►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
north
and
east
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councillor
caroline
gruen
and
I'll
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
Could
I
remind
everyone
that
today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
city
council
youtube
channel,
so
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
A
A
C
A
D
You
chair
under
agenda
item
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents.
The
gender
item:
two:
there
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
agenda
item
three.
There
are
no
late
items
of
business
under
agenda
item
four.
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
disclosable
cunary
interests
or
other
interests.
D
A
Thank
you
debbie,
and
so
we
now
move
to
item
six,
which
is
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
22nd
of
july.
Can
I
ask
members
to
accept
these
as
a
true
minute
of
the
last
meeting,
please
those
who
are
here
and
I
can
see
not
so
that
can
go
through
and
item
number
seven
matters
arising.
Are
there
any
matters
arising?
A
B
Members
will
recall
that
this
item
was
previously
considered
at
the
27th
of
may
panel,
where
it
was
deferred
to
allow
for
the
consideration
of
some
additional
information
and,
before
I
start
there's
a
couple
of
updates
since
the
report's
been
published.
There's
a
couple
of
points
to
give
you
further
clarity
on
there's
an
error
in
the
officer
report
at
paragraph
17
in
terms
of
the
planning
history
of
the
site,
the
apple,
the
application
from
1974,
which
is
listed
within
the
last
bullet.
B
B
So
this
has
been
submitted
by
email
by
the
applicants.
B
So
the
first
point
says
we
are
not
attempting
to
circumvent
the
planning
system
here,
like
many
of
our
neighbouring
properties
who
seem
to
get
away
with
building
new
dwellings
and
excessive
extensions,
for
example,
at
whitwell
house
farm
and
whitworld
cottages.
We
have
a
genuine
need
for
the
dwelling
on
sites.
B
Point
two:
is
the
journeys
from
lilac
farm
to
the
site
becoming
increasingly
congested
and
dangerous
traffic
is
concrete,
increasing
and
access
onto
main
street
cullingham
is
nine
impossible.
The
old
star
junction
is
shortly
to
be
remodeled
due
to
the
miller
helms
development,
which
will
no
doubt
result
in
chaos.
We
have
to
negotiate
a
way
out
past
lady
elizabeth
hosting
school
during
the
morning
drop
off
an
afternoon.
Pickup
lint
and
main
street
is
narrow
and
unsuitable
for
wide
vehicles.
B
B
The
journey
is
exceptionally
fraught
with
danger
and
reducing
the
frequency
of
journeys
on
this
route
must
be
considered
as
an
appropriate,
special
circumstance
and
point
freeze.
This
is
the
only
agricultural
site
that
we
own
and
due
to
the
planning
system,
putting
our
attention
sites
at
risk
of
development.
B
We
cannot
have
any
longevity
in
the
business
without
the
proposed
agricultural
home
and
point
four
is
the
public
benefits
we
can
bring
through
allowing
this
development
are
significant
and
include
allowing
circular
walks
in
our
land,
planting
additional
trees
and
then
in
brackets,
50
have
been
already
planted
to
provide
screening
and
reducing
congestion
along
jewett.
Lane
and
point
last
point
is:
if,
if
the
business
does
not
remain
viable,
then
we'll
be
forced
to
consider
selling
the
sites
and
no
doubt
the
existing
bounds
will
be
converted
to
residential.
B
So
officers
have
considered
these
points,
but
they're
not
they
don't
alter
the
conclusions
which
are
highlighted
within
the
reports.
B
So
in
in
addition
to
that
email
that
was
received
from
the
applicant,
they
also
sent
in
a
video
which
shows
some
of
the
issues
at
the
existing
lilac
farm,
calling
them
site
which
will
be
played
now.
B
So
the
application
relates
to
the
construction
of
an
agriculture
workers,
dwelling
detached
garage
atlanta,
north
of
trip
lane
in
linton
next
slide.
Please
so
just
for
clarity.
The
actual
plans
of
the
dwelling
haven't
changed
since
the
last
panel.
We've
just
received
additional
information
which
has
been
covered
in
in
the
report,
so
the
actual
proposed
dwelling
is
with
the
red
line
there.
B
Is
the
existing
two
agricultural
buildings
which
you'll
have
seen
if
you're
on
site
you
can
see
from
here
that
the
the
building's
detached
from
the
urban
area
of
linton,
which
lies
to
the
to
the
eastern
side,
and
that
the
trip
lane
has
some
residential
dwellings
towards
its
eastern
end,
but
it
turns
into
a
a
rural
carriageway
as
it
approaches
this
site
next
site.
Next
slide,
please.
B
So
this
is
the
proposed
dwelling.
So
it's
a
it's
a
detached
four-bedroom
dwelling
with
an
attached
garage
to
the
rear.
B
It
will
be
constructed
of
stone
with
a
red,
pantow
roof
and
timber
windows
and
doors
and
you'll
see
from
the
the
south
elevation,
which
is
the
front.
There's
some
solar
panels
proposed
to
the
front,
which
is
the
obviously
the
south
facing
elevation.
Then
the
garden
area
for
the
properties
also
predominantly
to
the
front
next
slide,
please
so
the
red
dot
there
just
shows
the
the
location
of
the
proposed
dwelling
in
more
detail.
B
So
you
can
see
it's
surrounded
by
agricultural
fields
at
that
point,
and
the
the
center
of
linton
is
is
to
the
east
just
where
they,
where
it
says,
to
win
millin
really
next
slide.
Please.
B
This
just
gives
a
bit
of
further
context,
so
the
red
dot
again
shows
the
site
and
the
the
purple
dot
towards
the
the
bottom
right
of
the
the
map.
