►
From YouTube: Planning Committee, 17 August 2017
Description
AGENDA (To view individual agenda items click on the links below)
1. Declarations of Interest 00:04:07
2. Minutes 00:04:14
3. Public Participation 00:04:35
4. Plans List 00:05:57
a) Land Adjacent to Sewage Works at Hessay Industrial Estate, New Road, Hessay, York (17/00670/FUL) 00:06:44
b) Home Lea, Elvington Lane, Elvington YO41 4AX (17/00712/FUL) 00:13:13
c) Holly Tree Farm, Murton Way, York, YO19 5UN (17/01671/FUL) 00:17:44
d) Hudson House, Toft Green, York, YO1 6JT (17/00576/FULM) 00:27:29
e) The Old School Business Centre, Low Poppleton, Lane,York, YO26 6AZ (17/01072/FUL) 01:05:35
f) Rufforth Playing Fields, Wetherby Road, Rufforth, York (16/02303/FUL) 01:27:20
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=9932
A
It
is
just
slightly
going:
topless
fall.
Sorry
will
make
it
start.
Welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
planning
committee,
just
one
or
two
housekeeping.
First
of
all
can
I
remind
you
that
this
meeting
is
being
webcast,
but
only
the
person
speaking
from
the
table
is
shown
to
the
wide
world
and
members,
of
course,
as
well
we're
not
expecting
a
far
along
practice.
A
So
if
the
farm
does
go
off,
we
will
have
to
leave
the
building
by
going
down
the
stairs
out
of
the
door
and
gathering
wherever
you're
told,
to
gather
out
the
front
row
around
the
corner.
Could
I
ask
everybody
to
turn
their
mobile
phones
to
off
or
silent,
and
if
anybody
needs
the
lose,
then
it's
through
the
door
here
across
the
other
side
and
there
on
the
left.
A
Okay,
members
still
have
any
declarations
of
it.
Oh
sorry,
subs
before
we
go
any
further
subs,
the
apologies
from
counselor
Carl,
wick
and
counselor
mason,
substituting
from
current
accounts
and
a
cuthbert
son
and
counselor
orally
substituting
and
from
councillor
Doughty
and
councillor
Mercer
is
substituting
and
we
understand
counselor
looker
is
somewhere
coming.
Thank
you
right.
Okay,
do
I
have
any
declarations
of
interest
from
members?
A
A
For
once,
I
do
have
somebody
speaking
register
speak
under
public
participation
under
three
a
councillor.
Stewart
would
like
to
speak
to
the
committee
about
the
possible
deferral
of
item
4a.
He
has
three
minutes.
We
can't
ask
him.
Questions
and
I've
asked
him
to
keep
to
the
topic
of
the
deferral,
as
opposed
to
the
general
wider
issues
of
the
application.
Yeah.
B
Okay
thanks
Jeremy
I'll,
be
very
brief.
As
with
my
shortest
ever
speech,
and
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak
in
public
participation.
My
point
is
simple:
I
have
broader
points
that
I
would
like
to
make
if
the
committee
doesn't
vote
to
defer,
which
is
that
the
new
information
isn't,
in
fact,
new
information
into
a
deferral.
It
is
information
that
people
primarily
on
the
opposition
to
the
development
have
said
which
highlights
the
need
for
refusal.
It
highlights
the
fact
that
there
are
significant
Greenbelt
concerns
which
are
not
for
me
anything
particularly
new
or
additional.
B
It
is
the
fact
that
this
is:
why
should
be
refused
and
on
the
highways.
The
work
from
Sanderson
shows
the
boundaries
for
the
application,
as
proposed.
Do
not
stack
up,
and
this
is
not
deliverable.
Therefore,
I
think
you
should
consider
it
in
the
normal
way
and
I
would
ask
to
refuse
it,
and
I
will
also
come
on
to
my
remarks
as
on
when
you
debate
it.
If
and
when
thanks
Jeff
thank.
A
You
very
much
right
move
on
to
the
plans
list
then,
and
for
people
who
haven't
have
been
here
before
the
way
this
bit
works
is
that
when
we
get
to
each
application,
ask
for
an
officer
update
that
point.
Members
can
ask
any
questions
of
the
officers.
We
then
have
the
public
speakers.
They
have
three
minutes.
Each
and
I'll
give
you
a
30-second
warning.
Members
may
or
may
not
ask
the
public
speakers
questions
after
that.
A
We
move
into
the
debate
and
after
that,
it's
only
members
of
the
committee
who
can
speak
when
we
finish
with
your
item,
you
may
you
were
free
to
stay
and
listen
to
the
rest
of
my
debates
or
you're
free
to
leave.
If
you
do
go,
I
suggest
to
go
out
of
this
door,
otherwise
you
might
disappear
into
the
council
offices,
never
to
be
seen
again.
A
C
Read
it
since
the
committee
report
has
been
prepared.
Further
advice
has
been
received
from
highway
network
management
that
the
extent
and
location
of
the
highway
boundary
at
the
junction
of
new
Lane
with
the
a
59
is
it
present
unclear,
which
calls
into
question
the
deliverability
of
the
tabled
scheme
of
off
site
highway
works
at
the
junction
of
the
two
roads.
C
A
Just
outlined
on
the
grounds
that,
notwithstanding
the
comments
made
from
the
wall,
councillor
I
think
that
if
there
is
information
that
officers
aren't
100%
confident
has
been
assessed
properly,
we
should
give
them
the
opportunity
to
to
do
that
and
come
back
to
next
month's
meeting
with
whatever
recommendation,
they
then
feel
is
appropriate.
I
councillor,
Derbyshire
I'm.
D
E
F
Just
a
little
concern
that
we
end
up
in
a
situation
once
again,
where,
with
a
room
full
of
people
and
an
applications
being
deferred
at
the
very
last
minute.
So
I
would
like
to
know
when
the
further
advice
was
received.
I'd
like
to
know
the
timelines
I'm,
assuming
that
this
was
only
prepared
a
week
ago
granted
the
report
will
have
been
written
up
in
the
intervening
period,
but
I
think
we've
had
long
enough.
Our
officers
have
had
long
enough
to
determine
the
information
that
were
given
I
would.
A
Say
councilor
waters
if
they,
if,
when
I,
was
asked
about
this
Tuesday
afternoon
after
site
visits,
if
I
have
been
in
a
position
to
actually
approve
deferral
on
my
own,
so
that
people
didn't
need
to
be
here,
I
would
have
done
I'm,
not
because
obviously
the
genders
been
published.
People
were
did
know
that
this
might
happen,
so
they
are
told,
but
I
think
that
officers,
the
information
that
officers
received
only
was
received
on
shoes
on
Tuesday,
notwithstanding
whether
or
not
you
think
some
people
think
they
already
had
it.
