[speaker001:] Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the fifty seventh day of this enquiry. I hope, I imagine I should say perhaps, that this is the last day on which the County Council will be represented formally at the enquiry. We turn now to land north of Skelton. Mr [whispering] [].
[Harry:] Right. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We're dealing this morning with topic areas thirty nine and forty, and sites two and three. Erm can I just begin by taking the appearances first please.
[George:] Sir, my name is George. I'm here in an honourary capacity as advocate and expert witness... on behalf of the Skelton Parish Council,... the Skelton Village Trust,...
[John:] I don't think there's any need to read all the other names, Mr. It's all
[George:] Erm
[John:] Is is it correctly set out on the day's programme?
[George:] It is indeed sir.
[John:] Good.
[George:] Er er s i it is set out on my proof, G W Fourteen. I haven't checked the erm... er wording of today's programme, but I've no reason to assume that any mistakes will have been made on that.... Erm
[John:] Mr I I have from you I think er... six documents. There is a summary,... your proof, your appendices, there's a letter dated the fourth of February from the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, there is a special statement, and last, and only... just received in the last few minutes, there is a supplementary note by Doctor on the Greater Crested Newt and its importance in relation to Skelton Pond.
[George:] Sir, you have enumerated all the documents which exist on our side, and with regard to the letters erm... er of the fourth of February and the twentieth of April to which you have referred, they are part of the set of appendices, and are respectively appendix eight and appendix nine.
[John:] I I appreciate that point Mr, but as they arrived separately they've been given different numbers er a as... simply er a matter of administrative convenience.
[George:] Sir, before I open the case, er after you have taken the appearances, it is my intention with your permission to make a special statement having regard to an event in the past, and to then make submissions. Thank you.
[Harry:] Thank you very much. please. Mr.
[speaker005:] Sir yes, I represent the County Council... with respect to these objections sir, and I shall be calling Mrs to give the evidence,... and she will produce a proof and a bundle of appendices which consist of two plans. Those are documents N Y Two Three Seven and N Y Two Three Eight. Thank you very much.
[Harry:] And for the District Council, Mr.
[speaker006:] Yes sir. Sir, I'll be calling Mr. His proof is R D Eighty Two with er appendices R D Eighty Three.
[Harry:] Thank you very much. Mr?
[speaker007:] Yes sir. Sir, I'm instructed by Mrs. I represent those who are enumerated on the second sheet.
[Harry:] Thank you for not
[John:] Yes, thank you very much.
[Harry:] That's quite a long list I think.
[speaker007:] Sir, you have before you I hope the proof of evidence and appendices from Mrs.
[Harry:] Yes.
[speaker007:] Sir, with permission, the course I propose to adopt is as follows. [cough] I propose to call her, but if in the event I judge it to be unnecessary then I shall invite because I don't want to add unnecessarily to the length of these proceedings.
[Harry:] Thank you very much indeed..... Right, Mr then please....
[George:] Sir this is a special statement.... [reading] I was advised by the Greenbelt Local Plan Programme Officer, on fifth March,... that counsel for North Yorkshire County Council, with the apparent concurrence of counsel for Ryedale District Council, had delivered an oral submission to the inspector, that at the hearing of the case which was to have taken place on the eleventh of March, certain evidence contained in my proof of evidence issued on twelfth February should be treated as inadmissible. That submission was made at a time when I was sch not scheduled to be present at this enquiry, and was not present. A prior indication of an intention to make a submission had not furthermore been communicated.... On hearing of the occurrence, I immediately requested through the programme officer a copy of the submission as delivered, but received in reply from the County Planning Officer of North Yorkshire County Council merely a statement that the County Council was requesting that an issue be not entertained by the inspector on the basis of the Council's position as set out in paragraph eight point one of its proof of evidence. Not being in possession of a verbatim record of the submission by the County, I have prepared twelve linked submissions in this matter, document G W Fourteen B, which seek to rebut with justification the point believed to have been made on behalf of the County and District Councils. If after I have read my submissions the councils wish and are permitted to make any observations on it, I request the right to reply thereto before the matter is decided by you. It is my intention to proceed to open the case proper, relating to areas D thirty nine and D forty, after the points raised in the court's submissions have been resolved. []...
[John:] Er Mr, you have of course just been reading your special statement, erm document number five, and [cough] there is left the erm additional two pages which makes these... er submissions. I would imagine that the er parties on my left have had a chance to read and consider these erm statements already. Er I I would... think it very little advantage in actually reading all of this aloud now, unless you feel it is going to be some great advantage.
[George:] Sir, it has always been one of my principles that planning, for its acceptance, depends on public understanding. There is present in this hall today a number of people who are concerned with the future of Skelton. They have had no opportunity whatsoever to hear the nature of the point which is due to be considered by you in relation to these submissions, and I think that it would be in the interests of public understanding of this case were they enabled to hear.
[John:] Well Mr, of course the same argument could be put forward in er... to justify reading all proofs of evidence in full, and er that would lengthen an already very long enquiry to er er erm a quite grotesque extent. However, as this is a particular topic, and as er I'm going to be asking the councils er and the supporters if they wish to comment on er your submissions, perhaps to assist the public understanding of these replies, er there may be some advantage in you reading er at least a summary of these er points. But I certainly don't want to take any other evidence in court other than this. Pl please continue then and and er...
[George:] Yes. With regard to
[John:] we'll we'll deal with this relatively quickly.