There
shows
the
existing
farmstead
at
cullingham,
so
that's
lilac
farm
collingham.
B
I'll
just
note
on
on
the
trip
lane
so
where
the
red
dot
is
there,
that's
land
defined
as
green
belt
and
special
landscape
area
for
clarity,
and
then
the
existing
farmhouse
at
cullingham
is
is
a
tenanted
farmhouse
and
the
applicants
farm
around
two
acres
of
land
around
the
column
area.
B
So
this
is
where
the
proposed
dwelling
is
going
to
go,
so
it
will
sit
about
20
meters
or
so
back
from
where
this
photo's
taken.
It's
quite
open
farmland
there
next
slide
please.
B
B
So
this
is
the
access
which
will
be
shared
at
this
point
with
the
existing
agricultural
buildings.
Next
slide,
please,
and
then
this
is
trip
lane
at
this
point.
So
it's
it's
it's
rural
in
nature.
It
extends
onto
to
wood,
hall,
hotel
and
spa
down
the
bottom,
but
it
is
a
cul-de-sac
next
slide,
please,
and
then
this
is
just
looking
the
other
way
towards
linton
next
slide.
Please
and
there's
a
further
image,
I'm
showing
the
character
of
the
road
next
slide.
Please.
B
So,
in
terms
of
the
the
key
planning
considerations
for
this
application,
the
site's
situated
within
land
defenders,
greenbelt
and
special
landscape
area
and
as
you're
aware,
the
construction
of
new
buildings
in
the
greenbelt
constitutes
inappropriate
development,
except
for
a
few
limited
exceptions
as
I've
outlanded
in
the
report,
the
proposed
development
does
not
meet
any
of
the
exceptions
outlined
within
the
mppf
and,
as
such
is
considered
to
constitute
inappropriate
development.
B
The
proposal
would
introduce
a
large
four-bed
property
in
a
place
currently
void
of
development,
which
would
reduce
the
openness
of
the
green
belt
and
encroach
to
the
countryside,
whilst
also
harming
the
character
of
a
special
landscape
area.
Now
the
mppf
advises
that
inappropriate
development
should
should
not
be
approved,
except
in
very
special
circumstances,
which
is
very
high
planning
policy
bar
and
that
any
that
substantial
weight
is
also
given
to
any
harm
to
the
green
belts.
B
So,
in
terms
of
a
very
special
circumstances,
it's
noted
that
proposal
has
been
submitted
as
an
agricultural
worker's
dwelling
and
that
the
mppf
permits
the
development
of
isolated
homes
in
the
greenbelt,
where
there
is
an
essential
need
for
a
rural
worker
to
live
permanently
at
or
near
their
place
of
work,
and
we
have
taken
specialist
advice
from
the
council's
agricultural
surveyor
in
this
regard.
B
B
However,
in
summary,
based
on
the
evidence
submitted,
there's
not
considered
to
be
an
essential
need
for
a
rural
worker
to
live
on
the
site,
namely
due
to
the
nature
of
the
farming,
which
is
arable
with
no
nearby
vulnerable
livestock
or
perishable
crops,
which
require
a
24-hour
presence
on
the
site,
and
the
applicants
also
have
an
existing
farmhouse
at
cullingham,
which
is
considered
to
to
deal
with
any
need
which
does
exist
at
this
moment
in
time.
B
None
of
the
applicants,
other
arguments
which
are
covered
in
the
report
are
considered
to
constitute
very
special
circumstances,
which
would
clearly
outweigh
this.
The
screen
belt
harm
now,
since
the
last
panel
meeting,
various
additional
information
has
been
submitted,
as
requested
by
members,
and
this
is
this
is
specified
at
paragraph
four
in
the
reports.
B
This
information
has
been
considered
by
officers
and
whilst
there
is
understanding
and
sympathy
for
the
applicant's
case,
ultimately,
the
proposal
needs
to
be
considered
against
the
terms
of
planning
policy
and
in
this
instance,
the
additional
information
is
not
considered
to
alter
the
conclusions
which
were
previously
brought
forward
at
the
at
the
may
27th
meeting.
B
Furthermore,
as
part
of
the
additional
information
that
members
requested
last
time,
they
asked
officers
to
go
back
and
look
at
free
plan
application
records
for
similar
agricultural
workers
dwellings
across
leeds
and
through
carrying
out
this.
This
assessment,
which
is
covered
in
in
paragraph
six.
This
also
highlighted
that
we
need
to
look
at
the
size
of
the
proposed
dwellings
in
relation
to
the
to
the
business
need
and
that
this
should
take
precedence
over
personal
preference.
B
So,
as
such,
it's
considered,
the
size
for
dwelling
is
not
commensurate
to
the
essential
needs
of
the
enterprise
in
this
instance,
so
this
issue
is
also
being
factored
into
the
revised
reports
and
counts
against
the
proposed
development.
So,
in
conclusion
it's
it's
considered.
The
proposal
would
constitute
inappropriate
development
within
the
green
belt,
whilst
also
leading
to
a
loss
of
openness
and
failing
to
assist
in
safeguarding
the
countryside
from
encroachment
and
also
causing
harm
to
special
landscape
area.
B
No
very
special
circumstances
have
been
evidenced
which,
which
are
considered
to
outweigh
this
harm.
In
particular,
it's
not
being
demonstrated
that
an
essential
need
for
a
royal
worker's
dwelling
on
the
site
exists
as
such
proposals,
country
to
save
policies,
n33
and
n37
of
the
udp
and
gangs
contained
within
the
mppf
as
such,
the
application
is
not
recommended
for
approval.