F
C
The
issue
was
in
respect
of
I'm,
not
a
high
engineer.
I,
take
advice
from
our
engineer.
Colleagues,
the
issue
was
in
respect
of
the
respective
bankers
at
either
side
of
the
junction.
It
was
only
confirmed
on
Tuesday
afternoon
that
there
was
a
degree
of
doubt
as
to
where
the
boundary
lay
I'm
aware
of
the
information
that
had
been
provided
by
sanderson's
and
advance
of
that.
But
up
until
that
moment
the
advice
we
had
was
that
the
scheme
was
deliverable
within
the
highway
boundary.
A
A
A
C
A
A
G
You
for
allowing
me
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
agent
of
this
application
in
support
of
your
support
of
this
application.
The
building's
subject
to
this
proposal
is
a
substantially
completed
shell
of
a
shop
or
workshop
building
permitted
by
the
council
back
in
2012
near
respect
of
the
previously
intended
development
of
the
site
as
a
touring
Caroline
site.
The
proposal
now
before
the
committee
is
for
the
conversion
of
this
building
to
form
a
single
dwelling
for
the
site
manager.
G
We
acknowledge
the
objection
raised
by
the
Avant
and
parish
council
on
the
grounds
of
harm
to
the
openness
of
the
Greenbelt
and
a
lack
of
case
for
very
special
circumstances,
for
the
proposed
use.
I
understand
that
officer
has
already
discussed
extensively
on
those
issues
in
his
report,
however,
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
highlight
two
key
issues
associated
with
their
objection.
Firstly,
in
terms
of
the
appropriate
appropriateness
and
the
impact
on
the
openness
of
the
Greenbelt,
the
proposal
does
not
involve
extension
or
external
expansion
of
existing
building
at
all.
G
Therefore,
his
impact
on
the
Greenbelt
will
be
no
greater
than
current
form.
Also,
the
reuse
offered
redundant
building
busy
the
reuse
of
redundant
building
reason.
The
greenbelt
constitute
a
proper
type
of
development
within
the
brick
grimbo,
which
is
according
in
accordance
with
the
paragraph
89
almighty
of
NPPL.
G
Secondly,
despite
the
paragraph
55
of
the
MPPs
is
clear
that
new,
isolated
drawing
houses
within
the
countryside,
including
the
conversion,
should
not
be
permitted
unless
there
are
special
circumstances
to
suggest
otherwise.
The
applicant
has
submitted
a
case
to
the
council
to
demonstrate
the
need
to
have
a
managerial
presence
on-site
at
all
times,
new
order
to
secure
the
effective
and
thus
efficient
management
of
the
site
and
a
permanent
management
president
on
site
will
now
be
easily
provided
by
are
the
dwellings
in
the
vicinity
or
by
the
matter
caravan
taken
in
round.
G
H
A
Move
into
debate
then
I'm
happy
to
move
it
from
the
chair.
In
that
case,
it
has
been
stated:
it's
it's
already
there.
So
as
a
building,
it
won't
make
any
difference.
So
it
has
permission
I.
Imagine
that
as
a
shop,
it
would
would
actually
not
be
viable
unless
it
attracted
customs
from
Alf,
where
which,
because
it's
only
a
very
small
site,
which
would
would
be
less
desirable
than
having
inter
house
so
I.
Think
that,
given
all
this
all
the
circumstances,
I
would
happy
to
with
it
with
it
with
amended
condition.
A
A
A
I
I
Of
the
access
road
serving
the
approved,
eight
log
cabins
and
fishing
lake,
a
holy
tree
farm
previously,
the
application
was
refused
on
the
grounds
but
double
in
the
width
to
the
bridge
and
the
access
road.
During
the
counselors
debate,
there
appeared
to
be
a
misunderstanding
over
which
element
of
the
application
had
doubled
in
width.
It
was
suggested
that
the
bridge
had
been
installed
twice
as
wide
as
the
previous
approved
scheme.
I
The
Planning
Officers
rapport
now
clarifies
this
Dayton
that
the
overall
bridge,
including
structural
up,
stems,
is
only
70
centimeters
wider
than
the
previously
approved
five
point
five
meter
wide
bridge.
It
was
the
access
road
within
the
site
that
was
proposed
to
be
doubled
in
width
from
3
meters
to
6
meters.
This
application
now
addresses
the
planning
officers
previous
concerns
relating
to
the
width
of
the
access
road
and
the
finish
to
the
bridge.
I
H
I
F
In
terms
of
the
width
of
what
was
originally
approved
now,
the
original
drawings
there
was
never
any
down
mentioned
attached
to
the
bridge.
What
was
approved
was
the
10-foot
wide
access
rod
and
virtually
20
foot
wide
visibility.
Splay
there
were
the
two
dimensions
that
were
on
the
drawing
the
bridges
approved
was
the
same
width
on
the
drawing
as
a
10
foot
wide
3
meter
access
rod.
Now
that's
a
question
for
either
yourself
or
the
planning
officer.
I
I
I
If
somebody
else
was
coming
down
the
act
of
the
three
meter
access
road
because
there
wouldn't
be
any
passing
so
they
could
park
on
the
bridge
and
not
cause
a
jam
on
Merton
way,
and
then
the
cars
can
pass
whether
bridges
and
then
out
onto
Merton
way
you
can
see
there
are
dotted
on
is
the
original
scheme
that
is
from
the
original
drawing
you
can
see
the
width
of
the
bridge.
It
then
narrows
to
the
three
meter
wide
and
that
is
contained
within
the
design
and
access
statement
on
the
original
approval.
I.
F
I
C
F
C
K
F
J
I
commented
the
last
time
we
considered
this
application
that
I
am
not
happy
with
the
council
being
presented
with
a
fait
accompli
in
terms
of
asking
for
approval
for
something
that's
already
being
built,
but
as
this
is
now
a
bit
closer
to,
what
was
expected
in
the
past
then
be
happy
to
support
it.
On
this
occasion,
that
doesn't
mean
that
I,
like
retrospective
applications,
yeah.
M
A
A
A
N
A
A
O
I
guess
just
a
summary
for
the
public
of
the
committee
update,
which
circulated
to
members
we've
got.
We've
received,
we
consulted
historic
England
on
the
revised
plans,
not
the
final
set
of
plans
that
have
come
before
committee,
but
the
plans
before
that
received
feedback
from
historic
England
on
those
they've
raised
some
objections
that
they
maintain
to
the
scheme.
O
O
They
feel
that
the
building
is
it's
too
dominant
and
impacts
on
views
up
and
down
tothe
green
in
that
respect,
and
since
these
comments
from
historic
England,
they
developers
of
them
they've
reduced
the
scale
of
block
2,
which
is
the
block
closest
to
west
offices
and
that
one
that's
been
highlighted
there.
