Transcript

or the 8th of May and we go to the feedback on this if you want me. First item is a porridge of the absence and also a decorating room for us. Thank you very much. Anybody? Yes. Porridge of the absence and decoration of interest. I don't see any. Minutes of the previous meeting. Are they true enough to look forward to colleagues? Seems to be general sense of that. I think two and a half is my particular agenda, which is public speakers. We have a number of public speakers, so we have one statement to be read out. So my first speaker is Mr Bill Kitchley. Are you with us? Excellent. I'm just comfortable, please. Have you used these microphones before? They're quite fun. We're about to sew them away and get new ones. I'll have to get new ones, which find you and cameras lock onto. But I don't believe that all when I see it. Mr Kitchley, your values are better than you'd have four minutes, please. As a local family resident, I'm well aware of the disastrous implications the plan has for safety and little can of field and the MIDA A120 corridor. The CPP said policy F8 has achieved significant protections to the countryside around the southern aspects of the airport, avoiding much projection from the impressive speculative development of the countryside and communities that surround the airport. The development that is occurring is the result of the failure of our administration to provide a viable level of land. This must not be used as an excuse to hand over what remains of our countryside for developers. The remaining open countryside is even greater value and involves the local communities. Removing great ways of countryside from this protection contradicts the original concept of an airport in the countryside. The original reasons for the seeking bed were defined as part of the Graham air, due to the report following the airport inquiry, 1981 to 83. Air considered the raw landscape around the airport was a precious landscape and the further expansion of the airport at standard would be an environmental catastrophe, which would be an unprecedented and greater invasion of a large area of countryside. Hour of 19 of your reporting to the CPP is incorrect. The A120 was opened in December 2020. Essex County Council appointed contractors of our 14 years prior to that change. As part of the airport commission, new transport links were required and proposed. The CPP's policy emerged as part of those prepared results to suggest that the council or the airport commission has no knowledge of the A120, and considering the impact on the surrounding countryside is a logical and does not stand up to scrutiny. Today, the airport is growing to 44 million passengers per annum. Therefore, the importance of maintaining and strengthening the CPP is that it becomes even more important. So to remind you that your own commission report is about 16, I also recommended extending and reinforcing policy, concluding that some boundary alteration was the areas one and 10 had potential areas to the south. These areas have seemed significant with development without any input. The only country path in Oxford, the switchway must be respected with rich and diverse wildlife, which we should actively be protecting and enhancing. In the preliminary outline strategy report, September 2021, UDC cabinet endorsed the following statements, relevant should avoid altering the countryside protections and boundaries, particularly where this would harm the purposes of the CPP's area. Removing the area proposed in the plant moves the countryside from the southern area, the airport. I believe that the impact of reducing this protection as proposed has not been fully considered. Greenbelt land has not come under such pressure, yet your own studies see potential for development. I have carried out my own analysis of comment and feedback made by the respondents to the reg 18 concentration. It is clear that your residence is fully supportive of the seat that you bet, and not in favor of any reduction. How can I pass it? It was a challenge for us to support residents and communities, while placing great money on the views of its residents. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for keeping the fire as well. Our next speaker is Councillor Patricia Barbour from take the parish council. Do you come forward, please? Have you used this microphone at all? A bit like old cars, you have to sing along a little bit. Yes, my name is Councillor Patricia Barbour. I'm speaking on behalf of take the parish council. Parish council have a great planning brief, great council that have cancelled, packed the border, packed the key and props it, joined safely in a submission for regulation 18, objecting to a proposed southern boundary chain for the CP day, and explaining how this important policy is valued by our community. We've ever welcomed the recommendations in Mr Hermit did report. We would, however, request clarification on the sum of the details and offer suggestions for additional points to be included in the regulation at 19 in advance. Paragraph 25, the report says that officers have discussed the respective consultants possible opportunities to strengthen the policy and broaden its objectives. Would it be possible for Mr Hermitage to clarify if the consultants are from AUC or from a different firm? If they are from a different firm, there will be a new report available as part of the regulation 19 consultation. The parish council would support strengthening the policy wording by using the four purposes in the earlier report as text for the new CP day