A
Thanks
very
much
steve
and
just
to
just
to
remind
us,
we
did
have
an
extensive
discussion
around
this.
At
the
last
meeting
we
held
and
we
asked
steve
to
go
away
with
offices
and
bring
back
further
information
which
is
set
down,
as
steve
has
pointed
out
on
pages
16
to
18,
and
our
job
this
afternoon
is
to
consider
that
additional
information
and
to
come
to
a
view
as
to
whether
it
does
justify
building
in
the
green
belt.
A
We,
the
speakers,
spoke
on
the
last
occasion
and
therefore
we
we
can't
have
speakers
again.
Today,
though,
I
am
aware-
and
I
welcome
them-
they
are
joining
us
from
the
public
gallery.
So
can
I
invite
members
to
ask
questions
of
officers?
First,
please,
councillor
sharp.
A
A
Do
I
have
any
more
questions,
councillor
cohen.
F
Thank
you
chair
and,
if
I
may,
please
forgive
the
fact.
Obviously
I
wasn't
at
the
previous
panel,
but
obviously
I'm
going
to
be
contributing
to
a
decision.
I
do
need
to
get
some
clarity
and
a
couple
of
questions.
If
I
may
you've
told
us
that
the
applicant
have
a
property
on
a
tenanted
farm,
so
it's
accurate
say
they
don't
own
that
property,
but
they
do
own.
F
So
I've
got
a
few
good.
Thank
you,
so
I'm
just
interested
in
so
am
I
correct
in
saying
that
the
principle
because
you
seem
to
have
come
down
and
conflated
two
issues:
you've
conflated
the
principle
of
development
and
this
particular
development.
I'd
just
like
to
focus
if
we
could
on
the
principle
of
development
first.
I
F
Well,
it's
a
question,
so
I
with
respect
it
doesn't
matter.
I
believe
it
makes
the
point
in
the
report,
but
my
understanding
is
and
you'll
correct
me.
I'm
sure
if
I'm
wrong,
the
owner
of
a
farm
is
allowed
within
the
green
belt
and
the
mppm
is
allowed
to
have
a
dwelling
on
their
farm
for
their
use
as
the
owners
and
operators
of
that
farm
and
purely
talking
the
principle
of
development.
F
I
Well,
steve
will
chip
in
as
as
well
I'm
sure.
That's,
certainly
not
my
understanding
of
planning
policy.
I
Agricultural
dwellings
fall
into
that
category,
which
steve
described
as
being
permissible
on
the
basis
that
they're
essential
for
the
needs
of
the
of
the
farm
as
it
were,
so
that
that
test
in
terms
of
being
essential
again
to
use
these
words,
which
has
been
used
a
few
times
in
the
presentation,
is
actually
it's
quite
a
high
bar.
I
So
there
are
a
number
of
factors
that
we
would
take
into
account
and
would
seek
the
advice
of
our
agricultural
surveyor
on
on
these
points.
But
matters
such
as
the
need
for
immediate
care
of
animals,
matters
of
animal
welfare,
perishable
crops
of
high
value,
those
sort
of
those
sort
of
matters,
but
there's
no
divine
right
as
it
were,
set
out
in
planning
policy
to
have
an
agricultural
dwelling
on
a
farm.
F
Thank
you
yeah.
I
think
it's
79a,
the
second
bullet.
Isn't
it
a
provision
of
an
additional?
In
this
case,
a
dwelling
on
site
is
essential
for
the
continued
viability
of
a
farming
business
through
the
farm
succession
process
as
well.
So
what
I
suppose
my
anxiety
here
is
coming
up,
we're
putting
quite
a
lot
of
weight
on
the
fact
that
they
rent
something
on
a
small
tenanted
area
not
too
far
away
but
they're,
saying
well
that
we
don't
have
the
security
necessarily
there.
A
B
Yeah,
so
in
relation
to,
I
think
the
point
you've
you've
pointed
out
is
in
paragraph
41
of
the
report
and
that
so
the
main
paragraph
in
the
mppf
is
actually
paragraph
18.
Since
it's
been
updated
point
a
so,
it
says
there
needs
to
be
an
essential
need
for
a
rural
worker,
including
those
taking
the
majority
control
of
a
farm
business
to
live
permanently
at
or
near
their
place
of
work
in
the
countryside,
and
then
that's
followed
up
in
paragraph
41.
B
With
with
what
it
says
in
the
mppg
which
basically
supplements
the
mppf
and
the
second
bullet
point.
There
says
whether
the
provision
of
an
additional
dwelling
on
the
site
is
essential
for
the
continued
viability
of
a
farming
business
through
the
farm
succession
process
and
in
terms
of
this,
we
haven't
really
had
much.
Information
in
terms
of
the
farm
succession
process
are
all
the
viability
of
existing
enterprises.
B
So
we've
not
been
able
to
come
to
a
conclusion
on
that
and
within
the
report
I
raised
concerns
regarding
the
almost
commercial
diversification
elements
that
are
occurring
on
the
existing
culling
and
farm
at
the
moment
and
we're
unsure
in
what
role
they
take
in
the
overall
farming
business.
You
know
whether
they
prop
up
the
the
financial
side
of
the
overall
financial
business,
whether
that's
the
key
element
and
and
stuff
like
you
know
how
much
time
is
devoted
to
those
elements
compared
to
general
farming
as
well.
B
So
we've
been
unable
to
to
come
to
a
conclusion
really
on
on
that
bullet
points.