So
they've
they've
reduced
the
scale
of
that
block.
Since
these
comments,
we've
got
from
historic,
England
and
they've
provided
a
letter.
That's
been
circulated
as
addressed
in
their
eyes.
Historic
England's
concerns.
O
E
O
If
we
can
find
it,
I
mean
that
there's
the
other
moment
on
them,
Hudson
House.
At
the
moment
it
has
the
N.
It's
got
an
articulated
reform,
it
has
its
service
cars
and
the
sort
of
angular
roofs
that
come
up
from
the
building
and
they're
the
areas
that,
if
you
so
we
can
see
on
this
image.
These
sort
of
angle,
determinations
to
the
circulation
cause
doubt
that
that
roof
form
is
is
apparent
from
outside
the
station.
O
At
the
moment
you
don't
you,
don't
see
the
office
pocket
itself,
that's
lower
down,
and
you
would
then
in
the
proposed
views
you
would
turn
the
image
is
that
from
one
of
the
views
outside
the
station
in
the
team
room
square,
that
the
applicants
have
done
it
brings
up.
It's
evident.
You
can
just
see
that
the
tops
of
these
the
office
would
be
office,
one
which
is
the
blocker
that
allowed
to
have
more
square
windows
but
number
four,
and
if
he
keeps
growing
through,
we
can
hopefully
find
the
one.
O
So
we
have
a,
we
have
a
situation
where
there
are
views
of
Hudson
houses
is
at
the
moment
from
the
from
outside
the
station
city
walls
that
the
would
be
views
of
the
proposed
building
and
historic
England's
preference.
They
have
a
position
paper
on
the
walls
and
they
they
want
the
walls
to
become
more
dominant,
so
they
would.
O
Rather,
if
we
have
any
new
development,
it
would
essentially
be
lower
and
and
would
not
pop
up
above
the
walls,
so
that
I
think
that
one
just
that
on
the
shows
the
before
so
it
is
less
prominent
from
the
other
side
of
the
walls
and
I
mean
our
position
is
if
the
building
is
apparently
there's
not
not
harmful
impact
there.
Okay.
A
H
Q
Q
Q
Terms
of
that
historic
England,
so
on
power,
three
point:
three
one
hundred
sixty
five:
it
was
based
on
the
fact
that
historic,
England
hadn't
commented.
You
had
come
for
approval
since
that
time
they
have
commented
and
objected.
Would
that
have
changed
if
that
come
in
before
the
report
was
written,
would
you
still
have
gone
for
approval.
O
We
we
did
have
we
had
an
early
Rock.
We
had
an
objection
from
historic
England
to
the
original
serve
plans
which
they've
maintained
with
the
amendments
so
I.
Don't
we
weren't
expecting
them
to
withdraw
their
after
that
there
were
their
objections,
so
basically
the
same
objects
all
the
way
through
yeah
they
they
they
haven't,
we've
drawn
them
on
the
basis
of
the
applicants
responders
to
them.
Q
O
R
Gonna
get
the
gum
okay,
okay,
good
afternoon,
everybody,
and
thank
you
for
giving
me
the
time
to
address
you:
I'm
Neil,
Sinclair,
I'm,
chief,
executive
of
palace
capital.
We
are
listed
on
the
alternative
investment
market
of
the
London
Stock
Exchange,
and
we
currently
have
a
portfolio
valued
in
excess
of
200
million,
with
25%
of
that
in
Yorkshire
in
particular,
we
are
keen
to
invest
in
York.
My
architect,
planning,
consultant
and
public
affairs
advisors
are
here
today.
Should
you
have
any
outstanding
questions
that
have
not
been
covered
in
your
officers
report?
R
As
you
know,
we
already
have
approval
to
convert
Hudson
House,
but
it
became
clear
to
us
last
night
last
year
that
it
would
be
much
more
efficient
and
results
in
a
better
all-round
scheme.
If
we
were
able
to
demolish
Hudson,
House
and
redevelop.
A
design
team
have
been
in
detailed
discussion
with
your
offices
since
the
middle
of
last
year,
and
we
made
a
planning
application
in
March
of
this
year.
R
We
have
also
had
very
encouraging
feedback
from
local
residents
and
businesses
who
recognise
the
many
benefits
that
these
plans
can
bring
to
this
part
of
the
city
and
beyond,
particularly
in
terms
of
improving
accessibility
through
the
site,
increasing
footfall
in
this
part
of
the
city
centre
and
providing
new
high
quality
modern
buildings.
We
are
very
conscious
of
the
lack
of
new
grade-a
office
space,
which
we
know
is
hindering
inward
investment
and
stopping
new
businesses
coming
to
York.
R
Whilst
developing
offices
in
isolation
would
be
to
greater
risk
in
the
current
market,
we
are
keen
to
deliver
such
space
as
part
of
the
wider
mix
of
uses
that
this
scheme
proposes.
We
have
had
approaches
from
potential.
Joint
venture
partners
would
be
interested
in
participating
with
us
if
consent
is
granted,
but
I
have
refrained
from
talking
to
anybody
about
this
pending
your
decision.
If
consent
is
granted
this
evening,
we
will
take
all
necessary
steps
to
commence
the
development
as
soon
as
is
reasonably
practical,
Thank
You
Freda.
Thank.
E
And
yes,
I
have
two
questions.
One
is
the
design
makes
us
officers
requested
a
number
of
electric
charging
points
for
cars,
which
you
said
obviously
very
welcome,
but
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
renewables
integrated
and
an
over
some
discussion
about
the
design
of
the
roof,
but
I
just
wonder
whether
you'd
looked
at
that
as
a
possibility,
and
secondly,
if
even
if
it's
not
a
viable
option
for
this
at
this
point
in
time,
will
the
ruse
be
designed
so
that
that
could
be
retrofitted?
If
that
was
themed
appropriate
in
the
future
I've.
S
Okay,
Mike
Harrison
confused.
We
there's
no
at
the
moment
the
office
building
proposed
as
thought
to
achieve
Brianne,
very
good
rating,
and
there
isn't
a
requirement
to
hit
the
the
breanne
rating
to
renewables
at
moments.
We
have
got
any
specific
renewable
targets
within
the
scheme.
There's
no
time
I.
E
S
Most
important
thing
we
can
do
with
other
passive
measures,
and
that
is
in
obviously
in
terms
of
keeping
you
know
the
high
levels
of
insulation.
You
know
the
right
amount
of
day
lighting
into
the
offices,
so
I
think
those
are
the
biggest
moves
and
the
most
cost-effective
things
and
the
most
efficient
things
we
do
at
the
star
and
the
building's
been
designed
with
that
that
that's
in
in
mind,
and
it
had
been
designed
that
way.