policies. The four purposes stated in the AUC study are to protect the open characteristics of the CP day, to restrict the spread of development from the airport, to protect the rural character of the country, to provide around the airport, and to prevent changes to the rural settlement patterns of the area by restricting policy. On point two, we are concerned that the word restrict is not strong enough, and it should be replaced to prevent the spread of development from the airport. We also suggest an additional hit point to prevent any airport related business within the CP day. We believe that the specific protection from airport related car parking and warehousing is necessary to ensure that it is contained exclusively with the airport found within the airport boundary. We also request a separate replacement policy for T-3 airport related parking in the new plan. Regarding the southern boundary, would Mr Hermitage please clarify paragraph 28 of the report, which recommends that the southern boundary of the CP day could change to accommodate the proposed adaptations of knowledge of physical intercession of the A120, but also include new areas of countryside that would maintain the rural settings presented to the south. The parish council does not see how the boundary itself connects knowledge position of the A120 unless the boundary follows the line of the A120, and we strongly object to that scenario. The report is unclear if it agrees with our submissions. That the southern boundary of the zone could be the flip-way. It would be reasonable for the parts of the southern boundary to extend beyond the flip-way to compensate the land taken out of the CP day for any utility adaptations in the local plan. This would be a similar approach to where the government gave replacement village green in Hieckley, Compensate Village Greenland in the City A120. If this is the case, Hieckley and all the affected parrots would like the opportunity to suggest the place in the land to be protected beyond the flip-way, to compensate the land taken from the zone in new land allocations. In our joint letter, we objected for 2016 on the CPZ study being placed in previous local land evidence and background studies on the council's website. The reported valid evidence to support the policy and should be reinstated in the evidence base. As the four tests in the OUC study formed the basis of the recommendations for this meeting, we request that it be shown on UDC's website under current local plan evidence and background studies. In conclusion, the parrot account for welcome, Mr. Hermit, is recommending to retain the concept of an airport in the countryside, which has served up for so well for many years. Thank you Councilor Baba. The next item is the written statement by Councillor Richard Hayings and a demographic services officer who is going to read that by us. Thank you. Thank you. Firstly, my apologies for not being here in person. In 2021, Atles does won an RTPI award for the use of the Community Forum as part of its early stage development of the current iteration of the local plan. The citation said there is a genuine belief that a local plan could be more responsive and related to local issues in need, if local communities can help take the plan and its role as a planner and it is the role of the planner to facilitate this outcome. Sadly, it seems that planning officers have now not only given up on facilitating community involvement, but are no longer prepared to even inform people of what is going on. This was raised at scrutiny committee and the response was that the issue of public communication was dealt with through the meetings of the local plan panel. The fact that most of the panel meetings seem to be held in secret doesn't help to aspire public confidence. The excuse that developers will jump in with pre-entry applications just doesn't hold water. Developers are more likely to have started the preparation of planning applications following the publication of the Regulation 18 draft, many truly sensitive items now could be dealt with as part two items. When public meetings have occurred, the amount of information provided has been so limited as to be meaningless. There were no update papers provided for the last meeting at all, and what we have tonight's meeting is very thin. The shroud of secrecy is extended also to non-panel councilors. I was told specifically when the panel was set up that any members would be free to attend LPT meetings and participate in how to concentrate supply to public speakers. I soon found out that that was not going to happen. I have on several occasions subsequently put forward concerns and questions which have never been responded to. At your last meeting, my fellow ward member, Councillor Martin Foley, again asked that my concerns be addressed, and it was minited that they would be discussed later. Again, still no response and provided in tonight's appendix two of your papers, consideration of public comments. Because of the time come straight, while tonight just raised two or three points, which arise out of the PAS report and the anticipated content of the Regulation 19 draft, number one. The PAS report was given an encouraging welcome by the scrutiny committee, but we have to remember that PAS were only commented on the timetable information provided to them by the UDC officers. They were not scrutinising or evaluating the work being done. Due to the lack of publicly available updates, we have no confirmed understanding of the scope of the work being undertaken. We are told that the panel have