It's
not
been
evidenced
that
this
additional
dwelling
is
essential
to
the
continued
viability
for
farm
business,
and
the
other
point
is
that
we've
got
no
evidence
that
the
existing
dwelling
is
going
to
be
lost
in
in
the
short
term,
either.
F
D
You've
answered
the
first
part
was
about
paragraph
79.
What
relevance
is
paragraph
83,
at
least
in
the
version
of
the
mppf?
I
looked
up
because
I
accept
that
it
has
changed,
so
it
may
or
may
not
be
relevant,
but
paragraph
83
and
the
other
in
the
meantime.
The
other
thing
about
security
when
I
went
up
the
other
day,
one
of
the
things
that
was
explained
to
me
was
the
machinery
and
the
value
of
the
machinery
and
in
terms
of
securing
that,
is
that
a
consideration
today
or
not.
B
Just
in
terms
of
security
points,
I
think
in
the
report
we've
highlighted
that
there
would
be
some
benefits
in
that
regard,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
give.
You
know
the
benefits
of
being
say
close
to
tractors
and
combine
harvesters
overriding
waste
over
the
the
harm
that's
going
to
be
caused
to
the
green
belt,
because
I
I
don't
think
those
factors
would
be
individual
to
to
this
application.
I
think
that
could
could
occur
on
numerous.
You
know,
similar
proposals.
H
Yes,
I
always
judge
things
by
an
appeal,
because
ultimately
I've
got
to
attend
an
appeal,
so
if
I
can't
defend
it
in
an
application,
I'm
going
to
have
a
job.
If
I
can't
defend
when
I
come
to
an
appeal,
inspectors
will
have
regard
to
security,
but
it
it
is
lower
down
the
list
and
it
is
in
after
the
other
aspects,
because
there
are
various
means
of
dealing
with
security.
H
You
can
look
at
alarms.
You
can
look
at
other.
D
If
they
don't
should
we
be
giving
should
we
start,
although
we've
not
necessarily
got
policies
specifically
to
deal
with
this,
but
if
they
don't
have
to
travel
the
distance
every
day
from
a
sustainability
point
of
view
in
terms
of
burning
fuel
and
being
closer
to
their
point
of
work,
is
that
something
we
should
give
consideration
to?
Is
that
something
that's
going
to
be
addressed
in
any
forthcoming
plan?
Changes
that
we've
got
or
not.
H
B
Yeah,
so
I've
got
the
current
mppf
up
and
the
old
one.
So
it's
the
current
one,
paragraph
83,
says:
planning
policies
and
decision
decisions
should
recognize
and
address
the
special
specific
locational
requirements
of
different
sectors.
Is
that
the
one
oh
run
I'll
just
get
the
one.
D
I
had
right
planning
policy
should
be,
should
enable
a
the
sustainable
growth
and
expansion
of
all
types
of
business
in
rural
areas,
both
through
conversion
of
existing
buildings
and
well-designed
new
buildings,
be
the
development
and
diversification
of
agricultural
and
other
land-based
rural
businesses.
Okay,
that's
the
same!
Well,
I'm
not
saying
it's
real,
I'm
just
yeah.
B
So
that's
paragraph
84
in
the
the
2021
version,
so
it's
just
been
bumped
down
one.
So
in
terms
of
the
growth
and
expansion
of
businesses
in
rural
areas,
that's
not
being
put
forward
just
as
part
of
this
application,
it's
just
for
a
new
dwelling
on
the
sites
and
then
same
with
the
diversification
and
other
land-based
rural
businesses
that
those
permissions.
B
You
know
if
any
have
already
taken
place,
so
those
that
rural
diversification
is
already
taking
place
at
lilac
farm
and
the
the
pressing
of
the
of
the
oil
that
you'll
have
seen
at
site
at
trick
lane.
So
it's
difficult
to
give
them
yeah
additional
weight,
because
they're
already
already
happening
they're
already.
There.
G
Thank
you
there's
a
couple
of
issues.
One
can
officers,
explain
the
situation
of
the
tenure
at
the
current
farm,
because
I'm
I'm
not
quite
getting
my
my
head
around
that.
If
I've
understood
correctly,
what
you're
saying
is
it
that
if,
if
there
wasn't
any
kind
of
tenure
close
by
at
cullingham,
then
you
would
have
reversed
your
decision
and
there
would
have
been
a
justification
for
for
this
and
what
because,
because
really,
whether
it's
going
to
be
allocated
or
not
or
whether
they
could
put
an
application
in
for
housing?
G
Now
it's
not
an
allocated
site
at
cullingham,
and
that's
that
seems
to
be
the
suggestion
from
the
applicant
that
the
the
owners
of
the
land
are
actively
looking
to
develop
the
site.
That
seems
what
the
correspondence
suggests
in
here.
G
B
Yeah,
so
so
in
terms
of
any
application
for
a
new
dwelling
from
agricultural
workers,
property
we've
got
to
assess
it
against.
You
know
the
paragraph
ata,
which
we
previously
highlighted
in
the
mppf,
which
talks
about
an
essential
need,
so
so
that
goes
back
to
the
type
of
farming
that's
occurring
and
whether
there's
a
you
know
the
24-hour
presence
required
and
the
other
elements
that
are
listed
in
the
report.
B
So
we
can't
really
get
away
from
the
fact
that
we
need
to
assess
the
application
against
those
requirements
and,
from
the
other
appeal
decisions
and
applications
that
I've
highlighted
at
the
start
of
the
report.
It
is
a
very
high
policy
bar
to
justify
a
new
dwelling
and,
and
generally
inspectors
are
wanting
to
see.