We
haven't
necessarily
added
added
any
sort
of
future
renewables.
On
top
of
that,
so.
S
S
Haven't
you
know,
for
instance,
looked
at
putting
Peavey's
on
the
roof
or
anything
like
that
at
this
stage,
certainly
the
load.
Would
you
know
that
the
actual
structural
system,
the
repose
in
a
concrete
structure,
would
be
suitable
to
Maine?
You
know
to
actually
take
a
bank
of
PV
on
the
roof.
You
can
be
sure
they're,
not
very
heavy,
and
they
are
getting
cheaper
all
the
time,
so
it
makes
it
more
cost-effective.
Here.
E
They
have
a
question:
I
have,
which
is
not
more
so
much
to
the
design
is
about
it.
You've
made
references
a
community
on
their
paragraph
four
point.
Four
five
convenient
and
welcoming
public
pedestrian
route
is
also
to
be
created
through
the
site
between
Station
Road,
Queen,
Street
and
tothe
green
and
but
from
what
I
can
see
in
the
conditions.
There's
nothing
that
actually
requires
that
to
be
negotiated.
Would
you
be
happy
to
have
that
as
part
of
the
section
106
agreement
to
have
some
some
commitment
to
that
taking
place
to
have
been
provided.
T
Because
you're,
not
because
vice
Cristalli
of
Litchfield's
I'm,
the
planning
consultant,
there's
no
106
proposed
as
part
of
the
proposals,
but
something
if
members
and
officers
felt
it
necessary
to
secure
that
by
way
of
condition
it
could
be.
The
proposals
are
to
keep
that
routes
open,
so
I
person
don't
think
a
condition
is
necessary,
but,
as
I
said,
this,
the
detailed
scheme
doesn't
show
it
being
gated
off
in
any
way.
Okay,
so.
J
Yes,
thank
ICU
that
one
of
historic,
England's
objections
is
the
fact
that
the
old
design
doesn't
look
as
good
as
Hudson
House.
Well,
as
as
Litchfield's
have
said
in
reply,
that
is
purely
a
subjective
view
and
I
can't
disagree
with
them.
But
of
course
that's
it.
The
point
that
I
think
you've
already
made
that
I've
just
want
some
confirmation
of
is
that
Hudson
House
as
it
is,
is
not
viable
and
you
need
something
that
is
better
suited
to
grade
a
office
space.
It's
not
right.
R
What
happened
in
Hudson
House
over
the
last
four
years
since
we
owned
it?
If
we
have
let
some
space
in
there,
but
its
second
line
second
grade,
that's
what
it
is
right.
What,
when
we
had
discussions
with,
make
it
York?
They
said
that
their
biggest
problem
was
attracting
businesses
to
York,
because
there
was
no
gray
day
of
his
face.
I
used
to
be
an
office
letting
agent,
and
what
used
to
happen
is
when
a
company
starts
to
look
for
new
space.
R
They
never
give
it
enough
time
and
in
consequence
they
either
got
to
consider
a
building,
that's
under
construction
or
is
there
already?
The
issue
here
right
is
that
in
our
view,
this
has
to
be
built,
and
if
we
build
it,
we
are
convinced
that
will
and
we'll
let
it
reasonably
well.
That
is
our
view,
but
it
has
to
be
there
in
the
first
place
because
half
the
problem
with
with
with
office
buildings,
if
you
haven't
built
them
as
people,
think
you're
not
gonna,
build
them.
P
Thank
you
in
respect
of
the
viability
and
the
affordable
housing
question
as,
as
you
know,
there's
a
significant
need
for
affordable
housing
in
York.
You
say
that
the
scheme
is
viable
and
the
viability
assessment
has
been
prepared.
Has
that
viability,
assessment
being
independently
scrutinized?
And,
secondly,
could
you
clarify
what
an
viability
is
for
powers,
Capital
Development,
the.
R
Big
the
big
issue,
the
big
issue
is,
we
can't
do
an
office
building
on
a
speculative
basis
and
affordable
housing.
It
doesn't
work.
The
problem
we
have
is
that
the
wrinkle
you
have
to
get
in
order
to
get
a
return
is
25-pounder
square
foot.
Unless
you
get
25
pound
square,
it
doesn't
work,
they've,
never
got
25
banners
square
foot
in
New,
York
I,
don't
think
they've
got
20
back
over
in
New
York
and
that's
the
issue.
R
So
the
problem
is,
we
are
gonna,
build
it
right,
but
we
have
no
evidence
anywhere
of
a
rent
that
we
can
get
in
York
because
there
hasn't
been
any
grade-a
space
built
here,
but
what
we
twenty
years.
So
that's
the
issue.
So
we've
had
to
look
at
the
viability
of
the
office
building
and
on
its
own.
It
doesn't
work
it's
unviable,
so
nobody
would
build
it
and
the
only
way
we
can
make
it
work
is
if
we
build
residential
and
that
one
counteracts
the
other.
R
T
P
But
that's
not
withstanding
the
fact
that
the
scheme
was
now
moved
from
an
82
dwelling
scheme
to
127
dwellings
scheme
that
the
assumptions
that
you're
making
that
you
say
relate
to
the
costs
and
the
viability
are
the
same
or
are
comparable
for
a
scheme.
That's
markedly
larger
in
respect
of
the
return
and
the
yield
that
you
receive
from
the
from
the
sale
of
the
residential
properties
and
the
Auckland
well
I'm
82
to
1
to.
R
7,
remember
that
the
82
apartments
and
the
office
scheme,
the
conversion
the
building
cost,
is
lower.
This
is
costing
much
more
money,
but
yes,
we've
got
more
farmers,
but
it's
costing
much
more
money
considerably.
More,
that's
the
basic
difference.
So
that's
why
they
were
able
to
rely
on
the
previous,
but.
D
D
A
T
A
E
Offices,
even
what
we've
heard
about
the
the
public
access,
which
is
referred
to
as
one
of
the
benefits
of
this
development?
Can
we
I
don't
know
whether
it
needs
to
be
delegated
agree
to
delegate
to
offices
to
agree
with
Polly
rights
away
and
an
appropriate
condition
about
public
access
through
that?
That
route?
Is
that
something
we
can
do.
O
Yes,
certainly
we
can,
and
the
only
the
only
question
mark
is
the
sort
of
the
the
wider
linkages
in
that
the
there's
Network
Rail
land
ownership
involvement
through
the
footpath
that
leads
from
station
roads
down
into
the
site
and
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
what
the
ownership
at
the
extent
of
this
road
is.
That
leads
along
the
side
of
West
offices
and
so
Weiss.
We
can
there's
no
problem
asking
for
a
public
route
through
the
actual
development
sites.