seen drafts of free plan chapters that public don't even know what those chapters cover, let alone their content. As referred to a date, the 26th of April for site selection, we don't know whether this deadline was met and have subsequently been told that this was just an opposite deadline which have no significance. We have constantly been told throughout that site selection would be evidence based. Even if this is just the day for officers, therefore, they should presumably have drawn conclusions as for the site selection based on evidence, much of that evidence is in fact still missing or is being ignored. Number three, the minutes of the scrutiny committee suggested that by summer, Regulation 19 would start to gain weight into student making. The planning committee currently and very often successfully resist applications but inappropriate development based on policies such as EMV2, EMV5, EMV9 until a very large extent, S7. I could not see their equivalent in the Regulation 18 draft. If their absence continues into Regulation 19, which is progressively gained weight, the planning committee will have very little ammunition with which could offend the district against unwanted development from this summer onwards and certainly going into the next plan period. It might be possible for the committee to rely to some degree on national policies within the NPS, but Section 386 of the 2004 planning compulsory purchase act states clearly. But the starting point for the termination of any application is the policies of the development plan which consists of the local plan and any relevant neighbourhood plan. So my question tonight is, are we to expect some effective countryside and heritage protection policy before the summer when we are told weight might start to be given to the Regulation 19 draft. The PaaS report states clearly that the Council do not envisage any fundamental change to both the evidence base and local plan prior to the publication of the Regulation 19 draft. Given that the Regulation 18 draft was such a model document and so much of both the evidence base and policy content of absence at the Regulation 18 save, this is very wondering, worrying indeed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can't be. The next speaker is not. Thank you, Dr. Mok. You have five minutes, please. Mr. Jones, sir, I'm a good Dr. Mok. I see it on behalf of us and British Council of which I'm returning. Last month, I just the panel on various topics, including the countryside protection zone. This month, I've addressed the panel solely regarding the CPD. Last month, I pointed out that the CPD has not been, after that, all considered the same phase in 1995. And that no fewer than 4734, 70 of our new dwellings have been approved here now within the CPD, since 2013. This month, I must point out that the plan on the last page of the meeting document, aged 54, is in heaven. It shows the original 2005 CPD in Wales, and then the Regulation 18 proposed CPD in green. The northern boundary is expired, but that cannot be correct unless you want to say that the approved development for the announcement are still in the CPD. After the record, sir, the approved development in Wales and within the CPD said all those follows. Then the follows a table, so complete the record standards, which I won't read out because it's just boring. But I will comment on the table as in the paper. Right, self assisted vote, Elsa, 165 dwellings were approved by planning committee under the previous administration, with no objection regarding the CPD from the chair or members of the committee. In 2013, rest of all those were approved by planning committee under the present administration in November 2019. But some members objecting on grounds upon the CPD said that they were out voting. According to the sale of right line, we were now able to appeal in September 2020. A further 130, the sale for pen and public, were now under the S 62 and procedure in 2020. With the inspectors struggling to see this, both policy aside, as with no consequence. And I do also give a reference to that and the reference to the appointment is for a decision. Then there is another college wearing a cell square to bring the total up to 473. My purpose and so, quite simply, is to draw to attention that the normative boundary as shown on the plan needs to be adjusted. And to point out that the CPD has long seemed to be taken seriously by any of the competition makers. That's it, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Mike. The next speaker is Councillor Mark Colleter after the district council. If you can count more, please. You too have five minutes, Councillor. Thank you. Dear local plan panel, I first would like to thank you all for your hard work and assisted council officers with getting the regulation and planning plan in place for us. As elected wall Councillor, I have great concerns as to the future of the countryside protection zone. The policy designed almost 40 years ago to protect our village from the spore of an ever expanding, growing, rancid airport. Quote, Stancid Airport is an airport in the countryside. At the time of the CPD's, they're incremented and the countryside airport has a throughput of 8 million passengers there. We now see Meg pushing towards their mill target of 54 million passengers. And yet, the CPD's ed in its entirety has remained the same. Meg, I'll currently pursue a knife light of which I'm sure there will be some erosion on their current quota. With what I have mentioned, why would this council even consider not to die set and