You
know
a
significant
level
of
livestock
where
you
need
to
be
close
by
you
know
to
cover
for
for
birthing
and
for
you
know,
expensive,
perishable
crops
and
things
like
that,
and
they
don't
exist
on
on
here.
B
So
so
we've
we've
assessed
it
with.
In
that
regard,
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
additional
information
submitted
regarding
what
might
potentially
happen
at
lilac
farm.
I
don't
think
that
gave
us
any
any
further
clarity
than
we
family
previously
had
because
it
sounds
from
that
email
as
if
the
landowners
are
actually
waiting
for
vacant
possession
before
they
move
move
in
and
to
redevelop
the
site.
So
there's
nothing
firm
there
that
we
can
give
weight
to.
B
I
suppose,
in
terms
of
the
very
special
circumstances
argument
if
it
was
very
insecure,
the
tenancy
we
could
have
perhaps
given
given
that
some
weight,
but
we've
already
given
the
personal
circumstances
of
the
applicant's
weight
in
the
decision-making
process,
and
I'm
not
sure
it
would
have
been
overriding.
But
to
you
know,
as
I
say,
we
haven't,
got
any
firm
evidence
in
that
regard
anyway.
G
It
was
a
separate
point:
around
highways
we'd
asked
for
more
information
about
how
it
and
I'm
surprised,
I
thought
the
road
looked
quiet
when
it
was
on
the
when
they
were
showing
the
drone
flying
over
and
so
11
o'clock
on
a
saturday
morning.
It's
probably
one
of
the
quieter
times
on
that
road.
G
It
would
have
been
interesting
to
see
it
if
it
was
half
four
on
a
weekday
tea
time,
but
I
don't
know
if
any
further
work's
been
done
on
surveys
that
can
give
us
information,
because
I
I
can
well
imagine
you
could
sit
at
that
junction
trying
to
get
onto
the
a58
for
10
15
minutes.
A
D
D
Day
you
know
throughout
the
day
really
so
the
the
traffic
volume
that
you
know
the
applicants
are
adding
to.
That
is
really
quite
small,
and
so
that's
the
only
information
I
can
give
you
that
you
know
that
there's
you
know
a
constant
flow.
You
know
of
between
200
and
300
vehicles
on
linton
road.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
further
questions
at
this
stage?
Councillor
sharp
and
then
I've
got
councillor
flights
after
that.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
D
Chair,
can
I
ask
how
long
did
the
journey
from
here
to
be
to
this
morning
in
that
bus
that
we're
in.
D
I
think
council
covered
it.
Paragraph
67
talks
about
how
there's
no
kind
of
development
submission
in
place
for
the
cullingham
site.
So
there's
a
limited
need
argument.
Another
thing
that
was
put
forward
was
that
a
house
on
the
linton
site
was
the
only
option
and
we
just
haven't
had
any
further
information
about
the
kind
of
cost
it
would.
D
It
would
take
to
build
the
kind
of
substantial
houses
in
place
compared
to
the
cost
of
properties
in
the
area
as
an
alternative,
because
then
one
of
the
arguments
was
that
this
was
their
kind
of
only
option
if
the
tenancy
stopped.
So
I
just
wonder
if
there
was
any
information
about
the
costings.
B
Yeah
there's
no
additional
information
in
that
regard,
I
mean
in
terms
of
that
aspect.
The
illness
is
on
on
the
applicants
really
to
submit
the
evidence
and
to
suggest
that
I
think
when
the
applicant
spoke
at
the
27th
of
may
meeting,
they
gave
a
figure
of
around
a
hundred
thousand
pounds
for
the
construction.
I
have
not
had
a
surveyor
look
at
it
or
anything
that
that
had
seen
a
very
low
construction
value
for
a
dwelling
which
doesn't
have
any
services
at
present
ban.
B
A
G
A
Yes,
they
were
estimations,
I
must
say,
they're
not
based
on
actual
costings
councilor
carlin.
E
Thanks
james
question,
I
mean
I'm
just
going
back
to
that
set
of
bullets.
We've
got
from
the
mppf
here
really
because
that
seems
the
only
thing
that
we're
looking
at
in
this
case.
I
think
the
highways
regards
and
everything
there
they're
clearly
secondary
to
what
we've
got
here
in
terms
of
building
on
the
green
belt
and
you've
got
number
one
where
there's
an
essential
need
number
two,
whether
it's
needed
on
viabilities.
My
question
on
that
is
just
complete
clarity
in
terms
of
if
they
stay
in
the
existing
building.
E
How
long
can
they
stay
there
at
this
present
time?
And
then
my
third
question
is
the
next
bullet
point
that's
taken
into
account
and
we've
heard
the
sizes
of
the
different
parcels
of
land,
which
was
a
question
I
was
going
to
come
on
to,
but
the
next
is
taken
on
to
whether
there
can
be
an
improvement
to
existing
accommodation
on
any
of
the
sites.
E
As
this
is
the
smallest
parcel
of
land.
Have
we
looked
at
the
other
bits
of
land
in
the
farm
to
see
whether
there's
any
existing
accommodation
on
any
of
those
that
could
be
improved
and
granted
apologies?
I
wasn't
here
at
the
last
meeting,
so
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
through
that
in
in
detail
previously.
B
Yep
so
in
terms
of
the
the
land
holding
said
highlighted
in
paragraph
61.,
so
you've
got
the
the
two
main
land
holdings
that
are
close
to
this
site.
So
you've
got
the
the
27
acres
at
triple
a
which
is
the
proposal
site
and
then
lilac
farm
at
collingham,
which
is
the
existing
site.
