now
discussing
the
erection
of
a
large
steel
building,
the
size
of
a
high-speed
railroad
carriage
without
a
single
redeeming
feature,
just
visualize
the
effect
of
the
siting
of
that
carriage,
the
Planning
Committee
has
been
constant
in
protecting
the
green
belt
in
our
parish.
In
recent
years
four
times,
your
decisions
have
been
challenged.
Four
times
you
have
been
vindicated
in
each
case,
the
inspector
has
upheld
your
decision,
yet
none
of
them
have
affected
the
green
belt
more
than
this
one.
T
B
N
We
note
that
ruffed
airfield
is
also
within
the
Greenbelt.
The
York
Astronomical
Society
has
recently
been
registered
as
a
charity.
Our
strategy
has
always
included
public
outreach
and
educational
activities,
so
proximity
to
Europe
is
an
important
factor.
York
has
a
long
history
of
astronomy
and
our
society
has
educated.
Many
people
in
science
since
it
was
formed
in
1972
optical
observing
needs
dark
skies
with
a
clear
view
to
the
horizon.
Therefore,
sites
in
built-up
areas
are
simply
not
suitable.
N
After
reviewing
more
than
10
sites,
we
chose
beetle
banks
all
because
of
one
relatively
dark
skies:
easy
access
to
York
and
three
its
synergy
with
the
existing
outdoor
recreation
facilities
relocating
our
Observatory
beetle
Bank
farm
would
benefit
and
diversify
existing
outdoor
recreation
at
the
farm.
It
would
also
benefit
the
charitable
public
outreach
of
the
society
we
hope
to
attract
and
educate
more
young
people
and
even
inspire
a
new
generation
of
York
scientists.
N
There
is
no
change
of
use
of
beetle
bank
form.
The
planning
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
current
use
for
outdoor
recreation.
Just
like
a
sports
field,
nice
tan-
that
is
not
easily
available
in
town
an
observatory
is
something
that
needs
to
be
sited
away
from
town
lights.
We
are
not
aware
of
any
other
suitable
site,
New
York,
but
offers
the
same
benefits.
An
objection
seems
to
be
that
the
proposal
does
not
preserve
the
openness
of
the
Greenbelt.
N
We
are
willing
to
modify
the
application
to
overcome
this
issue
and
look
forward
to
guidance,
advice
and
support
from
the
council.
We
don't
want
to
harm
the
Greenbelt.
In
fact,
we
want
to
protect
it
because
astronomy
near
a
busy
city,
30
seconds
meant
that
makes
it
impossible
to
do
serious.
How
much
for
astronomy
near
a
busy
city,
street
or
neighbors
lights
can
completely
spoil
the
experience
of
astronomy.
We
need
a
site
that
is
away
from
the
city
or
villages,
but
not
so
far
that
we
can't
get
there.
N
In
fact,
Greenbelt
policy
could
have
been
created
for
amateur
astronomers.
Even
the
temporary
permission
would
be
useful
to
us,
giving
us
more
time
to
explore.
Other
options,
but
deferring
the
decision
would
be
less
helpful
as
we
are
running
out
of
time
to
move
the
observatory
before
ground
conditions
become
too
soggy
from
autumn
rainfall.
U
U
A
container
and
they
come
in
standard
sizes,
we
obtained
it
many
years
ago
now
it's
been
converted
with
a
lot
of
love
from
blood,
sweat
tears
by
the
members
of
society
painted
a
green
color
to
blend.
In
with
the
background
of
trees,
it
does
have
a
moment,
but
it
could
be
any
color.
The
size
is
necessary
to
hold
a
viewing
platform
with
too
large,
not
very
transportable
telescopes,
the
inside
of
it
no.
P
U
P
U
Lies
in
the
depths
of
winter,
when
out
there,
it
sorta
in
two
or
three
four
degrees
centigrade.