[George:] Yes sir. The as regards to the other evidence, you have my two-page summary, er and therefore there is no risk of erm any erm... leng length of time being taken the rest of. [reading] Changes in proposed greenbelt boundaries affecting a given area, and occurring at the consultative draft stage of local plans and or pre-map stage and the formal deposit of those plans, and or between the deposit copies and proposals subsequently issued by county and local planning authorities by way of desired changes to deposit copies, militate against, and may totally inhibit in relation to that area, emergence within the meaning of the national doctrine most recently propagated in paragraph er within erm paragraph thirty two of the revised version of P P G number One. Proposals made by way of change to a deposit copy have a relatively stronger affect against emergence, owing to the lesser public consultation which attends them prior to the enquiry stage.... Two. The existence of valid objections to the deposit copies and or to the proposals subsequently issued by county or local planning authorities by way of desired changes to deposit copies, also militates against the operation of the doctrine of emergence in relation to that area. Three. Impediments to emergence from more than one cause which exist at any one time in relation to the same area, are cumulative in the degree of their effects, up to a state of total inhibition of emergence prior to adoption of the plan concerned. Four. A change of greenbelt status, and changes to a proposed greenbelt boundary variously affecting the combined area known for the purposes of this enquiry as D thirty nine and D forty, north of Skelton Village, have been proposed in the deposit copies, and in the desire to change proposed by the county and local planning authorities, and sundry valid representations have been lodged relating to the exclusion of all or parts of the area of the greenbelt. [cough] The essential feature of these representations is that they seek greenbelt status,... and any question of the technical means by which this is sought to be achieved, such as by washing over, or exclusion from an inset area, is immaterial to the relevance of the representation of the end desired.... This is especially so as the local plan makes no reference whatever to the proposal to effectively change from a washed-over to an inset status, while the greenbelt local plan refers to that change only by the one word, quote proposed unquote, in parentheses on page twenty five of the deposit copy. In the case of neither plan was attention drawn to this fundamental change in the plans accompanying the text, or at public consultation displays, and few members of the public have therefore been aware of the prevailing washed-over status of Skelton, and consequence consequently of the intended change to it. Five.... The cumulative effect of the changes proposed and the objections made, is to negate the emergence at this time of any new greenbelt boundary affecting the area of Skelton. Six. Skelton Village and the area of D thirty nine and D forty form no part of the built area of York, but are separated from it by open country. Seven.... Skelton Village and the area of D thirty nine and D forty are located well within... the general extent of the statutory York greenbelt, as defined by Policy E Eight Four of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan, approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Eight.... No inset within the greenbelt is in existence for the area,... which is at this time washed-over... by the greenbelt.... The local planning authority refer to the washed-over status of the whole area from nineteen eighty one, in paragraph two point one point four of their proof.... Nine. As a result of the village being within,... and washed-over by, the greenbelt, no inset boundary exists in the vicinity. It is in my opinion axiomatic that a boundary which does not exist is ipso facto incapable of being re-aligned,... but can only with ju justification be created de novo. Likewise, the physical suitability or otherwise of a boundary as which does not exist, cannot arise. Ten.... In accordance with the provisions of national policy as set out in paragraph nine of Planning Policy Guidance Note Two, any alteration to the general extent of the approved greenbelt is to be proposed only in exceptional circumstances.... Eleven.... Any alteration within the general coverage of the approved greenbelt by way of the creation of an inset, would require justification in accordance with the second sentence of paragraph nine of P P G Two, and in the strict terms of a proposal made under approved Structure Plan Policy E Ten, as inserted by the Secretary of State for the Environment. No such proposal has been made by the county or local planning authorities. Twelve, and last. Having regard particularly to submissions five, eight, nine and eleven above, the changes currently proposed by the county and local planning authorities require to be considered in relation to the washed-over greenbelt status at present applicable to the area under which no boundary is in existence. Such consideration inter alia is given in my proof of evidence and the summary thereto, and they are therefore admissible, and of major relevance to this enquiry. Any submission to the contrary which may be or has been made by North Yorkshire County Council and or Ryedale District Council is accordingly strongly and totally refuted, for the reasons detailed in these submissions. [] Sir.
[John:] Thank you Mr. Mr, do you wish to reply to that?
[speaker005:] Er... briefly sir, yes.... The deposit copy of the York greenbelt local plan showed site D thirty nine... as being within the village of Skelton, and site D forty as being without in the greenbelt. Objection was made by the Skelton Village Trust to site D thirty nine being shown as being within the village perimeter. That was the only objection made to site D thirty nine,... er that it should be The objection was that it should shown to be in the greenbelt. That would be.... [cough] When the proposed changes were made known, advertised, and er members of the public and other bodies were able to make representations with respect to them, site D forty was shown as being additionally within... the village.... Skelton Parish Council and Mr made objections to that proposed change.... Those were the only two objections made to that proposed change.... We therefore, sir, have before us today to consider... these two sites, D thirty nine and D forty, in the context of the relevant and duly-made objections that have been made, and they are the simple question is, should these sites be in the within the greenbelt or within the inset. It's actually, sir, a fairly straightforward issue. What Mr... is seeking to do now... is to raise a much wider issue, it seems to us, and that is that Skelton ought to be washed-over in its entirety with greenbelt notation. That objection has never been made. It's not a duly-made objection, it's not one that he has any right to raise at this late stage. We will not entertain it sir, because it raises a whole host of wider and different issues, many of which we in fact considered yesterday in the context of Stockton, if you will recall. The objectives which the objectors are anxious to see achieved are to have these two sites shown as being in the greenbelt. That can be achieved in the context of the objections that have been duly made.... What we cannot countenance though sir, is any widening... o of the route... that they seek to go down, to have these sites included in the greenbelt, and that's to say... to entertain the argument that the whole of Skelton ought to be washed-over.... The issue is straightforward, should these sites be in the greenbelt or not? That objective can be achieved er under the terms of the objections that have been made. The er need to widen it to include er a washing-over argument doesn't arise.
[John:] Thank you Mr. Do you want to add anything to that Mr, or does the same point apply?
[speaker006:] Well er sir the same point applies, and I'd only say this. Erm in relation to the er modification in the plan which er the deposit plan which put these two sites er out of the greenbelt, er Mr did make representations. Er in answer to the question [reading] Which proposed change do you object to? [] he wrote [reading] Greenbelt boundary north of Skelton [], and then in answer to the question [reading] Please state here the full grounds on which your objection or representations will be made [], he wrote [reading] The change is contrary to my supported representations on the deposit plan []. Sir, you will remember in the deposit, Skelton was inset, although these two fields were not part of the inset. So he supported... the deposit. And I object to it, as I consider that O S fields seven three six five and six eight six two with the land extending westwards to the A Nineteen, should not be part of the Skelton inset area.... It's plain, it's unambiguous. Mr 's concern related to two sites and two sites alone, not to the principle of insetting. Indeed, we're not aware of erm anybody.
[John:] Mr, you you've er commented upon Mr 's objection that he made himself, but of course there are he is appearing for many others,
[speaker006:] Yes,.
[John:] many of whom no doubt are present today.
[speaker006:] Yes.
[John:] Er was the same did the same apply to the objections made by
[speaker006:] Well,we we're not aware of anybody objecting to the general principle of insetting and seeking Skelton to be washed-over. Everybody was concerned with these two fields.
[John:] Thank you.... Mr, I'm not quite sure t w er what your your standing is in relation to this point. Are there any helpful comments you could make?