consider to not only die set, but to not only die set and break apart this protective boundary, but see to move people and residents closer to the airport. The CPD's ed area should be increased, not reduced in mind the increase in airport operations. The UDC has employed a private consultant to give recommendations on the validity of the CPD. Taking ward comprises of three elected councillors, two of which live directly in CPD's ed. Another is the UDC portfolio holder for community, and yet to this point, and I want to record it, that there has been no consultation with us whatsoever. We are the elected councillors that are in the part of the village, the eyes and ears of the community, and on the contrary, you have removed one of us from the previous local plan leadership group who served there for this infancy in 2019. We live in brief take date, speak to the residents, consult monthly with three parish councils, and above all, we were elected by the residents of TATI to be trusted to represent them. Time and time again we stress our concerns, and yet it appears this council is planning on this own agenda. The local plan panel and UDC officers, local plan panel and UDC officers, how many of you live within the CPD? Without most respect, what quantifies you to make a fair and honest judgement of something absolutely critical to the residents of my ward? Hopefully, the main village, depending on the CPD has no fair representation in this forum. The CPD's ed keeps our residents away from extreme aircraft noise, lately 24/7, the smell of kerosene burn rubber and wind dictates. Ground tremors to the point your internal organs resonate as aircraft with the power down. All supplied by a congested B1256 that is plagued with aircraft passing aggregate HDVs and loiter intact drivers. I'm hearing that the new A120 could be the new Southern CPD Foundry. The A120 itself has become extremely busy and offers its own dynamics of pollution and intense noise. And yet the UDC, UDC are proposing to break apart our buffer zone and tend to fight a blow on our well-being and bringing people closer to something that 38 years ago was quite minuscule by today's standards. What gives this council the right to tear something down that has been a dear to hundreds of times and hundreds of times that have been in the CPD? It seems hypocritical now of the 38 years that this council seems to fit to manipulate current policy S7 and F8 because it suits them. For a minute, let's turn the table. What, today, imagine we're seeking to expand their threshold into the CPD? I'm sure this council will be waving the CPD's policy atom up to the planning spectra level. In my opinion, you have no relevant argument going forward. Should you wish to restore something that has been rock solid for 38 years? Coming up with CPD's ed will indefinitely see requests from airport expansions now and immensely weakened the case for refusal. Not only to mention the plethora of refused appealing developers that were refused as they were in the CPD. This council has the majority vote of being controlled by a resident party. I was elected here to represent the residents appropriately. What part of removing a long-standing 38-year protective barrier is having a resident's best interest at heart? Can you tell us how building on an open, green space, bringing people closer to a noisy and fluting environment in an area of abysmal infrastructure puts our residents at heart? Where do the priorities of this council like? Who's interests do you have at heart? Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Mrs. Alison Evans. Speaking on behalf of Dr. Treen Johnson, you can come forward, please. You're speaking as a resident, I understand, and you have four minutes, please. Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of Dr. Johnson and the neighbouring residents. I think we can all agree that the main objectives and requirements of the CPD are to maintain a local belt of open countryside around the airport, which should not be eroded. Your proposed CPD changes do precisely the opposite. Your draft plan has redrawn the CPD and removed large sections, such as parcels 3, 4 and 5. Parse will be in your own 2016 study that are quoted as having a high level of harm if removed from CPD said. Conversely, personally, Parse will want quoted as having a moderate level of harm if removed is set to remain. There is no logic to your methodology. Removal of these sections is stated in your study will cause coalescence with the airport. The study has not been superseded and the harm noted has not changed. The harm to parcel 3 is significant because this parcel currently acts as a buffer between the airport and take the street. It's adjacent to the A120, which is the airport boundary and is particularly sensitive because of its proximity to Hatfield Forest, a triple SIN, a natural nature reserve. You have highlighted 15 hectares of employment land here adjacent to priority ward in ancient woodland and directly opposite Hatfield Forest. Development of this land would without a doubt force coalition with the airport because no undeveloped land along with B156 would remain thus no buffer between the development and the proposal at the development proposal and Hatfield Forest. The LUC study is clear in its recommendation that it states we recommend redefining the boundary of parcels 2 and 3 to maintain the rural character of the area and prevent further consolidation of the villages by spending the boundary of the CPZ to the switchway to the southward state of the street in parcel 3. Yet this