We
need
something
called
a
warm
room
to
retire
to
to
do
things
like
astrophotography
we're
sitting
there
doing
exposure
for
several
hours
so
and
it's
also
place
to
store
equipment
and
telescopes
a
small
workshop
and
computer
equipment
and
so
forth.
Thank
you,
I.
B
U
U
We
could
do
but
we'd
lose
the
smart
DeVaughn
room
and
because
that's
the
small
parts
of
container
it's
the
way
it's
done
is
actually
a
large
container
and
small
container.
His
presence
nightly
Rufus
is
actually
three
buildings,
we're
going
to
abandon
or
not
abandon,
but
stop
using.
What
is
a
present
your
warm
room
and
use
the
second
container
choice
to
make
it
with
just
one
night
and
continues
building
rather
than
but
hotchpotch
as
it
isn't
moment
to
tidy
it
up.
So.
J
U
U
Stop
vibration
copy,
what
you
don't
want
and
that
would
take
of
see
certain
matter,
expense
and
effort
to
put
in
so
any
tempering,
Planning
Commission
and
to
help
us
and
also
fact
that,
as
we
charity,
we
understand
that
in
order
to
get
grants
in
order
to
move
forward
and
they
like
a
long
lease
up
with,
we
actually
negotiate
a
five-year
lease
with
beetle
Bank
for
the
course
of
land.
So
five
years
would
help
us.
Obviously
we
prefer
the
application
we
passed
in
full,
so
it
can
focus
on
doing
what
we
want
to
do.
D
U
There's
not
very
good
at
all.
It's
been
assessed
that
you
can
see
and
main
stars
in
Orion
beetle
Bank.
You
know
it's
not
much
further
away.
Is
that
much
darker
and
we
see
much
more
because
she
see
the
Milky
Way,
but
she
can't
do
it
at
the
University
which
want
full
experience
of
most
optical
and
sky.
Then
it's
quite
important.
For
example,
we
estimate
the
viewing
beetle
Bank
to
be
between
the
four
point,
four
four
point:
five
and
five
for
you
cuz
it
approximately
four
hundred
stars
at
five.
U
U
V
A
B
V
Perhaps
a
little
bit
of
brief
personal
history,
I
am
not
connected
to
york.
Astronomical
Society,
but
I
am
a
professional
astronomer.
My
training
and
my
interest
in
astronomy
started
because
of
a
society
exactly
York
Astronomical
Society.
It
was
a
bridlington.
They
took
me
out
when
I
was
nine
years
old
and
showed
me
some
wonderful
objects
in
the
sky.
The
Crab
Nebula
remains
of
a
star
that
explode
in
1054
Lee's.
We
saw
it
then,
and
a
member
told
me
all
about
how
well
this
had
happened,
how
the
star
it
evolved
and
it
piqued
my
interest.
V
I
bought
every
book
on
astronomy,
I
could
possibly
think
of
and
when
I
came
to
choose
my
a-levels
I
choose
chose
sciences.
I
was
always
going
to
do
classics
about
Sciences,
and
that
shows
my
universities
and
Andrews
because
it
had
the
best
telescopes
in
the
country
and
a
good
astronomy
course,
and
after
six
weeks,
I'd
ditch
my
course
in
biochemistry
and
registrar
I
mean
astrophysics
and
graduate
as
such.
V
I
then
settled
in
New
York
and
taught
physics
at
Huntington
school.
My
entire
teaching
career
32
years,
and
during
that
time,
I
taught
dozens
of
young
people.
Astronomy,
both
as
part
of
the
a-level
syllabus
and
also
as
a
GCSE
level
in
their
spare
time
as
an
extracurricular
activity,
one
of
them
is
actually
Martina
WIPP.
Who
is
that
I
believe
the
president
of
York
Astronomical
Society,
now
kids
are
instant
in
astronomy,
they
get
the
interest
in
it
and
they
do
Sciences
were
desperately
short
of
Sciences
in
this
scientists
in
this
country
and
particularly
qualified
physics
teachers.
V
So
that's
my
reason
partly
for
why
I'm
here
now
looking
at
this
application,
why
have
the
chosen
beetle
Bank
farm?