[speaker007:] Sir, I think I have probably have no standing, and the answer to your question directly is no.
[John:] Thank you.... Mr, before I make a ruling on this point, did you wish to make er any further comment?...
[George:] [cough] Sir, one has to have in these matters regard to the practicalities of the situation. The question of washing-over and insetting is a technical planning matter... in which the population as a whole is not well versed.... The representations which come from members of the public and others cannot therefore be assumed in all cases to embody the approach which would be given were a a full understanding of the previous and proposed situations in the mind of those who made that... proposal. This is, I am certain, the case... with regard to Skelton. I have ample evidence that persons who are very aware of matters of public interest in general have been unaware at a critical stage of the washed-over status at that time of Skelton. It is I believe a result of that situation that reference to the... correct, that is to say the continuation of washing-over, was not known in the documents first submitted by way of representation to various planning. Secondly, I did say that the degree of confusion has existed because the two planning authorities have jigged about with the line a great deal.... It is perhaps fortunate from our point of view that we can pin ourselves, in so far as we are talking about an inset, to the actual deposit copy of Ryedale District Council, when they did get the matter right, but no body apart from them, sir, did so. Sir, I feel that regard should be had by you to the practicalities of the situation as well as to the submissions which I have made, in coming to your decision....
[John:] Thank you Mr.... I have of course had the advantage of considering this matter er previously, and I have had the chance also to look at the various objections that have been made. It does appear to me... er that the view which has been expressed by Mr and Mr is correct, that you and your clients did not object in terms, or indeed, as far as I can see, by implication in any way, to the existence of an inset for the village. They certainly did object to the proposed changes, but they did so in terms of where it is right that the inset boundary should be placed, and as far as I'm aware there are no references in any objections to the wider question of whether or not the village should be washed-over or be inset. I have therefore to agree with both the councils, that the comments you have just made and which you make at some length in your proof on this point, amount in effect to a late objection.... Neither council wants me to deal with this as a late objection.... It is therefore a matter which lies within my discretion as to whether or not I take it as a late objection.... I am not convinced that special circumstances apply in this case which override the which is advice given very clearly in the P P G Twelve, that, in general, late objections should not be entertained except in most exceptional circumstances.... I should however indicate... that... to understand properly what is the appropriate position for an inset boundary, I have to look at the reasons for there being an inset at all for the village, as, as you correctly indicate, it lies plainly otherwise within the general extent of the greenbelt.... It may, therefore, be necessary to examine why the two councils did not adopt the alternative approach of washing-over the village.... You are, however of course, aware that this background to insetting was discussed... at some length yesterday, in the context of another village. There would,... therefore in any event, be no need and no advantage for me, in repeating all that was said then. And this is of course, as if I agree with the view that you expressed yesterday in a general context, although it was made specifically then in relation to one village, any recommendation I make in relation to that village, if it is based on the general principle, must apply by analogy also to Skelton, and I would have little choice but to recommend to the councils that they may wish... or indeed they should, reconsider this question of washing-over or insetting elsewhere.... I think I hope that that is clear. It i it is I appreciate er a difficult er course now to steer between approaching head-on an objection which is a late objection and dealing... by er reference to obliquely perhaps to matters that have been dealt with elsewhere to the question of washing-over, but I'm sure that you can... steer this particular course or cross this particular tightrope with success.
[George:] Sir, we are much obliged to you for your consideration upon this matter, and I assure you that I shall do my best to avoid... in the evidence which I shall give and in my other remarks... apparently proposing a washed-over status for the village as a whole. However, it may incidentally erm come into the words that I use that erm er I'm referring to the washed-over or other status of these two sites. I shall endeavour to avoid that, and I ask your indulgence if this happens, since to a great extent one cannot erm select particular sentences erm that have not already documents. Sir, if it is your wish, I will now open the case.
[John:] Please, yes.... A are you going to be reading from your summary?
[George:] Er when I give my expert evidence, I will read from the summary. Sir it is my wont to open er a case of this kind with a quotation.... In nineteen fifty three, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government issued their Design Town and Village manual... and because of difficulties attending design concepts, the manual was made up of essays by eminent planners on various topics, with the full imprimatur of the minister.... A contribution relating to the English village was made by the late Thomas, and he had this to say.... [reading] It has sometimes been claimed that the village is a peculiarly English invention.... Whether that is so or not, the English village is, I believe, among the pleasantest and most places that men have ever built to live in,... and certainly it has a physical character and appearance that is strongly its own. Whatever may be its points of similarity to, or difference from, other countries' villages as social institutions,... it has very special qualities of picturesqueness, not of course to be confused with quaintness.... I do not think that these qualities arise wholly, or even mainly, as it is so often assumed, from the character of its buildings and the beauty of the natural forms, such as trees, which stand in juxtaposition to them. I believe that they lie as much, or even more, in the form in the ground plan which the buildings and the natural objects together make. []... Sir,... you have heard the virtues of various villages around York extolled... at earlier hearings in this enquiry.... You have heard... in response to a direct question put by yourself to an expert for North Yorkshire County Council, that he regarded the village of Flaxton as making a contribution to the historic setting of York, that it had a greenbelt function.... You have heard of the historical circumstances attendant on some of the villages, and you have heard of the beauty of them. We have ranged wide. Thaxton, Flaxton, Sand Hutton, Upper Poppleton, they have all come before you. Sir, today you have before you what I believe is the most important village still existing... close to York, which has, over a considerable part of its area, extant at this day... a medieval character and feel. Skelton is a very special village towards its north side. Sir, Skelton has made its contribution to York's housing problem in the past. An inset was at one time created for Skelton, and it resulted in a considerable amount of building on the south side. That building is not in character with the main part of the village to the north side.... It is quite obviously a twentieth century excrescence, however good it may be in itself as such.... Sir, Skelton has taken all of that that it could possibly stand, without destruction. To envisage any modern development at all on the north side