very parcel is the area you are recommending as a 15 hectare employment and distribution area that by its own admission is not actually needed and is numerous constraints. In your agenda at Paragraph 26 you say consider including additional land to the south compensate for the areas taken out of the CPZ. At Paragraph 28 you say the southern boundary would change to accommodate the proposed elevation but also for new areas of countryside that would maintain the rural setting as sensitive to the south. It makes no sense at all if you remove parcel 3 from the CPZ where exactly would you find the additional land since Hatfield Forest would then become the southern boundary for the airfield. Shermore Brook runs through parcel 3, the only feed for Hatfield Forest Lake. The pollution risk and the potentially contaminated surface water off of the large industrial side will have a detrimental and irreversible impact on Hatfield Forest. You need to spend out of the community precisely how you intend to protect Hatfield Forest on the southern edge of the airport boundary and where exactly this new area countryside would be. You state at Paragraph 17 the draft plan seeks to adjust the boundary of the CPZ such that the allocations fall outside of the boundary. In other words you intend to adjust your CPZ policy to fit around where you want to put employment and help in rather than developing a coherent policy and looking at what works with that policy. You have supplied no evidence to support the remover of the parcels from the CPZ. The only evidence is in the case of parcel 3 appears to be a master plan by a developer who has bought options on the land and has been attempting to negotiate with UDC for several years. As for your risk analysis it's somewhat wanting, you say, various mitigations in place, what are they, sure you know, spelled mail. You imply that failure to move the CPZ will potentially mean failure to successfully steer the local plan for submission. Are you seriously expecting residents to believe that moving a CPZ boundary already considered a high risk in your own study is likely to lead to failure. Core Policy 12 talks about protecting the open characteristics of the countryside, but when compared to the regional needs protonism, because you have removed the CPZ south of the airport and parcel 3 in particular will come unless whether there was nothing between 15 sectors of industrial site in the airport. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Alan Elzen, great Alan the parish council. You have five minutes. Right now the parish council is a long to see that this council is looking towards around the country so I'm looking at the map CPZ, you can see that great country falls within a large part of the CPZ on the southern boundary. On the regulation 18 we are seeing a small area of great planning group, CPZ in Fremel, Louisiana's county side protection designation. But simply, the CPZ gives an area protection from a graphic meetability airport and retains our parity in its county side setting. And the first changes to the current CPZ will have the romantic effect on our countryside location. The CPZ area, the minimal infrastructure is talking to the development within these areas with overwhelming villages negatively impact our residents and severely impact our open countryside. In the very recent last now planned applications, it has been our garden in inviting industrial and consolation with fancy airport with cases for planning and spectra level. Just one change to this protected area opens the public to develop a plan in it, nations and appeals. As this region 40 year barrier would now be broken. As such a private self and having such a beautiful boundary of land that has let nature world since 1986 relocating these areas might not be seen as some kind illogical offset meaning that creating a green space elsewhere will make up the destruction away from the CPZ. Now we can construct a supporting season that never seem to be taken into account development in the season there's no strong foundations for the road network either the 1256 it's a breaking point. Area suffers with a bleak water supply, and no real means of our water treatment on the scales proposed by this council. The utility companies unless it's county council or a pre no compensation of this. It's the recent road because it's through great alimbrity as a liberal, literally a country road through the heart of our parents church road to the B1256 is there to go to wrap around and pay it by many. We are hopeful this will decline after junction eight and 11 months, but it shows any development in the CPZ will fall more traffic. And congested into a 50 local rose. But simply great how many parents of council are extremely concerned. We feel with any changes to the current CPZ go forward, our immediate concept for the compromise. Developer floodgates will open. With the next cycle, the local plan review imminent in five years, we can see a rapid decline in our areas openness and countryside city. We ask that you keep area protected and not destroy our countryside quality of life. Forgive me for asking, but didn't ask for the lecture for the residents in 2023. What part of removing the CPZ beneficial residents. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr Townsend, Councillor Townsend. And final speaker is Councillor Geoff Agron. Thank you as a resident. Can you come forward, please? And you have four minutes. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm just speaking as a member of the public tonight. I don't know why I can't speak as a District Council resident in deeply my ward. I'm not sure what the Council is scared of. I'm going to say exactly the same thing as I would have said as the District Council only say it seems bizarre. Members, so you should have a great piece of evidence in front of you. It's the luck study. And I hope you've got it in front of you. Because that's the best evidence and it's probably the only evidence you've got at CPZ. You really need to look at that report in detail. There's not that much of it, so you do need to look at that in detail. I'm going to start by saying there is no requirement to change the boundary of the CPZ. In 2005, I plan to build prize green intake. It was allocated and built out. It's in the CPZ. They didn't change the boundary. There's no need to change the boundary. So that's why we're fixated on changing the boundary. And I find it ironic that the officers are using the evidence in here for their policy wording. Yet they're completely ignoring the evidence in here in terms of identifying the harm to the parcels within the CPZ. So, it does seem odd to me that they aren't paying any mind to be a sex book within that study. And I'd ask that you read all of those assessments for each of the parcels, very carefully, satisfied by yourselves with the level of harm. And I would say it makes no sense to assign the next birth opinion, luck study. And then ignore it. Why would you do that? Well, I understand why the officers would do that. It's my view that the allocations in the CPZ were organized over two years ago. I think that's fairly clear to me. And the officers have spent the time since then trying to justify that allocation. And it must be said, it's no coincidence that Essex County Council have an arrangement with hills that develop for one of the parcels within the CPZ. And people see that, they looked at that, and they think that's very strange. No declaration that any note has been made to say that the county owned a site that's been allocated. And people look at that and think that's very strange. And I've been approached by members of the public to say that doesn't look very transparent and it doesn't look very good. Within the district, we've actually only got two key areas of designated and we've got Greenbelt and we've got CPZ and then we'll have some conservation areas. And as part of putting the local plan together, we should be looking at the least harm that we can do to this district. And you could argue by default, areas outside of those are least harm because they're not designated. So we should be looking at those first. And I don't think the officers have done that at all. And I think it's possibly incumbent on this panel, or certainly the council to ask that they do that. We should be looking at other areas before we look at areas of designated. Otherwise, we're we're causing the most harm and we could be causing least harm. And I think if we don't do that, then I think all we're going to be accused of is we've got another officer spoke develop a lead local plan. We haven't considered the residents we haven't looked at the least harm. And I don't think that's it's well with the public. And I think the final point is a good proportion of the allocated sites are failed at a peak site. And we know that and and residents objected to those sites and they pulled those appeals and they were successful. And here they are, they've got the site back again as part of the local plan. And I don't think you can talk about if we don't get a local plan is like we're going to end up a speculative development. You've got it. You've put it in your draft local plan. So I think you need to really think carefully about that. And I think that's all I need to say. So, so, thanks for letting me speak. I'll see you next week. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much for that. Well, thank you everybody for your thanks and the honest comments. We appreciate it. It's been controlled by the strategic director of adding online I've seen on the stage that he's been making focus now. It's the easiest intention to respond. Do you want to correct that form? Are we okay? Okay. Moving on, then. The next item on the agenda is the local plan update item three. And who's going to speak to that. Okay, that'll be. Thank you. Three, and this report. Two, I don't know. Thank you. Speaking of division quickly, I can. The report by the general updates on the local plan progress since our last meeting, which from the 10th of April. Since that last public meeting members have reviewed three local plan chapters because acknowledged, and they've also been reviewed by a legal council. And further draft chapters will be circulated to members in the next week or so. As I've said a number of times before at different meetings and we can't and don't publish drafts and work in train. And that's why that's been circulated to members outside of the public meeting. The panel has also began to review draft responses to the 5000 public comments that we received from residents and interest interested parties developers and businesses. And members have also started just started to review elements of the evolving site allocations. And the one of the speakers did note that offices had completed some revised site allocations quite recently again for internal discussion. The report goes on to set out the offices are working on finalizing the housing figures that will underlie the local plan, the red 19 local plan, and you'll see a paragraph nine that we have recorded at least 1800 or new homes for me. Since the