Also.
A
J
You
chef
three
points
with
the
first
one
just
following
on
the
public:
access
to
top
green,
certainly,
the
top
end
of
toth
greened
is
fairly
quiet
and
if
there's
through
public
access,
that
would
be
a
benefit.
I
accept
that
Network
Rail
actually
own
the
access
from
Station
Road
under
the
arches,
so
long
as
it
that
something
is
available
in
two
soft
green
and
not
across
here,
which
is
actually
on
a
rope
that
would
I
think
be
a
help.
J
Jobs:
yes,
if
this
is
an
opportunity
to
provide
grade-a
office,
accommodation
of
a
reasonable
size,
obviously
I
know.
In
my
ward,
a
number
of
office
blocks
were
built
that
have
never
been
occupied
for
all
sorts
of
reasons,
and
we
need
some
in
the
city
center,
so
quite
in
favor
of
that
and
finally,
the
line
of
the
railway.
Well,
none
of
us
was
here
in
1877
when
this
was
still
used
as
a
railway
station.
J
I
worked
in
this
building
at
one
time
and
I
know
it
when
the
railway
tracks
still
came
in
here
and
they
were
used
for
storage
and
it's
alright
historic
England
getting
rather
excited
about
the
fact
that
they
line
of
the
railways
not
there
well
look
holes
in
the
city.
Walls
are
not
going
to
be
blocked
up,
so
that
gives
people
some
idea
of
where
the
railway,
when
the
fact
that
this
was
the
railway
station,
anybody
wants
to
know
could
be
told.
That's
fine.
J
Lots
of
other
bits
of
railway
have
disappeared
and
supposed
there'll
be
a
lot
of
people
here
who
were
not
aware
that
the
railway
line
actually
went
down
to
the
river.
Who
was
at
one
time-
and
there
were
coal
stairs
there
very
long
time
ago-
yes,
I-
think
they
were
removed
when
the
new
station
was
opened,
so
I
can't
say
any
problems
with
there
and
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
D
We've
heard
from
the
developer
that
for
this
development
to
be
viable
and
to
provide
the
20%,
affordable
housing,
that
is
our
policy.
It
would
have
to
achieve
25
pounds
per
square
metre
for
the
office
space
and
that
the
viability
was
study
done
on.
This
was
based
on
a
figure
of
18
pounds
per
square
metre.
I
can't
argue
with
it.
Officers
have
accepted
it.
D
Yes,
we
have
to
achieve
housing,
that's
great!
Yes,
we
need
grade-a
office
space,
but
more
than
anything,
this
city
needs
affordable,
housing
and
I'm
concerned
that
yet
another
site,
another
opportunity
will
be
lost
to
it.
It's
not
going
to
make
me
as
council
Adu
said,
vote
against
it,
but
I
think
it's
a
concern.
We
should
all
share
and
everybody
who
wants
this
city
to
survive
and
exist
into
the
future
and
provide
for
all
of
us.
We
need
affordable
housing.
We
need
key
worker,
affordable
housing.
M
So,
in
some
ways,
I'm
slightly
concerned
that
we
are
not
retaining
all
of
it
for
business
and
economic
opportunity.
I
can
understand
that
in
some
ways
this
is
a
speculation.
It
is
a
huge
risk
and
I
can
understand.
Perhaps
why,
at
this
point,
the
developers
don't
wish
to
take
that
that
risk,
but
they
are
quite
right
to
to
let
good
office
building.
You
need
to
actually
have
it
sitting
there.
M
U
You,
chair
I,
can
be
brief
and
joins
us
eerily
that
I
think
this
project
is
is
much-needed
development
of
this
part,
the
sitting
racemic
is
done
very
well
in
in
changing
its
reputation
and
changing
its
offering,
and
this
is
only
gonna
add
to
bringing
more
people
to
the
side
of
the
city.
I
agree
this
issue
and
we
can't
can't
for
affordable
housing
in,
but
I'm
no
expert
in
figures.
Now,
after
trustee
offices
decisions,
there
and
I
also
agree
with
counsel
to
go
in
terms
of
conditioning
something.
U
L
I,
don't
to
rehearse
what
has
been
said
by
others.
I
think
this
is
quite
a
an
exciting
scheme
and
one
of
the
things
it
is
going
to
do.
It
is
probably
going
to
produce
a
rather
pleasant
community
in
this
area
as
well,
which
has
got
to
be
a
plus
and
I.
Do
I.
Take
the
point
about
office,
class,
grade-a
and
housing.
I
think
this
is
a
pretty
innovative,
forward-thinking
development
in
so
many
ways
and
I
think
we
should
welcome
it
with
open
arms
and
I'm
quite
prepared,
it
hasn't
been
moved.
A
E
Very
much
welcome
the
commitment,
as
has
been
said,
to
increasing
the
permeability
and
access,
particularly
given.
What's
hopefully
going
to
come
with
with
York
Central,
the
station
is
going
to
be
a
very
central
location
to
that
and
providing
that
link
with
Mikkel
gate.
If
that
can
be
negotiated,
would
be
a
big
step
forward.
I
think
I
do
think.
It's
certainly
welcome
to
have
something
done
with
this.
This
property
and
new
development
happening
grade-a
offices
very
welcome
as
well.
I
do
think.
E
It's
a
bit
disappointing,
however,
to
see
that
you
know
going
for
what,
given
what
we're
talking
about
people
who
want
to
move
into
grade-a
offices
that
and
they're
only
going
for
the
the
bare
minimum
in
terms
of
insulation
and
renewables
and
those
sorts
of
features
which
you
know.
We've
got
other
excellent
example
with
the
Hiscox
building,
where
you
know,
if
it's
something
very
much
of
a
flagship
and
one
would
have
hoped
for
something
a
little
bit
more
exciting
and
dynamic
in
this
location.
E
P
Thank
you
I
think
I'd
like
to
echo
that
I
think
this
is
a
potentially
exciting
site
and
I
think
that
the
opportunity
to
develop
this
this
area
in
that
building,
which
I
think
is
grotesque,
is
is
to
be
welcomed.
My
concern
to
echo
councillor
darbus
point
is:
is
around
the
assessment
on
the
affordability
criteria.
P
It
states
that
this
buildings
worth
fourteen
point
nine
million
the
developers.
Construction
costs
are
relatively
high.
However,
this
is
explained
by
the
high
quality
of
the
proposed
scheme
and
the
extent
of
landscaping
public
realm
works.
I
feel
an
assessment
based
on
on
an
82
dwelling
development
that
we've
heard
is
different
to
the
scheme
that
we
currently
have
and
that
there
could
have
been
some
mitigation
in
in
respect
to
the
contribution
to
towards
affordable
housing
in
the
city
in
Vale,
maybe
not
in
this
scheme.