Well?
The
answer
is
you
can't
do
a
drama
me
in
the
center
of
a
city
is
impossible.
I've
used
the
facilities
at
York
at
York
University,
and
that,
worse
than
useless,
it's
so
bright.
You
can't
see
anything
there.
So
getting
out
with
this
sexy
is
important.
V
At
the
same
time,
though,
going
in
the
beyond
the
Greenbelt
proposed
these
massive
transport
problems
getting
people
to
the
site,
especially
young
people,
so
it
has
to
be
a
Greenbelt
site.
In
my
opinion,
this
site
is
about
as
good
as
you
can
see
it
gets
now.
I
accept
is
in
the
Greenbelt
and
I
accept
the
officers
view
that
is
contrary
to
National
Planning
policy
for
a
large.
But
let's
look
at
the
precise
details.
V
If
you're
considering
and
I've
sat
on
a
planning
committee
for
nine
years,
you
look
at
the
effect
of
the
Greenbelt,
and
this
is
negligible.
It's
hardly
visible
from
anywhere
the
massive
building
to
the
south
of
it.
It's
well
screened
from
the
road
I.
Don't
think
it
poses
any
effect
on
the
Greenbelt
miss
of
the
Greenbelt
at
all.
If
it
was
a
football
changing
room,
it
would
be
perfectly
valid.
You
wouldn't
have
to
apply
for
planning
permission.
V
He
would
be
part
connected
to
the
outdoor
activities
now
could
argue
as
strongly
as
an
outdoor
activity
does
its
head
to
press
it
I,
don't
think
York
Astronomical
Society
is
going
to
be
applying
for
any
more
of
them.
I
think
this
is
the
only
one
and
then
special
circumstances
providing
a
valued
educational
facility
for
you.
V
Thank
you.
I
would
also
remind
this
council
that
in
2016
you
approved
four
houses
on
a
Greenbelt
site
at
fossil
ins.
Kateri
just
north
of
ears,
awake
and
I
was
concerned
with
that,
because
it
was
a
very
visible
in
the
Greenbelt,
but
apparently
the
provision
of
four
houses
was
suitable
and
I.
Remember
cows
on
the
guinea
saying
well,
this
bit
of
Greenbelt
isn't
really
very
good.
It's
not
worth
protecting
well.
V
B
O
Another
one
that
I
struggled
with,
but
probably
for
a
slightly
different
reason
to
the
last
one
I,
do
support
this
application
chair
the
last
speaker
actually
just
about
distilled
what
my
thoughts
were.
All
I
don't
have.
Obviously
his
professional
knowledge
of
stargazing
and
I
know.
Strong
numbers
will
probably
be
a
bit
offended
by
the
term
stargazer,
but
it's
done
in
in
good
human.
O
O
Let
me
put
it
that
way:
I
couldn't
see
it,
hadn't
picked
it
up,
and
personally
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
it
are
such
a
struggle
because
it
is
in
Greenbelt
but
I
think
certainly
the
the
reason,
the
special
reasons
which,
in
all
honesty,
have
been
fairly
well
loose
dated
by
the
applicant,
albeit
a
bit
late
in
the
day,
I
think
really
speak
for
themselves.
So
chair,
I'm,
going
to
move
the
permission,
be
granted
with
the
usual
conditions
that
one
might
want
for
this
kind
of
structure
or
this
kind
of
application
just
to
finish
up.
O
B
G
Like
to
take
completely
the
opposite
view
and
move
the
officers,
recommendation
and
I'll
just
draw
your
attention
to
the
last
sentence
in
paragraph
seven
was
the
application
clearly
conflicted
with
Greenbelt
policy?
No
negotiations
could
take
place
to
make
the
scheme
acceptable.
That
was
the
officers
view
only
three
quarts
of
an
hour
ago.
We
all
sat
in
unanimously
refused
a
similar
sort
of
application
at
Dayton
to
have
any
consistency
in
planning
decision-making.