would be catastrophic, having regard to the very special properties which there exist, qualities which contribute, undoubtedly, to the historic setting of York.... Skelton is a village whose... residents are proud.... They are increasingly aware... of their heritage. The Village Trust is a respected body which has been in existence for many years.... learned contributions have been made, and in that connection, I need only refer to some which are part of the appendices for the case before you today,... notedly the contribution made following recent research by Mrs on archaeological matters of significance to this particular area.... I could go on for some time sir, but I will now proceed to the technical planning matters.... I'm a Bachelor of Science in Estate Management in the University of London, and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. My first main appointment subsequent to the War was in the Planning Technique Division of the Headquarters Technical Directorate, in the then Ministry of Town and Country Planning, St James's Square. During the later part of my career, I was University Estates Officer to the new University of York from the university's inception in ninety sixty three until my retirement.... Skelton is a village with a long history and an attractive character in the area of the church.... It is here that William the Conqueror is said to have bribed two friars to help him gain access to the City of York after he had besieged it unsuccessfully. In eleven sixty six one David le, the Keeper of the King's, was granted an allowance and certain rights here. The church,... which is a gem of early English architecture, and which with the green is the focal point of the village, was built about twelve forty seven, aided by the treasurer of York Minster. There are many stylistic aspects which are reflected in this.... The coverage of the conservation area, which is one of the earliest created in North Yorkshire, dating from nineteen seventy two, not nineteen seventy as written,... is limited to that part of the settlement which has notable village character and contains listed buildings. It includes the present D thirty nine site, near to the sixteenth or seventeenth century Skelton Manor House, and it has important archaeological and nature conservation interests as described in reports.... Skelton is well within the general area of the approved York greenbelt, and is a small free-standing settlement that was washed-over by the greenbelt in the draft Southern Ryedale District Plan of nineteen eighty one. This plan underwent the full consultation stage and was employed for over ten years for development control purposes.... The Greater York study did not designate Skelton as an area for expansion until two thousand and six, and no proposal exists in other plans for the making of an inset into the greenbelt on the basis of the need for expansion. Sites D thirty nine and D forty are in any case not located within the built-up area of the settlement in terms of Greenbelt Plan Policy Four.... Sir, in making reference to erm policies which erm have... relevance to the question of the... status of the two sites we're concerned with, I will start with those which are part of the statutory plan, that is to say the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan approved by the Secretary of State, and then proceed downwards to the more recent documents which do not employ. So in paragraph six I start with the C S P.... [reading] The north side of the village could not accommodate additional development without detriment to its basic form and character... in the terms of Structure Plan Policy H Three. []... As mentioned in paragraph twenty three of my proof, an appeal decision relating to land immediately east of D thirty nine referred to the unsuitability for development... of that area,... [reading] Since the character of the village would be seriously harmed [].... Policy H Four of the approved county structure plan precludes any development which is more than small- scale.... Structure Plan Policy E Four, and er erm... that is a correction sir, I have E Five down there,
[John:] Thank you.
[George:] Structure Plan Policy E Four provides that conservation areas will be afforded the strictest protection....
[John:] Can I help you Mr? What what are you looking for?
[George:] Thank you, I do apologize sir. Erm...
[John:] Right. Is it E Four you're looking for?
[George:] Er no sir, er E Four I will take as read. But we now have erm following research by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust in relation to the document that I have described as appendix eight. Erm... the reference on page two of erm [cough] the Conservation Officer's er letter, Mr 's letter of the fourth of February, a reference to Policy E Six of the County Structure Plan, erm which in his expert opinion, very firmly covers sites like this one.... Er I think that er I will not read any more of that letter at present, but er certainly it's not only E Four but E Six er of the C S P which applies here.
[John:] I would be grateful if at some point Mr you were to deal with er Doctor 's er most recent comments on the Greater Crested Newt, since of course I've only just had those er more or less on coming into this room, and I haven't had a chance
[George:] Yes.
[John:] to read it or think about it.
[George:] Yes sir. Erm I will in fact deal with that now as an aside, a very necessary one too.
[John:] Could you start off by telling me which pond it is we're talking about?
[George:] Yes.
[John:] Because I just want to be sure. There are two ponds of course which are shown on There is the much larger pond
[George:] Yes.
[John:] to the east of Oakwood, and the smaller one west of Skelton Manor Court.
[George:] Yes. We're talking about the one within erm the er area known as D thirty nine sir,...
[John:] I thought it might be.
[George:] er which is immediately west of Manor Court. Erm... sir, I don't know whether you and my friends erm on the bench opposite had an opportunity last evening of erm having glimpsed at Tomorrow's World, but
[John:] I fear not, I was too busy reading your proofs.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER].
[George:] Oh thank you sir, I'm much obliged for that. Erm... I lighted on it almost by accident, and er it was very interesting in that erm... the Great Crested Newt was featured, as a result of the action of the Secretary of State in refusing an application by British Coal for open-cast coal mine. And the reason was that er part of the area at a pond near the was erm... an ancestral home of the newt. Erm a reference was made er by the by British Coal to erm er their erm absolute willingness to provide ponds elsewhere. The Secretary of State was not convinced er that er a habitat would be taken up er elsewhere. And sir, the letter which you have before you er dated twentieth April from Doctor, is very much on that tack. We noticed that as one of Mrs 's appendices er there was a reference to a willingness by one of her clients to provide other ponds, [cough] were development to er proceed on... the area known as D thirty nine. And erm... er Doctor has looked into this matter, and you will see in the fourth paragraph of his letter of the twentieth [tape change] is obviously highly selective and.
[John:] You can take a newt to water, but you can't make him swim.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER].
[George:] Thank you sir.... Er sir, I will leave you to read the rest of that letter.... Alterations have been deposited to the County Structure Plan, and erm that took place before this hearing er before this enquiry opened. Policy E Two of the proposed Structure Plan alteration number three applies to all land outside existing built areas and countryside outside the greenbelt. And this policy would therefore preclude the development of D thirty nine and D forty. [plane overhead]
[speaker001:] , could you just er wait for a second? [aircraft noises]
[George:] Well I I think probably I can... compete with the Tornadoes now by raising my voice.
[speaker001:] Right, thank you very much, that's.
[George:] Yes?
[speaker001:] Thank you.