A
I
I
think
people
have
made
a
variety
of
points
around
the
table,
all
of
which
are
valid,
but
as
ever,
we
can
never
have
everything
that
we
want
with
a
planning
application
and
I.
Think
that,
although,
although
in
a
way
you
don't
ever
want
to
see,
there
are
problems
with
demolishing
buildings
like
that,
and
the
stand
that
sustain
would
be
stainability,
that's
aspect,
but
actually
that
building
is
I,
don't
believe.
It's
very
pretty
and
I
think
that,
what's
good,
what
could
go
in
its
place
will
be
definitely
more
exciting.
A
So
it
has
been
moved
and
seconded
I
think
Council
to
go
and
ask
for
a
condition
for
to
secure
the
path
the
pedestrian
access
through
the
site,
which
I
think
is
welcome,
because
when
we
gave
it
the
previous
application
for
the
change
of
use,
that
was
the
one
thing
that
we
all
commented
on
that.
Actually,
if
you
lived
in
there,
you
would
want
to
probably
get
out
towards
tough,
green
and
mitigate
and,
as
councillor
mesa
said,
councillor
that
mitigate
traders
would
welcome
that
extra
fort
fall.
O
Yeah
there
it's
just
done
one
other
thing,
and
so
we
would
were
the
condition
in
the
way
that
it
would
be
sort
of
manage
public
access
and
clearly
the
the
applicants
or
the
maintained
ownership
of
the
site
in
Loudon
public
actors
rather
than
council
a
doctor
or
public
rights-of-way
and
I
also
didn't
mention
in
the
update
that
there
were
on
that
on
the
proposed
on
the
approved
list
of
plans.
We
missed
out
some
of
the
revisions,
so
we
just
got
some
minor
tweaks
to
those
that
would
be
would
be
picked
up
in
there.
A
Addition
to
just
needs
to
be
slightly
and
amending
to
make
sure
all
the
right
plans
are
listed
there
and
the
condition
on
the
public
right
of
the
public
access
will
be
catched
in
those
terms,
if
everybody's
happened
up
so
can
we
move
to
the
vote,
then
all
in
favor,
please
show
any
against
that's
unanimous.
Thank
you
very
much.
O
H
A
O
Just
reference
and
the
the
Poppleton
neighborhood
plan
is
going
through
the
process
of
adoption
at
the
moment.
So
it's
a
material
consideration.
I
wasn't
mentioned
in
the
foxes
report,
so
it
just
summarized
relevant
parts
of
the
plan
and
its
status
in
the
in
the
update,
and
it
does
not
significantly
doesn't
consider
the
effect.
The
the
application
part
of
the
British
sugar
housing
site
is
is
within
the
Poppleton
neighbourhood
plan
area
and
the
Millfield
Lane
access
is
then
in
the
neighbourhood
plan
area.
Changing.
O
Which
we're
still
not
being
able
to
assess
the
bat
server?
That's
been
taken
undertaken
in
the
former
man
at
school.
So
it's
to
delegate
the
decision
to
us
to
allow
us
to
look
at
that
in
intercourse
and
make
sure
ecology
offices
are
satisfied
with
the
mitigation
that
would
be
secured
through
a
planning
condition.
Okay,.
A
V
One
of
the
topics,
of
course,
is
access
for
that
part
of
the
open
space
by
a
better
bridge
Road,
and
we
asked
that
you
do
not
assume
development
of
this
site,
as
mentioned
within,
because
it's
still
open
to
consultation,
and
certainly
a
lot
of
local
people
would
object
to
such
a
development.
It's
been
used
by
local
people
in
evenings
and
school
holidays
for
well
over
thirty
five
years
without
hindrance.
V
Until
this
last
year
and
as
such,
then
I
was
horrified
that
the
trees
and
hedges
shown
on
the
southern
boundary
on
the
previous
plans,
which
were
open
to
the
public,
have
recently
been
altered
and
there's
no
there's
no
noise
barrier
on
the
southern
side.
Now,
there's
no
hedgerow,
there's
no
trees
and
the
the
green.
V
Well,
a
bi-directional
cycle
route:
the
previous
plan
showed
trees
and
hedgerows
on
the
south
side
was
the
north
side
and,
as
such,
I
suggested,
the
dual
carriageway
is
inappropriate
and
it
could
be
reduced
to
a
fairly
narrow
single
carriageway
and
the
trees
that
are
on
the
central
reservation
could
in
fact
be
relocated
to
the
south
of
the
shared
use
cycle
route.
As
in
the
original
plans,.
V
And
no
doubt
you
saw
it
on
your
site
visit
regarding
low
back
protection.
You
mentioned
I
hope
this
would
be
better
than
at
the
nearby
Poppleton
gate
in
Mill
gates.
Whether
there
was
a
bad
protection
in
the
planning
application,
but
he
was
totally
ignored
by
the
devotee
seconds
and
also
the
use
of
bird
mouth.
V
Fencing
is
inappropriate
to
use
with
the
current
city
of
York
Council
grass
maintenance
method,
as
can
be
seen
on
water
lane
at
Clifton
bridge,
where
all
they
do
is
put
glyphosate
down
at
the
bottom
of
it,
and
it
looks
a
tremendous
mess
and
the
weeds
grow.
But
the
grass
doesn't
so
something
better
like
a
hedgerow
would
be
preferred.
Thank
you.
You.
A
N
Good
evening,
chair
good
evening
councillors,
my
name
is
Neil
Jones
I'm,
a
partner
at
rap.
Please
planning
consultants
here
representing
British
sugar,
British
sugar,
I'd
like
to
say
first
and
foremost,
British
sugar,
absolutely
committed
to
the
regeneration
of
the
British
sugar
site
as
a
very
important
and
key
site
for
the
city.
N
N
I've,
listened
to
the
comments
of
the
previous
speaker
and
I'd
stress
that
these
matters
have
been
addressed
appropriately
within
the
committee
report
and
I.
Do
not,
therefore
believe
that
they
raise
any
potential
reasons
for
refusal
of
the
application.
I,
therefore,
kindly
request
that
you
vote
in
accordance
with
the
recommendation,
as
this
will
enable
British
sugar
to
continue
with
their
work
towards
the
proposals
for
the
sustainable
regeneration
of
this
site
to
provide
much-needed
family
homes.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
N
Believe
that,
as
soon
as
the
planning
applications
are
granted,
British
sugar
will
take
all
steps
to
commence
development
on
the
site
as
soon
as
possible.
There
is
a
understandably
a
period
of
remediation
and
monitoring
that
has
to
be
undertaken
to
ensure
that
the
site
is
appropriate
for
its
future
use.