This
one
needs
to
be
refused.
G
Similarly
to
have
any
consistency
in
decision-making
to
approve.
This
would
completely
fly
in
the
face
of
what
was
approved
in
2013
on
that
site
so
approve.
This
would
allow
the
continuation
of
the
incremental
deterioration
of
the
openness
on
the
green
bell
on
this
site
and
I
know
that
there's
one
outstanding
enforcement
case
related
to
a
structure
on
that
site
at
the
moment
to
allow
this.
It
is
creating
a
precedent
to
allow
that
sprawl
to
continue
and
I,
say.
I
would
just
draw
your
attention
to
that
last
sentence.
On
the
last
page,
page
51.
B
I
You,
chair
I
support,
counselor
Galvin
in
this
I
think
there
are
very
special
circumstances
and
they're
these
the
applicant
has
said
that
these
could
be
temporary
if
need
be,
I
think
they
need
a
lot
longer
than
a
year
by
the
way
counselors
Accord
the
use
needs
dark
skies
and
a
requirement
to
be
near
York,
obviously
for
access
and
away
from
light
pollution,
so
that
almost
by
definition
suggests
that
it's
got
to
be
situated
in
the
green
belt.
I
think
a
green
container
was
not
the
best.
Aesthetic
would
be
acceptable.
I
You
see
a
lot
of
containers
on
farms
and
a
green
one
would
be
relatively
inconspicuous
and
would
have
limited
visual
impact.
Perhaps
we
could
have
licked
clad
in
timber
if
people
don't
like
metal,
it
could
be
clad
in
timber.
We've
got
excellent
example
of
that
on
Piccadilly
at
the
moment,
I
think
it's
also
clusters
and
outdoor
recreation
facility.
It's
within
the
general
developed
area
of
the
farm
and
I
believe
on
balance.
It
does
preserve
the
openness
of
the
Greenbelt.
I
therefore
agree
that
we
should
approve
this
and
not
take
into
account
the
officers
recommendation.
R
B
A
I
B
H
Chair
I
shall
be
brief.
I
was
on
the
site.
Visit
on
Tuesday
and
I
also
went
on
this
night
visit
for
the
initial
use
of
this
farm
as
a
three
activities
it's
doing
now.
I
also
was
at
the
Greenbelt
training
yesterday
and
sometimes
okay,
you
can
understand
the
purposes
of
the
Greenbelt
legislation,
but
sometimes
it
seems
to
work
against
its
own
interests,
and
this
seems
to
be
like
one
I
can't
think
of
anything
that
is
more
of
outdoor
recreation
than
what's
proposed.
Now
there
aren't
any
football
fields,
but
it
still
requires
a
lot
of
space.
H
But
how
do
we
measure
that
harm
that
harm
can
be
only
very,
very
small
if
it
is
this,
admittedly,
not
beautiful,
certainly
functional
building
that
looks
not
unsuitable
on
the
farm
which
is
against
defense,
and
so,
bearing
in
mind
the
value
of
the
work,
that's
done
the
encouragement
of
interest
in
science
and
that
the
furtherance
of
an
activity
that's
been
going
on
in
York
for
a
long
time,
and
you
also
removing
this
facility
from
another
bit
of
Greenbelt
elsewhere.
I
know
it's
a
long
way
away,
but
I
am
absolutely
delighted
to
support
this
like
obligation.
J
This
does
seem
rather,
an
exceptional
application
in
in
the
context
of
Greenbelt
legislation
may
be
it's
quite
likely
that
the
MPs
or
ever
was
framing
that
and
didn't
have
in
mind
this
fairly
unusual
pastime.
That
might
need
very
different
conditions
and
and
need
to
be
in
a
location
outside
of
the
built
environment,
but
nevertheless
be
providing
recreation.
So
I,
certainly
having
been
on
the
site
visit
and
on
the
green
belt.
Training.