[George:] Erm and Policy E Two provides that development in the open countryside will not be permitted.... It goes on in more detail but that is the basis of it. So that erm would appear to preclude development of D thirty nine and D forty in any case, no need having been established. Reserves of potential development land in such locations are not provided for in any policy. We now turn to Southern Ryedale, sir. Southern Ryedale Local Plan Policy C One Three would preclude the development of D thirty nine as the development of that whole area would not enhance the character of the conservation area. I think it's worth actually looking at that policy.... It reads, [reading] In conservation areas, permission will only be granted for developments including changes of use, especially from residential from residential use, providing that they enhance the character of the existing buildings in terms of design, scale, grouping, materials, and will not cumulatively substantially increase the generation of traffic, parking and other activities, beyond the environmental capacity of the conservation area []. Sir, it is my opinion that any development in... area D thirty nine, which is wholly within the conservation area, would have those deleterious effects, and the same applies for D forty two D forty two.... Continuing with the Southern Ryedale Plan,... Policy E N V One... normally precludes new development outside the existing built-up areas in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It reads, [reading] New development will normally be permitted outside the existing built-up areas only where it is essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry, or there are other exceptional circumstances [].... While as settlement within the greenbelt, development could not normally be permitted on D thirty nine and D forty, as these are outside the built area in the terms of Policy G B Three, which we have oft considered at erm this enquiry.... Policy H Seven applies in the event of Skelton being an inset area... when any development would have to be within the settlement, and no more than small-scale, precluding D thirty nine and D forty. It is submitted that the whole of Skelton Village should be looked at as a unity,... that there is extreme environmental value over its north part,... and that were the village inset into the greenbelt, the inset boundary should be precisely as shown in the deposit copy of Southern Ryedale's Local Plan....
[Harry:] Thank you very much.... Mr please....
[speaker005:] Mr, you're probably aware... that the deposit plan inset boundary for Skelton... is the same as that was shown in the consultation draft of the greenbelt plan....
[George:] Er yes I am....
[speaker005:] [cough] And you will probably be aware... that at the consultation draft stage, which shows the same boundaries as are in the deposit plan, both the Parish Council and the Village Trust supported... the inset boundary as shown drawn in the consultation draft.... Were you aware of that?
[John:] Can I be clear what you mean by Mr? When you say Supported, do you mean they didn't object or do you mean they
[speaker005:] No.
[John:] actually supported?
[speaker005:] They made representations... supporting the proposed inset boundary for Skelton, both the Parish Council and the Village Trust.
[John:] Thank you.
[speaker005:] It's er it's page one hundred and three of the consultation draft, report on the consultation.
[John:] Do I have that document?... I don't think I
[speaker001:] No you may not
[speaker005:] Not at this stage in the enquiry sir, I'm not going to produce any great er any any documents. Were you aware of that er... Mr?
[George:] I was not aware of that. I came into the Skelton case at a much later stage. Erm I would say however that there has been far more consistency about the view taken of the need for greenbelt protection on the part of the bodies and individuals I represent than has been shown by the two planning authorities judging from all the changes that they have propagated.
[speaker005:] And at the deposit stage,... erm Mr, Skelton Village Trust made objection to site D thirty nine?... Having previously... supported... the site D thirty nine being within the inset? Do you know when they changed their mind?
[George:] No....
[speaker005:] Do you know why... er the Parish Council made no objection to site D thirty nine being included within the inset at the deposit plan stage?
[George:] No.
[speaker005:] Do the Parish Council object to site D thirty nine being shown within the inset?...
[George:] As instructed, erm I present a case which is unified on behalf of all the bodies and persons I represent. There is an objection to the whole of D thirty nine and D forty not being within the greenbelt.
[speaker005:] Well y you'll appreciate why I've asked the question er Mr, because they supported it, they made representations in support at the consultation draft stage, they didn't object at the deposit stage, and yet today, as I understand your evidence, you're telling us that they do object to site D thirty nine being shown within the inset.
[George:] The objection, I repeat, is a unified objection, but I have no doubt that earnest consultations will have taken place not only by the bodies I represent in the past, but also by your own authority.
[John:] I'm a little concerned here Mr. It it does seem to me that the... Parish Council are of course an an elected body, who will if they have views on this subject no doubt have formal minutes which will set it out one way or the other. I'm wondering whether this might be an exceptional case, where er during cross-examination Mr might take instruction from his clients to find out what their minutes actually say. It must be a matter of record.
[speaker005:] Well i i indeed. So that was... going to be my next question,
[John:] I apologize Mr.
[speaker005:] as to whether or not there were any
[John:] .
[speaker005:] Er as to whether there were any recor if there are any record or minutes as to when er the the change of mind occurred, er... because plainly there there has been a change of mind.... Now... Er well th er th... members of the Parish Council if there are any present as I imagine there are, will have heard my question. let's proceed and perhaps erm at a convenient moment we could take instructions as to er what resolutions if any have been made in this regard.
[George:] Sir I will take this on board, but I think it comes rather badly from an authority in fact both authorities which have so shown so many confusing changes of mind about this area in the whole process since the first plan was issued, that the er details of the consideration by one of the constituent bodies of this erm objection er should be er examined er in such detail. Erm we don't know the details of the consideration that has been given by the authorities, what we are concerned with is what they are now proposing. What I believe you should be concerned with is what the erm persons I represent, bodies I represent, now wish to see happening with regard to these two sites.
[John:] I think Mr what I would like to see, I don't want to go too far into the history, but I would just like to be sure that er bearing in mind this complex history given on behalf of those you are representing, that the views you are putting forward are the er current views of the Parish Council as expressed in their formal minutes. I w that is all I want to know.
[George:] Yes sir.
[John:] As a matter of fact I'm sure....
[speaker005:] [cough]. Mr, you and I have... debated in the past er in this room er whether or not exceptional circumstances are necessary to define an inset boundary for a village which in the sketch plan of the greenbelt to have been shown as washed over.... We've had that debate before haven't we?
[George:] Yes, we've covered various subjects er more than once, er so much so that er I would be much obliged if you would er focus on a particular instance that I could then have an opportunity to recall.
[speaker005:] Well Mr, your memory appears to be very short. We debated it yesterday.
[George:] Right, I know now what you're referring to.
[speaker005:] Er you I take it you haven't changed your mind and you still maintain that exceptional circumstances are necessary, because that is how you view, how you read paragraph nine of P P G Two?
[George:] Yes, and that is because we have an approved structure plan which indicates the general extent of the greenbelt, and we're not talking here about an inner boundary or an outer boundary, we're concerned with a pre-standing settlement....
[speaker005:] You erm... understand I think, or will understand Mr, that if these sites are not included in the greenbelt, that's to say if they are shown as part of the inset, so far as the greenbelt local plan is cer is concerned, they have no other designation, that's to say the greenbelt local plan doesn't purport to er allocate or to designate the land for any other purposes.
[George:] Correct....
[speaker005:] It's simply the conclusion that the land doesn't serve any greenbelt purpose.
[George:] Yes that would be your reasoning, yes....
[speaker005:] Now the questions we have to address here today Mr, er are whether or not er this land, these two parcels of land, serve any greenbelt functions or not. That's the principle issue between us isn't it?...