N
It's
difficult
for
me
to
say
now
exactly
how
long
that
will
be
that's
being
looked
at
as
part
of
the
other
applications
that
will
come
forward
to
you
shortly,
but
I
think
that
the
reassurance
I
can
give
you
is
that
British
sugar
want
this
to
come
forward
as
soon
as
possible
and
I
hope
that
that
reassures.
You.
N
E
The
the
point
was
made
by
one
of
the
speakers
about
the
design
of
the
carriageway
up
from
looking
at
that
plan.
It's
a
single
width
carriageway
into
direction
which,
with
a
verge
down
the
middle,
is
up,
and
is
that
the
intention,
generally
speaking,
residential
areas
with
designing
something
for
a
20
mile
an
hour
sort
of
design
speed,
is
that
this.
A
W
Absolutely
the
design
is
completely
appropriate
for
to
form
the
access
one
of
the
primary
access
points
to
the
development
we've
been
talking
about
this
with
the
designers
for
some
period
of
time.
Now
we're
looking
at
that
as
a
Main
Street
design,
and
we
consider
that
we've
looked
at
the
issue
of
movement
of
all
forms
of
traffic,
pedestrian,
cycling,
public
transport,
motorcars,
Howard,
looked
particularly
at
road
safety
and
what
we
call
Fault
visibility
and
design
speed
at
the
road
and.
K
W
Completely
content
with
the
design-
that's
before
members
in
terms
of
that,
would
have
a
twenty
mile
an
hour
limit
on,
and
we
would
achieve
twenty
mile
an
hour
for
vehicles,
because
they
forward
visibility,
an
alarm
and
is
constrained
in
such
a
way
that
people
wouldn't
get
get
aboard
those
sorts
of
space.
So
that
must
mean
something
has
been
important
for
us
to
look
at.
W
We
have
looked
at
that
and
I'll
say
just
repeat
my
previous
comment:
the
designers
before
members
is
completely
unacceptable.
I
think
that's
really
a
subjective
view.
View
separately
the
these
issues
that
come
with,
often
in
terms
of
maintenance,
but
I,
think
they
are
the
arrangement
that
we've
got
one
of
whit's,
that
we've
got
a
quite
acceptable,
fully
types
of
uses
and
the
level
of
usage
that
you
don't
dissipate
serving
the
the
full
development
in
the
future.
M
M
Don't
know
what
the
implications
are
for
the
former
school
playing
field,
which
now
has
a
road
running
right
through
the
middle
of
it.
If
I
see
it
correctly
and
I
know,
there
are
moves
afoot
to
try
and
reclaim
at
least
part
of
that
land
for
public
playing
use,
because
there
isn't
much
publicly
available
open
space
up
in
that
part
of
the
world
and
I
wondered
what
the
impact
of
the
road
going
right
through
the
middle
of
it
is
going
to
be.
O
But
I
don't
think
that
the
position
and
alignment
of
the
road
precludes
that
the
piece
that
is
the
Plainfield
being
here,
the
users
of
playing
field
in
future
off,
but
for
another
type
of
redevelopment
and
this
council
owned
site.
So
essentially
it's
for
the
council
to
decide
going
forward
as
to
what
they
choose
to
use
it
for,
but
it's
it's
not
within
the
realms
of
this
application
and
the
developers.
Proposals
for
the
road
is
for
the
council
to
make
a
decision.
The.
Q
Markets
there
is
obviously
been
item
added
on
to
the
forward
plan
about
the
V
provision
of
the
low
fields
playing
field
and
where
that
would
happen
so
that
details
with
as
I'm
not
touching
the
next
thing
there
is.
Obviously
it
is
a
loss
of
open
space
that
has
to
be
provided.
So
that
is
a
paper
that's
coming
to
executive
in
terms
of
the
specific
I
can't
answer.
What
will
happen
to
the
bits
not
on
the
road,
but
the
actual
provision
of
open
space
is
being
we
provided
by
the
council.
F
I'm,
just
trying
to
be
of
assistance
in
2006
at
the
Darwin
thought
public
inquiry.
The
council
viewpoint
on
us
the
use
of
manner
school
as
an
alternative
housing
say,
was
that
sir,
it
would
only
ever
be
developed
on
the
existing
built
footprint
of
the
school.
So
I
don't
really
know
when
council
policies
changed
whether
it's
been
changed
by
members,
our
officers
but
actually
ramming
a
road
like
this
through.
It
seems
to
be
quite
a
radical
change.
In
that
viewpoint,.
J
So,
yes,
there
are
a
number
of
reasons
why
it
shouldn't
be
built
and
a
few
objections
to
why
it
shouldn't,
but
because
it
provides
access
to
the
British
sugar
site
and
I
hope
it
gives
British
sugar
the
incentive
to
get
on
with
developing
it
and
come
to
us
soon
with
plans
for
development
for
housing
on
that
site,
which
of
course,
is
a
matter
we're
not
considering
tonight.
So,
yes,
I
support
it.
E
L
I,
don't
know
the
full
perimeter
of
this
site.
What
I
do
know
is
that
the
authorities
tanks
from
stake,
luckily
over
the
whole
of
the
planning
application,
has
been
applying
application
with
the
main
sidewalk,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
if
we
don't
get
a
decent
access
and
that
and
and
I
suspect
that
this
is
probably
one
of
the
few
places
where
an
access
can
be
put,
then
the
whole
thing
would
fall
down
like
a
pack
of
cards.
This
is
a
vital
part
of
the
potential
development
at
the
British
sugar
site.
L
We
either
get
the
British
sugar
site
developed
or
we
don't
it's
as
simple
as
that
in
my
book,
and
therefore
I,
don't
think
he's
being
moved,
but
I
will
move
the
permission
be
granted.
I
do
take
the
point
about
it
going
across
what
was
a
green
space
and
I
think
if
I
am
correct,
that
land
is
owned
actually
by
the
City
Council.
So
it's
a
bit
different
for
previous
one
that
we
had
the
City
Council
are
in
a
position
to
make
some
facilities
available
to
the
population,
our
rather
fancy.
That
will
happen.
A
Thank
you
I
like
what.
Actually,
if
you
look
at
I
know
it's
a
building
on
drawing
on
page
113.
I
know
it's
only
a
very
outline
e
drawing,
but
actually,
if
you
look
at
the
built
area
of
Manor
school
and
presumably
the
two
bits
above
a
perhaps
those
two
squares
or
perhaps
playgrounds
or
something
if
you
actually,
if
we
demolish
Manor
school
and
build
the
road
I,
don't
I
can't
I,
don't
think
that
the
footprint
will
be
very
much
of
the
road
will
be
very
much
more
than
the
school
buildings.