They
farm
a
lot
of
land
around
there,
so
that's
201
acres
there,
but
that's
on
a
tenanted
basis.
B
So
in
relation
to
improvements
to
the
site
that
require
the
landowners
permission
for
those.
A
Does
that
fulfill
your
your
question
peter,
or
do
you
want
to
come
back.
B
So,
in
terms
of
security
of
a
tenancy
I
mean
we're
not,
ultimately
it's
going
to
be
up
to
the
landowner.
I
suppose
that
there'll
be
a
contract
in
in
place
in
terms
of
for
tenants
rights.
I
believe
I've
got
125-year
tenancy
on
the
land,
but
there'll
be
there'll,
be
clauses
in
there
where,
where
that
contract
can
can
be
broken,
but
we've
obviously
got
to
make
a
decision
based
on
the
the
information.
That's
that's
in
front
of
us.
A
E
E
So
am
I
correct
in
thinking
that
we're
not
in
any
view
that
they're
going
to
be
kicked
out
of
the
existing
premises
at
any
time
soon,
because
I
think
that
would
bear
weight
to
whether
there
was
a
viability
concern.
I
don't
think
the
viability
in
my
mind
is
affected
with
where
the
dwelling
is,
but
it's
if
they
had
served
and
been
served
in
eviction
notice.
Obviously,
then
that
would
be
a
big
big
deal
in
this
case.
H
If
we
can
go
one
at
a
time
as
I
understand
it
and
I'm
sure
the
applicants
will
shake
their
heads
if,
if,
if
I'm
wrong,
it's
an
agricultural
holdings
act
tendency.
H
H
H
The
difficulty
is
that
the
landlord
is
perhaps
playing
a
shall
we
say
a
game
and
is
raising
the
concept
of
the
farmyard
being
redeveloped,
which
is
naturally
unsettling
the
tenant
as
it
would
anybody,
but
we
have
no
evidence
of
it.
So
the
tenants
in
a
bit
of
a
cleft
stick
having
the
landlord
at
the
one
hand,
whispering
in
the
air
that
you
know,
of
course,
we're
going
to
want
you
out
and
want
you
out,
but
isn't
actually
doing
anything,
but
until
they
do
something
they
don't
have
grounds
to
to
change
that
circumstance.
A
I'm
sorry,
I
can't
bring
you
in
from
the
public
gallery
unless
there's
a
specific
question
and
you're
asked
to
come
forward.
I
apologize
for
that.
But
that's
that's
what
the
rules
are,
I'm
afraid.
The
way
it
was
explained
to
us
this
morning,
councillor
carlill,
is
that
it's
a
three-generational
tenancy
and
the
current
occupants
are
the
first
generation,
so
that
would
be
their
their
time
in
and
their
son
and
if
their
son
has
children
and
then
it
would
be
reviewed
or
come
to
an
end
or
whatever
followed
at
that
point.
A
A
C
I've
just
stuck
my
hand
up,
so
I
haven't
been
waiting,
but
am
I
writing
thinking
in
that?
If
there
is
to
be
development
which
impinges
on
lilac
farm,
it
is
us
that
have
got
the
cards
in
our
hand.
We
could
stop
it
if
it
impinged
on
essential
farm
work.
It's
for
us
to
say
there
you
are.
Am
I
right.
B
We'd
have
to
take
any
decision
in
line
with
what
planning
policy
said,
so
so
in
terms
of
that
site,
the
actual
lilac
farm
buildings
don't
have
any
constraints,
so
they're
not
actually
within
the
green
belts,
so
yeah,
but
it
and
and
and
any
redevelopment
would
require
planning
permission
which
would
which
we'd
have
to
look
carefully
at
you
know
there
is
potential
for
for
a
development
coming
forward
there,
but
we
don't
know
what
it
is.
It's
it's
not
the
easiest
site
to
to
develop.
So
we
can't
really
give
much
further
clarity
on
that.
E
Sorry
chair,
thank
you
just
one
clarity
on
that
answer,
then,
is
that
tendency
for
the
entire
parcel
of
land
at
lilac
farm
therefore,
were
they
to
lose
the
house?
We
would
expect,
therefore
they
may
lose
a
sizable
part
of
the
farm
at
the
same
time
and
that
and
therefore
the
viability
would
be
a
big
question
at
that
point.
I'm
guessing.
Obviously
I
don't
know.
H
You
could
only
terminate
the
entire
tenancy
if
you
had
planning
permission
on
the
entire
tenancy,
which
is
actually
quite
difficult
to
achieve
because
200
acres,
it's
unlikely
to
happen
all
at
once.
What
you
can
have
is
where
a
part
of
a
farm
is
terminated.
H
H
F
F
Ouch
I'll
remember
that
chair
in
a.
G
F
Is
tenant
it's
where
it's
tenanted,
but
there
is
no
protection
for
that
site,
I.e
or
be
that
it's
not
an
allocated
site.
It's
not
green
belt,
and
I'm
not
aware
I'm
not
aware
that
the
fact
something
is
farmland
is
in
and
of
itself
for
planning
protection.
F
You'll
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
please,
but
it
would
be
open
to
somebody
to
bring
an
application
for
part
of,
as
we've
said,
part
of
that
site
and
therefore
the
applicant
is
living
with
the
potential
sort
of
damage
over
them,
which
would
certainly
stop
me
investing
in
future
development
of
that
particular
aspect
of
my
business
if
there's
no
particular
protection
from
a
planning
perspective
and
an
application,
and
we
know
because
it
was
a
consultation
that
took
place
reading
some
of
the
reading,
some
of
the
reports
and
information
around
it.