J
It
might
have
helped
if,
given
we've,
had
additional
information
provided
today
that
makes
reference
to
a
number
of
other
observatories
which
are
in
Greenbelt
or
national
parks,
and
that
does
at
least
demonstrate
that
it
has
been
deemed
elsewhere
to
be
acceptable,
for
whatever
reason
we
don't
know,
but
there
has
been
that
precedent
set
else
wherever
there
may
be
exceptional
circumstances
where
it
is
appropriate
for
this
type
of
facility
provided
in
such
a
location.
At
the
other
point
that's
been
made,
is
about
I
think
the
main
difficulty
we
have
in
terms
of
being
able
to
agree.
J
This
is
the
impact
on
the
openness
but
I.
Think
by
definition,
a
lot
of
agricultural
buildings
have
a
city
far
more
significant
impact
on
the
openness,
but
they
are
provided
for
within
the
legislation
to
allow
that
them
to
be
built
without
real
taking
it
that
into
account
so
I
think
I'm.
On
balance,
we
do
need
to
look
at
very
special
circumstances
as
to
why
this
might
be
an
exception
in
this
location,
given,
what's
also
being
said,
I
obviously
have
been.
They
need
to
relocate
this
from
somewhere
for
which
for
weather.
J
Whatever
reason
is
already
a
Greenbelt
location
to
a
different
location
in
the
Greenbelt
and
the
fact
that
there
is
a
certain
synergy,
that
means
that
there's
already
car
parking
was
already
toilet.
Facilities
is
already
other
facilities.
It
won't
need
to
be
provided
as
ancillary
to
this
sort
of,
so
the
impact
would
be
far
more
far
less
here
than
in
other
locations.
That
might
be
considered
as
an
alternative.
If
we
don't
prove
it.
J
L
L
Now
we
have
national
laws
in
relation
to
the
green
belt
and
we
have
a
local
green
belt
going
through
the
planning
spectra
at
the
moment,
which
is
supported
by
all
political
parties,
and
our
job
tonight
is
to
interpret
those
rules
and
decide
whether
in
this
case
there
are
very
special
circumstances
which
outweigh
the
damage
to
the
green
belt.
Now,
regrettably,
in
this
application,
I
don't
see
those
very
special
circumstances,
so,
like
councilor
waters,
I'll
be
supporting
the
officer
recommendation
to
refuse
his
application.
L
A
P
B
P
It
did
not
aspire
me
to
be
an
astronomer
I'll,
be
I'll,
be
and
entirely
honest,
I
struggle
with
the
the
first
queen
by
application.
I've
struggled
even
more
with
this
one.
I
think
this
is
possibly
one
of
the
hardest
screen
belt
applications
that
I've
come
across
I.
Think
it's
clearly
as
Council.
If
Linda
said,
planning
policy
is
not
working
in
its
favor.
Unfortunately,
no
matter
what
we
may
think,
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversation
around
the
debate.
P
It
does
hinge
I'm
afraid,
on
the
very
special
circumstances,
I
support
most
of
the
comments,
but
not
many
of
them
are
actually
actually
planning
reasons.
So
it's
incredibly
difficult,
I've
even
taken
to
Google,
to
see
if
I
can
find
any
other
sort
of
precedent
in
terms
of
gluten
green
belts
and
observatories,
and
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
anybody
else-
has
tried
to
put
an
observatory
in
the
green
belt.
I
think
what
I
would
say.
P
E
Now,
it's
possible
that
there
could
be
a
site
within
the
ring
modal
just
inside
the
ring
mode
and
it's
possible
indeed
that
there
may
be
other
sites
in
the
Greenbelt
which
are
appropriate.
But
there
is
evidence
produced
of
having
applied
number
of
check
number
of
locations
and
also
looked
for
an
offer
of
accommodation.
So
I
do
think
we're
faced
with
the
situation
where
it's
most
likely
than
it.
Appropriate
darkness
of
skies
is
only
available
outside
the
Greenbelt.