F
F
D
A
We
do
quite
often
have
access
roads
in
order
to
facilitate,
because
people
want
to
know
that
the
access
to
a
site,
a
particular
site,
is
going
to
be
acceptable
for
they
start
designing
around
in
and
I
think
it
could
be
chicken
and
egg.
We
want
to
get
this
moved
on
and
I
think.
If
we
approve
this
today,
then
it
gives
a
good
example.
A
It
gives
a
good
good
steer
to
the
applicants
that
we
are
serious
and
clearly
what
happens
on
either
side
of
the
access
road
will
be
down
to
us,
the
councillors
as
to
what
comes
forward
on
that
site
rather
than
to
the
applicant
for
the
British
sugar
site.
So
it's
been
moved
and
seconded,
presumably
councillor
Galvin
with
the
amendments
on
this
sheet.
Oh.
A
A
C
J
Q
Q
What's
happening
and
I
think
there's
a
slight
misrepresentation
of
the
the
public
health
position
which
says
they
expressed
concerns
their
submission
does
actually
say
we
do
not
support
the
application
and
you
should
probably
refer
to
support
England,
of
course,
of
potential
loss
of
sports
fields,
and
yet
the
diagram
that
we
have
is
basically
for
the
car
park
and
I,
wouldn't
see
how
they
would
be
wanting
to
put
caravanning
camping
on
the
car
park.
I
would
suspect
it's
on
the
playing
field.
So
it's
just
some
clarification
of
what's
happening.
Q
A
Is
one
time
when
actually
a
site
visit
was
very
used
because
actually,
the
caravans
are
virtually
on
the
car
park
and
what's
going
to
happen
here,
if
we
approve
this
is
no
different
to
what
happens
now.
It's
only
the
some
of
the
restrictions
from
the
camping,
the
caravan
and
motorhome
club
was
such
that
they
were.
There
were
restrictions
that
these
people
couldn't
they
wanted
fencing
up
all
over
the
place,
which
would
have
meant
that
they
couldn't
use
the
playing
fields
as
playing
fields.
When
motorhome
caravans
went
home,
that's
basically
what
the.
Q
Q
What
winter?
But
the
question
from
from
our
public
health
team
was
actually
what
protection
is
there
because
they
haven't
seen
anything
that
would
actually
allow
either
the
cricket
know
if
there's
cookie
there
or
football
to
use
it
if
they
decided
to
use
it
365
as
they
would
dudes
were
changing
permission,
so
those
available
teams.
What
security
is
there
for
the
football
club
or
cooking
club
would
be
able
to
use
it.
C
It
is
the
same
arrangement
as
they've
got
now,
which
is
the
attention
of
the
additional
conditions.
The
reasons
he's
been
used
for
rallies
and
for
a
small
number
of
touring
caravans
is
to
provide
a
fan
and
a
source
of
income
to
enable
the
development
of
sports
within
within
the
village
and
on
this
site.
C
All
all
that
this
involves
is
to
trance.
Previously,
the
the
site
was
operated
under
the
auspices
of
the
caravanning
motor
homes
club
and
they
have
committed
development
rights
to
run
rallies
and
to
have
small
numbers
of
caravans
and
tents
without
the
involvement
of
the
local
planning
authority.
The
moment
that
goes
out
of
the
hands
of
the
caravanning
and
motorhome
club
it
becomes
development
becomes
development
for
which
planning
permission
is
required,
and
that
is
what
the
applicant
has
has
come
forward
with.
C
But
at
the
time
that
the
comments
were
made
by
public
health
colleagues
and
at
the
time
this
was
initially
considered
and
we
had
the
site
visit.
That
was
not
clear
from
the
applicant.
They
have
subsequently
engaged
professional
advice
and,
let's
of
them
coming
forward
with
with
these
drawings
and
the
we
have
come
forward
with
the
additional
conditions,
so.
Q
C
Q
C
L
I
mean
just
a
pre-emptive,
wasn't
an
interesting
application
when
we
first
went
on
there.
Does
that
then
mean
Eric
that
the
28-day
rule
whereby
you
can
use
a
piece
of
land
for
normal
or
28
days
or
whatever
excluding
motor
sports
etc,
which
I
think
he's
14?
Does
that
mean
that
this
condition
removes
that
right?
Can
it
remove
that
I.
A
L
F
L
L
Because
it
it
isn't,
as
it
is
as
it
is
at
present,
we
have
a
certification
as
a
card.
What
can
can
develop
a
club
and
then
they
have
the
the
other
area
for
rallies
over
the
summer
months,
and
the
issue
was
of
course,
of
those
that
went
on
site
was
somebody
complained
bitterly
they've
been
a
bit
of
an
altercation
between
CL
user,
which
is
the
certified
education
used
on
somebody
on
the
rally.
I,
don't
just
know
what
it
was
and
the
Caravan
Club
said
you
very
clearly.
L
L
Okay,
as
it
is
at
present,
yes,
they
can
have
rallies
on
that
field.
Yes,
they
could
have
fought
some
day
of
rallies,
seven
for
their
rallies
or
whatever
for
any
number
of
caravans
that
we
could
squeeze
on
that's
the
position
as
it
stands
at
present,
not
withstanding
the
search
by
the
page.
That's
a
slightly
different
issue.
That's
a
position
as
it
is
at
present.
L
D
C
The
the
issue
that
would
give
cause
for
concern
if
I
think
they
was
raised
just
now,
is
the
the
impact
upon
the
usage
of
the
pitches
for
the
various
sporting
activities
for
cricket
for
rugby
for
football
by
including
explicitly
the
use
for
the
sports
clubs
or
sporting
activities
within
condition.
Thirteen,
then
you
could
restrict
the
activity
of
the
usage
of
the
site
for
rallies
in
the
event
of
it
impinging
upon
its
use
as
a
sports
field
and.
X
A
I
think
I
was
just
thinking
back
to
the
application
at
neighbor
and
lock
when
they
wanted
to
turn
their
rally
field
into
a
permanent
site
and
they're.
One
of
their
arguments
was
was
about
the
relationship
of
the
number
of
days
of
rallies
compared
to
the
number
of
days,
so
I
think
they're
still
limited
you
can't.
You
can't
have
rallies
permanently
you
couldn't
you
couldn't
have.
A
L
L
D
E
Councillor
to
go
I
think
I.
Think
you'd
be
helpful
to
clarify
this.
This
management
plan
is
that
something
which
is
agreed
as
the
condition
a
part
of
this.
This
is
nuts
if
it
is
fixed
for
it
forevermore
or
is
it
just
saying
that
there
will
be
a
management
plan
that
annually
is
up
to
negotiation
and
can
come
up
with
a
different
plan
next
year
or
are
we
deciding
a
specific
plan
which
allows
for
the
recreational
use
and
their
sports
use?