[George:] Not entirely.... I would not exclude a consideration of the greenbelt functions served by the area, but it is not for us to question the correctness of the approval by the Secretary of State for the Environment of the general extent of the greenbelt for York. A general extent of greenbelt within which this area lies. Therefore, unless excluded from the greenbelt by a particular process, all land in this area must be assumed to have a greenbelt purpose....
[speaker005:] Well Mr, that would apply to er any land lying within a six- mile radius of the city centre.
[George:] Apart from the considerations which I mentioned a few moments ago, it would indeed.
[speaker005:] Well is... er Mr the issue which the inspectors ought to be er addressing themselves whether or not this land serves a greenbelt purpose, or not?...
[George:] I said a few moments ago that I would not exclude consideration or the need for consideration of the greenbelt purposes served. What I attempted to tell you was that there is essentially no region that in respect of any land which lies within the general area of the statutorily approved greenbelt, its mere existence within the greenbelt must be taken to mean that it has a greenbelt function.
[speaker005:] But y you a are asking the inspectors to proceed on the basis that all land within the six-mile radius of the city centre serves a greenbelt function?
[George:] Unless, under some process, it has been excluded from the greenbelt, yes.
[speaker005:] And it would be excluded from the greenbelt because it didn't serve a greenbelt function?
[George:] It might be excluded for various reasons.
[speaker005:] Well what's another reason?...
[George:] The most obvious is that er an area had been inset because of the need for expansion of a settlement.
[speaker005:] That wouldn't serve a greenbelt purpose?
[George:] It would not in the future as a result of that subsequent building. That is your Haxby-Wigginton case.
[speaker005:] You do recall our argument yesterday.
[George:] Haxby-Wigginton, which has been allowed by Ryedale District Council, as the result of Or its predecessor, as the result of the creation of an inset, to develop to the size of Malton.
[speaker005:] One of the... er matters that er one needs to apply one's mind to in considering whether or not this land serves a greenbelt function or not, is to look at the land and assess whether or not it is more closely associated with the village or more closely associated with the er agricultural open land beyond the village.
[George:] No. There is no necessary requirement to do that. And although it may be one means of looking at the site, it is not an essential part of determining greenbelt function.
[speaker005:] Is one of the matters to which the inspectors ought to be applying their mind... whether or not this land is more appropriately regarded as countryside or part of the village?
[George:] No, for the reason given in my last answer....
[speaker005:] Is one of the matters to which the inspectors ought to be applying their mind Would development... of the site... these sites amount to encroachment into the countryside?
[George:] Indeed so.
[speaker005:] Well how can you decide that, without first deciding whether or not this land is part of the open countryside or part of the village?
[George:] It is not necessary to incorporate the concept of... being part of. It is simply necessary to ask whether the matter the whether the land is open land or not open land.
[speaker005:] The issue is whether or not the land is open land or not open land?
[George:] It is essentially as simple as that....
[speaker005:] And... all open land therefore... Does it follow from what you say that all open land necessarily must serve a greenbelt function?
[George:] I would never in a planning matter, readily make an absolute statement like that. In nearly all matters of physical planning there are exceptions. But I would say that the way to look at this site is to ask whether it is part of the built area, in other words whether it is built on, or whether it is not part of the built area, in other words it is not built on....
[John:] Well that was the question that Mr asked you a few minutes ago wasn't it,... er Mr?
[George:] Sir, at that stage, the emphasis seemed to be erm a connection er... whether the connection was principally with other land outside or whether the connection was with the settlement, rather than the nature of the land itself. And my answers were in that sense.
[speaker005:] Do you regard
[John:] Er so sorry Mr.
[speaker005:] I'm sorry sir.
[John:] Er forgive me interrupting, but I I I don't understand the word that you're using Mr. When you say land is built-up, presumably you do not mean simply that there is a building that there has to be a building on the land. Er to a greater or lesser extent, land within the curtilage of that building er can also be described as built-up. Is is that correct?...
[George:] In general terms yes sir, one would look at the curtilage of a building, yes....
[John:] .
[George:] But if on the other hand the curtilage were particularly large, erm then er it it were otherwise unbuilt er it would not of necessity form part of the built area of the settlement, if the situation were on the periphery.
[John:] What I'm trying to understand you'll appreciate Mr, is the difference between the test that you are putting forward, er which is whether or not it is part of a built-up area, and the test that Mr is putting forward, whether or not the land is part of the village. At the moment I'm not entirely clear what the difference is between these two forms of words. If you can help me more on that, er that would I'm sure assist my judgement.
[George:] I would say sir that my approach is neither. It is to look at the characteristics of the land itself, rather than to associate it of necessity with the land on one side of it or the land on the other side of it....
[Harry:] When we look at the characteristics of the land itself, do we have to decide whether it's countryside or not countryside?
[George:] You do not necessarily have to decide that.
[speaker005:] Well what are the characteristics of this land?
[George:] These... sites are small fields....
[speaker005:] One's a paddock.
[George:] A paddock is defined in the nineteen ninety concise Oxford as a small field.
[speaker005:] Therefore a paddock....
[John:] I don't think we need to particular distinctions.
[speaker001:] .
[speaker005:] Your... The site C can you look at appendix two of er Mrs 's er... appendices please,... Mr?...
[John:] While you are finding that, could I... make a general request of the counsels. It would greatly assist me er if I could have a copy of a one to two thousand five hundred plan showing these lands without any er heavy lines on them. I'm having some difficulty working out where fences go because they're obscured by these twenty foot wide er... lines....
[speaker006:] Sir I've got one here.
[John:] Ah. I if that could be copied er perhaps er that would be of great assistance.... Thank you Mr....
[Harry:] Er Mr, could you just repeat
[speaker005:] I er appendix two
[speaker001:] Er Mrs, yes. Right, thank you.
[speaker005:] In order to focus in on... I don't think that's er Mrs 's appendix two, but i i it
[John:] It it's the bigger it's the one with the bigger scale, yes.
[speaker001:] ...
[John:] Presumably nothing turns on which plan
[speaker005:] No I I don't think it does,i save that one makes reference to features on a particular plan
[John:] Er yes
[speaker005:] I think it may help....
[George:] Right, yes.
[speaker005:] You've got it, have you?... Do you s you can see where... it's indicated on the plan where topic area D thirty nine is?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] You you see the land to the... er generally to the east of it where there's the large pond?...
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] A substa substantial area of open land which is shown there as being within the inset... of the village?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] That land you obviously regard as being properly included within the inset?...