E
So
I
think
that
also
that
this
is
actually
it's
not
what
you
would
call
a
classic
outdoor
recreation,
but
clearly
we
don't
have
the
kind
of
size
of
a
dome
of
the
server
like
a
metal
mount
palomar
for
everybody
to
sit
around
a
huge
wood
with
reflecting
telescope
Twiggy
cups
of
tea
and
the
security
of
a
30
meter.
Diameter
dome
so
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
recreational
asked
astronomy
that
our
one
could
pursue.
E
It
seems
to
me
that
much
of
it
will
be
done
outside
a
building
which
is
home,
which
house
which
might
house
a
telescope,
and
this
is
an
example
of
of
just
such
a
situation.
So
I
think
it
does
fall
into
the
category
of
recreation.
But
if
you
look
at
paragraphs
143,
145
of
the
NPP
F
kindly
provided
at
the
green
belt
training
last
night,
I
think
you
would
probably
be
trust
as
in
appropriate
development,
but
because
I
think
it's
recreation
and
just
could
be
cluster
recreation.
E
That
means
that
it
could
be
trust
begin
to
be
not
inappropriate.
So
the
question
is
whether
they
harm
to
the
green
belt
he's
outweighed
by
the
very
special
circumstances.
Yeah
clearly
outweighed
okay,
so
I
want
to
look
at
the
visual
and
spatial
aspects
of
the
presence
of
this
container.
Should
it
be
improved
and
be
sited
in
the
green
belt.
I
was
quite
exercised
by
the
concept
of
openness,
not
just
as
was
explained
last
night,
but
also
on
site
visit
on
Tuesday
and
him.
E
I
looked
at
the
site
and
I
took
the
trouble
to
take
a
take
a
journey
around
the
area.
In
my
car
yesterday,
unfortunately,
I
couldn't
locate
the
footpath
that
site
that's
situated
to
the
northeast
of
the
farm,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
that
that
area,
that
developed
area
with
the
farm
developed,
properly
or
not,
is
not
really
visible
from
anywhere
other
than
the
northeast.
E
Along
that
footpath,
if
you
then
cite
any
moderately
large
building
construction
in
the
context
of
the
farm
buildings,
you
would
probably
fail
to
see
it
because
the
visual
openness
is
actually
affected
by
the
existing
agricultural
and
amenity
building.
If
you
think
in
terms
of
the
spatial
aspect
of
openness
again,
if
you
were
considering
the
view
from
the
Northeast,
it's
it's
almost
immaterial
because
you've
cleared
it
on
visual
grounds.
E
If
you
looked
at
it
from
any
other
angle,
you
would
have
to
be
within
the
curtilage
of
the
farm
itself
to
appreciate
it
so
its
effect
on
openness,
spatial
wise.
In
fact,
you
probably
have
to
be
within
the
length
of
the
existing
amenity
building
to
actually
cover,
or
perhaps
within
no
more
than
20
meters
away
from
it.
So
for
me
this
seems
to
fulfill
the
tests
in
paragraphs
143
to
146
or
145,
depending
on
whether
the
special
circumstances
clearly
outweigh
the
damage
to
the
Greenbelt
and
I.
E
B
D
Thank
You
chair
I,
can't
speak
as
eloquently
as
a
council
of
carpets
and
just
did
but
I'm
in
a
similar
boat.
To
be
honest,
I
minded
too
approved
this
application
and
I
think
the
circumstances
and
how
very
specially
may
or
may
not
be
have
been
downplayed
in
the
officers
report
when
I
first
read
that
they
could
find
other
locations,
perhaps
closer
to
the
city
around
the
edges,
provided
there
was
still
clear
skies
to
be
able
to
do
their
job.
I
thought.
D
Okay,
maybe
they
do
have
other
options,
but
it
might
sound
quite
simple,
but
I
was
not
aware
that
they
also
needed
clear
horizons
as
well,
which
which
limits
their
available
pool
somewhat
and
they've
already
made
from
what
I
can
see
in
the
additional
papers,
considerable
efforts
to
look
at
other
sites.
This
is
a
specialist
activity.