F
F
B
B
A
F
I
think
you've
just
clarified
that
the
tarmac
area
and
the
prop
and
the
house
that
area
of
that
rented
parcel
of
land
has
no
special
planning
protection
and
that
an
application
can
come
forward
at
any
time,
vis-a-vis
that
part
of
the
development
without
any
special
protection.
H
There
is
another
side
to
that
coin.
In
the
in
terminating
that
tenancy,
you
would
be
looking
to
see
what
provision
is
the
landlord
going
to
make.
Now.
I'm
we
haven't
been
made
privy
to
the
terms
of
the
tenancy
agreement
to
know
what
compensation
would
be
paid
if
that
was
taken
away,
which
could
put
the
tenant
back
in
the
position
they
were
in.
H
F
B
Just
one
further
point
on
the
land
not
having
designations.
I
mean-
that's
obviously
been
the
part
in
place
for
some
time
now
and
we've
not
seen
any
any
firm
applications
going
forward.
So
there's
nothing
to
suggest
that
they
will
do
you
know,
especially
given
the
statement
that
we've
received
saying
that
that'll
only
come
forward.
If
the
house
is
vacated,
you
see
so
almost
we've
got
the
loss
of
that
farmhouse
as
being
the
catalyst
and
for
a
potential
development.
A
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
The
the
bit
I'm
struggling
with
is
how
secure
or
insecure
the
tenure
is
or
isn't
at
livelock
farm
currently,
because
that
that
seems
to
me
what
tilts
the
balance
and
because
otherwise
we
say
well,
if
the
far,
if
this
goes
ahead,
then
suddenly,
we've
put
lilac
farm
in
play
for
development
is
the
argument
I
think
stephen
just
made
that
that
would
be
vacant,
and
but
that's
the
bulk
of
the
holding
is
at
lilac
farm.
The
bulk
of
the
farmland
is,
I'm
not
sure
why
york
is
relevant
other
than
I.
G
I
don't
see
how
link
trips
really
plays
into
this.
So
it's
really
the
difference
from
culling
them
to
linkedin.
Is
that
it's
a
relevant
bit.
So
in
my
mind,
if
you
developed
the
current
developed
bit
of
lilac
farm
for
housing
because
it
was
vacant,
would
there
then
not
be
an
argument
for
putting
an
agricultural
dwelling
on
what
is
currently
greenbeltland
at
lyle
farm?
That's
not
developed
at
the
moment
because
it
wouldn't
be
anywhere
for
agricultural
workers
to
live
for
a
200,
acre
site
and
therefore
is
there
a
degree
of
protection.
G
B
Yeah
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
security
of
a
tenancy,
it's
very
much
up
to
the
landowners
and
and
the
legal
elements
of
that
tenancy
is
as
as
roger's
pointing
out.
So
I
can't
really
give
any
clarity
of
other
than
what
I've
provided
in
in
the
reports,
and
I
think
what
was
saying
in
that
is
it's
uncertain,
but
we've
had
no
clarification
that
that
is
imminent
or
short
term.
B
Just
going
back
to
your
other
points
say
this
farmhouse
was
lost
and
they
applied
for
a
new
farmhouse
at
trip
lane
to
say
it
had
already
been
lost
and
they
applied
for
a
new
one,
but
still
have
to
prove
the
test
that
there
was
an
essential
need
there,
and
given
that,
as
I
pointed
out
before,
we
don't
think
there's
a
requirement
for
the
24-hour
presence
and
and
and
so
on.
You
know,
I
think
we
would
struggle
to
to
grant
that
anyway.
A
Okay,
I
can't
see
any
more
indications
for
questions
so
as
we've
had
so
many
and
it's
a
fairly
complex
issue,
I'm
going
to
ask
dave
if
you
just
summarize
where
those
questions
have
taken
us
and
the
information
that
we've
got
on
the
table
now.
I
Okay,
thank
you,
chair,
yeah
I'll,
do
my
best.
It's
worth
the
I'm
sorry
I'll
I'll
start
off
with
basics,
but
I'll,
try
and
cover
all
all
of
the
ground.
If
I
may
so
we're
we're
in
the
position
where
I
think
it's
common
ground
between
all
the
parties,
the
the
proposal
actually
constitutes
inappropriate
developments
in
the
green
belt
and
therefore
the
test
is
for
the
decision
maker
has
the
applicant
prove
that
their
very
special
circumstances
to
allow
us
to
depart
from
the
normal
opposition
to
the
principle
of
of
of
development.
I
And
I
suppose
in
this
particular
case,
the
the
context
to
the
case
is
integral
to
their
argument
for
very
special
circumstances
and
it
falls
of
members
to
apply
weight
to
these
factors
to
come
to
view
whether
these
are
very
special
circumstances,
and
it
includes
that
test
as
to
whether
it's
considered
that
there
is
an
essential
need
for
an
agricultural
dwelling
on
on
that
particular
site
or
it
it
could
go
to
concerns
also
about
applying
weight
to
the
security
of
the
the
tenure.
Some
of
the
things
we've
picked,
we've
discussed
so
this.
I
The
specific
context
is
that
we
know
that
we're
dealing
with
a
long
and
well-established
family
farming
enterprise
they've
got
land
at
collingham.
They
which
we
know
they
tend
their
tendencies
for
that
land
large
bit
of
land,
smaller
parts
of
land
which
they
actually
own
at
lincoln,
plus
other
areas
of
land
dotted
around
locally
and
across
yorkshire.