[George:] I've not made any comment about Skelton Hall....
[speaker005:] Do you want to make any now?... Can you assist us? Do you regard that land as being within properly included in the inset or not?
[George:] I've not had the benefit of walking round the grounds of Skelton Hall....
[speaker005:] And the er... the boundary to the north of topic area D forty nine, indeed to the north of topic area
[George:] You said forty nine.
[speaker005:] Thirty nine, I beg your pardon. Thirty nine, and topic area D forty, you'll be familiar with those boundaries?
[George:] Yes....
[speaker005:] Trees, hedges, trees, and there's a track on the northern side.
[George:] Indeed....
[speaker005:] And the boundary along the... western side of topic area D forty... is the A Nineteen
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] and er the the vegetation alongside the A Nineteen.
[George:] Yes....
[speaker005:] And those are... perfectly... satisfactory boundaries for greenbelt purposes aren't they?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] Defining greenbelt purposes.... One of the points you make in your... er evidence... erm Mr is that because... topic area D thirty nine... is shown as being within the conservation area, that it ought to be included within the greenbelt.... That's right isn't it?
[George:] On that point, I would say that... there are... a number of considerations which arise as the result of that site being within the conservation area that militate against development in themselves, and this is in general well recognized on your side, and by the er er by the City Council.
[speaker005:] And... you're on... you're supportive of the conservation area and its boundaries?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] Can you look please at your a appendix one,... in your bundle of appendices?...
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] And if we turn... er to the last page of the first appendix, we can see the boundary of the conservation area.
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] It's shown by the... erm large dotted line, and we can see how it... er follows the boundary of topic area D thirty nine.
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] Would you turn back one page... please, and look at... Two pages I beg your pardon. Turn back two pages, and look at paragraph four of the report... which we can see is headed [reading] Description of Conservation Area []. Have you got that?
[George:] Yes....
[speaker005:] Can you turn over the page again now, I want you to direct your attention to paragraph four point six... of this report,... which reads [reading] The boundary proposed for the conservation area is limited to that part of the settlement which retains its village character [].
[George:] Yes.
[speaker005:] Do you agree with that?
[George:] I have no reason to disagree. Yes....
[speaker005:] Thank you Mr.
[Harry:] Thank you very much.... Mr please.
[speaker006:] Thank you sir.... I shan't detain you long Mr.... Mr, erm paragraphs... twenty four... er to thirty of your proof draw our attention to the existence of the conservation area which was being debating a matter of moments ago. Yes?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Paragraph thirty one you deal with access difficulties. Paragraph thirty two and thirty three you deal with proximity of listed buildings. Paragraph thirty eight... you deal with er ecological interest, and paragraph forty, archaeological interest. I think that's a fair summary of paragraph.
[George:] That's right.
[speaker006:] None of those factors, er I hope we can agree, have any relevance at all do they to the issue of whether a site performs one of the five greenbelt functions?...
[George:] The answer to that is not straightforward. You started with paragraph twenty four, which deals with the conservation area.
[speaker006:] Yes.
[George:] The characteristics Er this is a general observation. The characteristics of a conservation are are usually characteristics of special quality in environmental or building terms, and as such they are likely to... promote a contribution to the quality of the setting of York where they occur within the greenbelt area. And that of course is the prime purpose of the York greenbelt....
[speaker006:] I must have been misguiding myself for a very long time Mr. I'd always understood that land should only go into the greenbelt if it was necessary to be kept permanently open, by reason of it performing one of the five purposes. Now again, where do I find in any government guidance a suggestion that the fact of the existence of a conservation area is directly relevant to the determination of whether or not land performs one of those five purposes?
[George:] You have heard my opinion that in general terms, the existence of a conservation area is an indication of the likelihood of a contribution being made to the special character of the settlement and therefore to the setting of York, which is the prime purpose or the prime function of the York greenbelt.
[speaker006:] Well, [cough] as far as one is concerned with the A Nineteen, er isn't it fair to say that the northern and western boundaries are so er constructed with hedges and trees that in fact while er er one is travelling along the A Nineteen one doesn't actually have any meaningful view of the conservation area in any event?
[George:] Mr, it is not necessary for a passing motorist to be able to appreciate the qualities of a settlement that he is passing. It is sufficient for the quality of that settlement to be such as to inherently improve the setting of the city.
[speaker006:] Can you see York from within the conservation area?...
[George:] Certainly....
[speaker001:] Yes. Yes.
[speaker006:] We'll deal with Mr 's answer if you don't mind.
[Harry:] he can erm answer for himself.
[speaker006:] Mr, you've taken issue with the conservation area. Of course I dealt also with a large number of other factors, highways, environmental considerations, archaeology. I take it from the nature of your answer that you would in any event agree that none of those other factors which you concern yourself with have any relevance as to whether or not the land performs a greenbelt function?...
[George:] Certainly listed buildings do. As regards highways, they do in this case because the nature of the road pattern in this part of Skelton is such as to contribute materially to the characteristics of this ancient part of the village. I would refer you to the late. Erm... it is a contribution by those er road patterns and the characteristics of the lanes, Church Lane in particular, Northfield Lane, that contribute to the quality of the environment.... And we are talking about this environment, and the contribution it makes to the city of York. We are not talking about whether one can appreciate the city of York itself from here.... The quality of Skelton is what we're talking about.
[speaker006:] Well I have your answer Mr, but I don't think that continuing this national.... You remind us in paragraph twenty three of an earlier decision letter.... And in that you er remind us of the view of the inspector that er this area has a strongly rural character. Yeah?... You have that?
[George:] Yes.
[speaker006:] Isn't it fair to say that that in itself does not justify greenbelt designation, what is important is if the site forms part of the countryside and makes a contribution to it?
[George:] Here again I think that you're in danger of drifting from the essential feature, which is that in the absence of a requirement to take land out of the greenbelt, the whole of the area er within the general extent of the greenbelt as approved by the Secretary of State erm has a greenbelt function.
[speaker006:] Well I know you'd love to debate that with me, but we devoted a whole morning to it yesterday so I'm not going to.
[George:] With regard to the inspector's decision to which you refer, it should be borne in mind that he was concerned with the effect which development would have, and where development would be... suitable or unsuitable. And he said that he did not consider that Skelton should be allowed to expand so far northward. He was speaking of the area around Northfield Lane, north of Oakwood, which was a new settlement concern within the buildings themselves.