D
The
impact,
if
it
is
an
impact
at
all,
is
negligible.
On
the
green
bell
and
I
think
these
are
very
special
circumstances
and
another
reason
for
that
is
the
fact
that
we
need
this
New
York.
If
we
can't
approve
this,
we
lose
a
significant
asset
to
the
city
and,
as
has
already
been
mentioned
so
yes
I
do
think
any
harm
is
significantly
outweigh
due
to
the
specialist
nature
of
this
case
and
this
sort
of
activity,
and
that's
my
two
pennyworth
anyway.
Thank
you.
M
When
we
would
consider
in
the
application
about
the
bird
the
hen
farm
near
the
gliding
school
I,
we
we
did
go
counselor,
boys
and
I
did
go
and
see
the
the
center
and
it
was
fantastic.
What
really
worried
me
I
mean
that
the
roof
coming
over
and
all
of
it.
It
was
amazing
and
really
impressive,
and
that
was
during
the
dark
afternoon.
M
What
was
really
worrying
was
that
we
had
to
wait
for
the
gliders,
because
you
have
to
drive
across
the
runway
to
get
there,
so
it
was
actually
quite
dangerous
really
or
you
were
very
limited
when
you
could
get
on
and
off
the
side.
So
they
may
be
some
of
the
reasons
why
they
are
mu,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
huge
loss
to
the
city
for
all
the
reasons
that
have
already
been
explained
about
the
benefits
to
young
people
and
science.
B
You
just
around
you
know
if
you
just
wait
a
minute,
I
want
to
say
something
we
will
then
Alison
will
then
list
some
the
very
special
circumstances
that
she's
picked
up
from
the
earth
debate
and
then
the
officer
will
outline
the
conditions
that
she
feels
and
then
we
can
decide
whether
we're
happy
or
not
with
those
yeah.
It
is
an
extremely
difficult
one,
because
on
paper
this
is
not
acceptable
development,
but
that
is
why
we
are
allowed
to
consider
very
special
circumstances.
B
It
was
a
quite
ironic
and
I
think
the
the
members
of
the
society
who
are
on
the
site
visit
were
a
bit
confused,
because
when
you
stood
in
the
middle
of
the
of
the
farmyard
and
looked
across
to
the
adjoining
site,
which
isn't
anything
to
do
with
meat
or
Bank
Farm,
there
was
a
very
large
bone.
There
was
a
container
there
was
a
metal
shed
with
a
rusty
roof.
You
know,
and
people
people
who
aren't
planners
find
it
very
difficult
to
understand
why
those
things
can
go
up.
B
B
I
think
council
voice
was
right
in
that
you
might
not
be
looking
as
an
astronomer
for
a
big
open
field.
What
are
you
looking
for?
Is
big
open
skies
and
you,
you
can't
do
astronomy
in
inner-city
Center,
where
there's
lots
of
lights
and
from
inside
a
building.
So
even
if
it
was
a
existing
building,
it
would
still
need
to
have
an
opening
roof.
So
you
could
look
out
at
the
top.
B
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
very
unique
application.
We
I'm
sure
we
won't
get
another
one.
They
are
only
a
small
society.
I
think
it
was
unfortunate
the
way
the
application
came
forward
and
that,
if
the
supporting
documents
we've
received
today
were
available
to
the
officer,
I
think
that
the
report
would
be
they
might
have
changed
their
view.
B
But
the
report
would
have
been
more
comprehensive
and
easy
for
us
to
navigate,
but
that's
partly
because
it
is
a
small
society
who
are
who
are
trying
to
make
the
best
of
what
they've
got
so
on
balance.
I
think
that
I
I
do
feel
that
there
are
very
special
circumstances
to
allow
this
application
to
proceed.
So
if
we
could
hear
what
Allison
thinks,
we
think
of
very
special
circumstances.