reg 18 plan works over in the last month. Incidentally, that's two and a half times the numbers that a local plan advocate should come forward each year. And the draft minutes from the 16th April meeting of scrutiny committee are handed as a appendix one. And there was some discussion about the roles of scrutiny committee and this panel at the meeting of scrutiny committee scrutiny oversee the process of deadline, the local plan as a project. You like, whereas this panel looks at the substance and the content, the scrutiny committee doesn't look at any of that this panel does. Next to I've also provided my commentary in response to the points made by speakers on the 10th of April. I know from the statements that perhaps I've missed some of the points, but I will, and I will look to address anything that I have missed. I will also be addressing the points where this meeting as the chair says, I've made notes, and we'll have that ready for the next local plan panel meeting next month. I'm happy to take any questions on any of that. Thank you, Chairman. It's not so much a question, really, but an observation in relation to paragraph nine, this is a report, the allocations. Sorry, the commitments are very important, the commitments, which would be made in the last year, as you just described. And perhaps I might just observe the public data from to emphasize the distinction, which it might be said is an unfortunate distinction. As compared with other districts within the county, and I know from the statistics published for major applications. We've had 33 major applications, compared to the next district, which is more than the 22, and our neighbor of rate three of 18. And so this does reveal the game, the significance of not having an up to date local plan and as one of the residents said earlier, we don't have one whose fault that is is not a matter for us to debate. Thank you for the purpose in having that discussion, but I just would like to reemphasize the significance of the statistics which you can take, which you've contained the same thing in paragraph nine of your report for us. Thank you. Anybody, yes, you answer the read. Thank you. I'd just like to say that I appreciate the documents, which have been sent through to the members of this panel. The town does very informative and it's good to see those, the degree I regret those are, of course, made more publicly available. Now I can understand the frustration of some of the residents, none of the public not being able to see those. The view, though, is to try to agree that until they are a little more solid and complete. That is appropriate. But maybe the point I'm making is to reassure those people that haven't seen these that a lot of support is being done in preparation of, you know, towards the time when they will be made. Public to be available. I fully understand that that sounds horrible and elitist and all stuff like that. But there it is, and I accept the rationale for why that is. That just acknowledge the fact that that work is being worked through. Thank you. The last point on that is that the reason which I understand that they're not being made more publicly available is the iterations in and that in the form that they are as they go out. And, you know, to us at the moment, but not to everybody else is that I am the view that they would cause more confusion than benefit at the moment, as we are in the south. Thank you. Yes, again, I'm probably a statement question. The issue we've got is that every term, there is someone out there who wants to be in a different world, whether you're a developer with a specific site or you're looking to fight the numbers, going to be really careful about how we. We'll protect the readiness in directing all our conversation a bit later about types of sections. And in the spirit of protection, it's quite important that we don't put out information, which is. It's very nature often incomplete and advanced with being done. And the public will see it. That's the duty I guess is presented to actually send up here to look at it. And then I promise that we are, and we are critical with everything we said. I'm not happy with a lot of the plan being quite publicly about that. But at the end of it, I'm probably still not going to be happy with them and to the plan, but I hope I will be happy that I've had my chance on my residence and something my residence. And not just for which creating a little don't work. So, in that sense, we're just going to have to go on track that your council appeared around the total. I'll be. Is it a ritual or making mind those doors to look at certain issues? Yes. But again, you've got to go back to protecting the council. And therefore, by definition, protecting the people and interests as well. I did raise impacts. It might be a chance for you to comment. It's a good raise and security committee meeting, and it will be in the midst of. I felt we were having very good useful productive discussions here in the local panel. But we weren't getting much back in terms of what you've done with it since. The one that springs to mind. And it's obviously for me to be able to allow the discussion that we had where we hang out with a number of different ideas didn't have a use. As I said in this group, it's kind of too late as we find out when the regulation is public and when we're on our way as a panel happy with it. So it would be good to see it. And double the bits and box that we put back previously before it's too late. So, I would suggest that the regulation of 18 years and inputs are, by an