I
We
also
know
so
sorry,
I
suppose
that
gives
us
some
comfort
in
the
sense
that
we
know
that
it
is
a
long-established,
well-established
farming
enterprise.
We
also
know
as
part
of
their
case.
We
saw
it
on
site
this
morning
when
we
went
to
lilac
farm
we've
seen
it
from
the
videos
that
the
existing
buildings
are
probably
outdated,
not
best
suited
for
modern
day
agricultural
purposes,
and
we've
been
able
to
do
that
comparison
between
existing
buildings
at
lilac
farm
and
the
ones
that
we've
seen
at
the
linton
blinton
site.
I
They
get
the
operational
benefits
of
having
the
dwellings
and
the
buildings
there
there
together,
so
in
effect,
they've
established
a
new
base
at
linton,
it's
in
the
green
belt.
Of
course
the
applicant's
case
is
well.
If
we
follow
that
path,
then
we're
in
an
isolated
the
existing
farm
buildings
are
in
an
isolated
position.
I
I
Some
of
that
impact
could
be
mitigated
by
the
visual
impact
could
be
mitigated
by
landscaping
to
an
extent
which
will
take
a
while
to
mature,
but
who
would
never
overcome
the
actual
spatial
objection
as
it
were.
I
The
eating
of
land
of
the
consumption
of
land
to
buildings
now
as
officers,
obviously,
we've
formed
a
view
based
on
planning
policy
and
based
on
the
experience
of
dealing
with
planning
appeals
as
to
what
is
whether
this
is
essential
or
not,
but
you
know
it's
in
the
end:
it's
for
members
to
come
up
with
a
view
on
those
factors
and
the
weight
to
be
attached
to
those
factors,
whether
it
overcomes
the
policy
and
the
harm
that
results
from
the
development
does
that
help
chad.
I
think.
A
I
think
that
sets
the
context
nicely
david.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
summary.
So
I'll
now
invite
comments.
E
Thanks
yeah,
I
guess
I'll
come
on
comments
leading
back
to
the
other
one
leading
back
to
my
questions,
really,
because
I'm
just
still
looking
at
that
point
79a
and
really
have
that
understanding
of
the
sword
of
damocles.
That's
a
bit
of
a
a
catchphrase
for
you,
I
think
in
in
plans
panels
there
and
councillor
cohen,
but
that
that's
their
hanging
over,
but
from
what
I've
heard.
E
That
is
a
reasonably
standard
practice
in
this
form
of
tenancy
and
we're
not
necessarily
here
to
question
that
agricultural
tenancy
act
really
we're
to
see
whether
these
bullet
points
are
met.
So
I
have
every
sympathy
for
that
because
I
wouldn't
like
to
live
under
one
of
those
tendencies,
but
I
don't
know
whether
it's
our
point
to
question
the
tendency
that
that's
under
that's
a
different
matter.
E
So
that
doesn't
really
apply
that
first
bullet
the
second
bullet,
whether
they
need
it
for
the
viability
of
the
business.
Going
forward,
if
that
tenancy
was
terminated,
then
that
might
be
a
need,
but
I
think
there's
still
a
question
there
to
be
judged
at
that
time,
whether
they
would
be
whether
there
would
be
a
requirement
to
have
the
building
one
in
that
particular
site
and
two
within
the
the
farm
site
itself.
E
So
I
can't
judge
that
that
is
met
at
this
present
time
and
then
point
three
is
whether
that
could
be
met
through
improvements
to
the
existing
buildings,
and
we
haven't
obviously
seen
the
entire
site,
the
viability,
the
background.
So
I
have
every
sympathy
of
the
fact
that
it
appears
at
this
time
with
outside
the
applicant's
control.
This
tendency
could
be
ended,
but
until
that
point
it
doesn't
seem
to
meet
any
of
the
planning
policy
aims
for
building
on
this
site.
E
So
at
this
this
time
I
don't
think
I
could
support
this
because
it
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
that
and
looking
at
the
answers
given
in
previous
appeals
by
the
inspector,
I
think
they
probably
would
come
to
the
same
view
in
my
opinion.
So
so
I
I
feel
that
that
is
where
the
facts
are
backed
up
and
I
wouldn't
want
to
go
to
appeal
and
that
then,
to
be
a
complete
different
view
than
we
have
here,
whereas
I
think
the
appeal
seems
to
be
the
inspector's
view
seems
to
be
aligned
with
my
own.
C
Well,
I'd
like
to
say
that
this
is
definitely
the
longest
planning
report
I
have
ever
read,
but
I'd
also
like
to
show
my
colleagues
that
I
have
read
absolutely
every
single
word
of
it,
but
I
was
90
certain
that
I
would
be
voting
against
this
at
the
last
time
that
it
was
discussed,
and
the
reason
was
that
the
applicant
was
asked
why
a
property
was
either
purchased
or
built
in
a
more
urban
area,
and
the
answer
was
because
it
was
three
times
as
much
as
as
as
we
heard
well.
C
We
set
aside
greenbelt
land
for
our
recreation.
I
know,
for
example,
trip
lane
very
well.
It's
part
of
the
ebar
way
the
long
distance
walking
footpath,
which
is
joins
with
the
lee's
country
way
when
it
gets
to
herewood.
C
A
I
see
no
hands,
I
don't
know
whether
you
want
to
summarize
anything
david
before
we
take
this
to
the
vote.
Okay,
do
I
have
a
proposal
for
the
recommendation?
Please
thank
you
councillor
carl.
Do
I
have
a
seconder
councillor,
nash,
those
in
favor.