R
This
is
what
I
think
members
have
distilled
from
the
debate
at
the
tower
very
special
circumstances
that
clearly
outweigh
they
harm
to
the
greenbelts,
first
being
the
value
of
education
and
the
encouragement
of
science
activities,
particularly
for
young
people,
that
the
society
has
been
in
New
York
since
1972,
and
it
would
be
a
loss
of
a
great
asset
to
the
city.
If
it
couldn't
continue
that
it
is
a
specialist
activity,
it
is
being
relocated
from
an
existing
Greenbelt
site.
R
R
K
So
we
tie
the
tie
the
permission
into
the
plans
that
we
have
we'd
also
recommend
a
personal
personal
permission
are
taken
that
would
tie
it
specifically
to
the
Astronomy
Society
and
that
it
could
only
be
used
and
as
an
observatory
and
no
was
a
use,
so
say,
for
example,
during
the
day,
if
the
observatory
aren't
using
it
that
nobody
else
can
go
in
and
using
it,
because
actually
very
special
circumstance
is
that
it
is
certainly
for
an
observatory.
Those
are
the
father.
I've
got
I.
E
K
G
Obviously,
that
ought
to
be
considered,
but
the
real
condition
that
there
ought
to
be
is
a
method
statement,
not
so
much
for
construction,
but
actually
entering
the
site
with
this
large
container,
so
that
we
don't
end
up
losing
the
grips
where
the
edge
row
to
actually
get
in.
So
I
do
think
that
that
needs
to
be
considered
and
put
on
as
a
condition.
K
It's
whether
or
not
members
think
that
that
is
reasonable
for
the
size
of
container
that
they're
bringing
in
realistically.
We
know
that
it's
only
a
small
container
and
that
it
can
be
moved
fairly
easily
from
the
additional
information
I.
Think
I
read
something
about
that:
the
Dority
soft
somebody
to
do
it,
and
do
it
quite
quickly.
So
from
my
point
of
view,
I
want
necessarily
recommend
that
you
do
that.
But
it's
entirely
up
to
members
whether
or
not
you
decide
you
want
that.
Well,.
D
M
B
I
Speak
Jeff
yeah
I
find
it
ironic
that
we,
although
I,
didn't
support
refusal
of
the
other
application,
but
the
two
glamping
cabins
their
officers,
were
quite
strict
about
the
timber
cladding
on
there
and
preferred
metal
here.
We've
got
metal
and
the
preferred
timber
I,
don't
quite
understand
where
we're
going
to
I.
Think
my
point
about
cladding
was
slightly
mischievous.
I
think
the
landscaping
will
be
fun.
J
Given
what
has
been
said
about
agricultural
buildings
and
so
on,
a
dark
green
steel
container
seems
to
me
as
good
as
any
other
agricultural
building.
One
might
come
across
and
any
landscaping,
and
someone
is
he's
going
to
add
to
the
impact
on
the
openness
I.
Would
we
think
in
terms
of
increasing
the
area
that
it
occupies
I
wouldn't
do
that
bothered
about
it?
Just.
K
Didn't
check
I'm
just
refer,
you
said,
he's
done
worse
all
right
these
plans
here
so
he's
gonna,
be
there's
gonna
be
situated
along
that
boundary
there.
If
you
introduce
landscaping
as
well
round
it
that's
going
to
have
more
of
an
impact
in
an
officer's
opinion
on
the
green,
but
whereas,
if
it's
just
a
green
container
sighted
there,
yes,
it
will
have
an
impact,
but
I
understand
the
points.
You've
said
about
the
limited
impact,
whereas
if
you
yeah
but
but
whereas,
then,
if
you
start
introducing
landscape
and
you're
gonna
have
more
of
an
impact.
K
B
Right
so
move
to
the
vote.
You've
heard
the
suggestion
for
the
racial
circumstances.
You've
heard
the
recommendation
of
the
conditions
that
the
officers
recommend
that
we
support.
So
if
you
are
in
agreement
with
those
and
we'll
go
to
the
vote,
all
those
in
favor
of
approval
with
those
conditions
and
those
special
circumstances,
please
show.