[speaker006:] Yes.... Mr as I read your proof,... you presume that by excluding D thirty nine and D forty from the greenbelt, that these sites will be developed.... You make that assumption and it's it's essential to your case, is that... is that fair?...
[George:] What I would say is that the power of the local planning authority to resist development on these sites would be materially reduced were the initial negative presumption against development afforded by greenbelt status removed from them.
[speaker006:] Well that is self-evidently true.
[George:] Er I can't hear you.
[speaker006:] That is self-evidently true. One accepts that.... The simple fact is you presume, do you not, that these sites are going to be developed?
[George:] I do not make that presumption. My presumption is that there is a suggestion that development would be facilitated rather than hindered by the removal of the greenbelt protection.
[speaker006:] Well it's just as I read your paragraph fifteen point two, you say [reading] To exclude sites D thirty nine and D forty from the greenbelt presupposes the expansion of Skelton on its northerly perimeter [].... Nothing ambiguous about that is there? You're assuming it is going to be developed along its northerly perimeter.
[George:] The movement of the boundary which you seek to create is possible only under the terms of Policy E Ten. Policy E Ten requires that the boundary be moved only if a need for expansion can be established.
[speaker006:] I hear what you say, and you know why I'm not going to debate that with you again today.... You say in your proof, paragraph forty three, this is really the last point I'm going to deal with,... that the amendment to the deposit copy erm ignores several of the policies in the Southern Ryedale Local Plan. Do you have that?
[George:] I have paragraph forty three.
[speaker006:] Erm C Forty One is one of the er... policies which you say is ignored by the suggested amendment.
[John:] I'm sorry, C Forty One?
[speaker006:] C One, sorry. C One.... Do you have that in front of you Mr?
[George:] I have C, yes.
[speaker006:] C One is a development control policy, is it not?
[George:] It is.
[speaker006:] Can you e please explain to me how a site's exclusion from the greenbelt in itself breaches a development control policy?...
[George:] Er it certainly doesn't do that. It is simply a case as I said in my summary that er er C One is a policy that is applicable, because it's a conservation area.
[speaker006:] Mm. But of course there's nothing in national policy which creates erm a prohibition... upon development either in or proximate to conservation areas, is there?
[George:] No, but what I have done is to give you my expert opinion that any developments within the conservation area er... within the D thirty nine part of the conservation area would be likely to be destructive of the character of the ancient part of the village.
[speaker006:] I hear what you say, what you're aiming to do now, without ever having seen any form of proposal. But what about D forty?...
[George:] D forty is very closely associated with D thirty nine....
[speaker006:] You see, paradoxically, C One little one and C One little three... in fact give a strong measure of protection to the er character of the conservation areas do they not?
[George:] Yes....
[speaker006:] E N V One is another policy you say our... modification offends. That's page sixty two of the deposit.
[George:] Yes, I have it.
[speaker001:] Mr.
[speaker006:] Er E N V One. Again, how does exclusion of a site from the greenbelt offend E N V One?...
[George:] You use the word Offend. Er could you refer me to a place where I have erm er
[speaker006:] Well you say it ignores several local plan policies. So let's put it another way, how does the exclusion
[John:] I I think su surely Mr the next sentence makes it quite unambiguous. [reading] The proposed change would be contrary to this policy [], Mr says....
[George:] Yes. My answer to that would be that er since the only permissible reason for pushing out this inset boundary would be a need for expansion, expansion involves built development, and built development would not seem to be within er the possibility of er... Policy E N V One as well as within the possibility of er other policies
[speaker006:] E N V One
[John:] O one moment. Mrs, I I c Mrs, I can hear your evidence as clearly as Mr 's at the moment I fear.
[speaker006:] E N V One applies... to land that is perceived as forming part of the countryside. You're aware that on this side of the room Ryedale have stated in terms in their proof that they do not perceive this land as being part of the open countryside. The reference is four point two point seven. There's nothing inconsistent is there, in Ryedale's position, having made that judgement about these two pieces of land?
[George:] I'm not criticizing er the erm view of the planning authorities on the grounds of lack of consistency in their interpretation of policies. I'm merely saying that their interpretation of certain policies is not coincident with my own. You refer to Policy E N V One.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[George:] The reference in that policy is to... development outside the existing built-up areas.
[speaker006:] Mm.
[George:] I regard open land of this size as being outside the existing built-up area of Skelton.
[speaker006:] That's a matter for judgement isn't it? And the inspector will have to make that judgement in this case.
[George:] Yes, I have given you my judgement on it.
[speaker006:] E N V Three is another one that er... that might be offended. You say our modification is contrary to E N V Three. Yea, E N V Three as I read it is er... a pure and simple development control policy. How do you say excluding this land from the greenbelt is contrary to that development control policy?
[George:] Well, E N V Three is basically a damage limitation exercise, and I think that erm the qualities of this area are so great that er it would be... im impossible to envisage...
[speaker006:] So if I
[George:] a situation relating to a new development under which there would not be damage.
[speaker006:] So if I short er short circuit the rest of my cross examination on these various policies that you say er we're in... erm... we're in some measure of conflict with, your answer would be in in relation to E N V Eleven and E N V Twelve which you also cite, do I put it fairly your answer would be this? Look I cannot conceive of development taking place on this land without coming into conflict with those policies. That is the essence of your position is it not?
[George:] Before I answer that, I must er address myself to E N V Eleven, which relates to ponds,...
[speaker006:] Right.
[George:] and E N V Twelve,... to habitats....
[speaker006:] Mm.
[George:] I think that the summary which you gave is fair also in relation to E N V Eleven and Twelve, yes.
[John:] Can I be clear please I I'm sorry Mr, can I just be clarif clarified as far as E N V Eleven is concerned, which pond this is in terms of names?
[speaker006:] It's not it's not. This pond is not listed under E N V Eleven.
[John:] Er it isn't either of the er ponds
[speaker006:] No.
[John:] listed in there?
[speaker006:] I think that's right isn't it Mr?
[George:] Yes. Erm I think that the exercise on ponds is not of very long standing. It's an ongoing exercise, and er we have produced er sufficient scientific evidence to show that this pond is of tremendous value. Doubtless the [tape change]
[speaker006:] not prohibit development?
[George:] I rely in this matter on the evidence of experts in er wildlife conservation, and that is....
[speaker006:] I don't really think there's anything to be gained by any further questioning. Thank you Mr.
[Harry:] Thank you very much Mr. I think we'll take a break now ladies and gentlemen for... fifteen minutes please.... Thank you. [tape change]