example, of democracy and action, and they've all been locked in taking the account. So, now many of those completed. So, those are all part of the risk in the middle of the night. I certainly share. And there's no way I can respond. Anybody else that I've talked to some thoughts on this? I missed the being in fix that. That's the potential sign. I know I have, but on a separate subject, because you were asking Brendan also here coming up. Is the, the issue of the difference between this panel and the scrutiny and who does what it was. A little bit alluded to by Chancellor Christian, and my understanding is that in this panel, we're looking at the, some of the detail and the detail where. And whereas in the scrutiny committee, it's more of looking at the processes to ensure that they're being followed and followed correctly and the timelines are being followed. That's maybe not always clear to members of the public and residents. Basically, to me, I sent both meetings and can see that working. And value of the difference between, you know, I don't think it was a point that was highlighted by Mr. Dean, when he was making support, I just wanted to clarify that point again. Thank you. Yes, Councilor Manuel. Something that I've found encouraging as we've gone through, I don't know, it's regrettable that the meetings are held privately for something that's really encouraged me when I've heard officers. I know that I know that has been sent in either by my parish council or other campuses, whose positions I'm familiar with, and actually reading through the responses to submission in the regulation 18. And also hearing kind of echoes, or methods that have been raised, for example, if it needs to be resolved and they're still being worked on and this has been done. And I, I just think I'm, I'm feeling much happier. Now I really kind of, I didn't quite grasp the process in terms of the sort of scrutiny of the. And such in terms of the timeline, I haven't quite grasped that because we've already started, I just joined the panel and was at the end of January, February time. And so I haven't really had visibility of how it worked practice. But I do feel like I'm starting to really kind of grapple with that. And I feel a lot happier with the feedback that we're really now we're getting a chunk of the way through the work and it's been quite frustrating up to know that the work was still being done and the consultations were still, not the consultation. And so, I think it's been very, very difficult to provide evidence based documents were still being worked on, but actually as those as you can sort of see the process that kind of come together and a more formed view being and conclusions being drawn. So I'm feeling encouraged by that. I just wanted to share that, but, you know, I feel happier, which way we are. There's still a lot of questions that fill a lot of things. I've got two, three pages where the questions after reading through the chapters that we've had an account and some of the parentheses. So I think that we need to just establish how that feedback should be, and those questions should be asked. Yeah, thank you. One thing we're now the half, which is, they've only based in planning. We badly need a local plan. Anybody has anything to the planning realized we have a desperate need for a local plan. And at a fairly pragmatic level. I will welcome a successful local plan, provided we start work immediately on the next one to replace it. That's what we should have been doing all this time. We need to get one local plan accepted you immediately start work you continue working to develop the next generation. And you don't have to wait five years before it's difficult to fit in less time. So, I see this as a means of leaving over the door to having a work for local plan, which will neutralize a lot of the developers. I agree that we had to put out that over the last, well, long time, decade, two decades. And provided we maintain the emphasis on the development. If there's nothing more on this topic, I'd like to move on. So, I will introduce the paper and then hand over to Kenya Kirk. So, this report in front of you here provides a summary of thinking in relation to the country by protection zone and the issue is raised with respect to it during the reg 18 concentration. The report provides a very high level background for CPZ, which people have also spoken to tonight. He's the report from the gray and air, and his advice is to use a CPZ as a means to control the expansion of the airport. I've made notes of the speakers comments. And if I have made an error with regards to the timing of the 120 dual carriageway arrival, I will apologize in correct that. The report set down for policy as per the 2005 adopted plan. And it sets out what was contained within the regulation 18 proposal, and then some thinking about how this might evolve as we move forward to regulation 19. Obviously, we've heard from a number of speakers on this issue, and we now have a presentation which will be led by a Tanya Kirk from Hankins and Duckett Associates. It's not intended for us to talk at you, Miss Kirkwell, Miss Kirkwell outline our thinking, and we are seeking views and fears from the panel. And Chair, I would suggest, I guess perhaps we move to the presentation immediately, because that may cover initial questions. And we'll answer some questions, speakers have already asked, perhaps if we saw every couple of slides, and then see a members members initial thoughts on what they're just seeing that would be my suggestion here. Sounds very sound, Miss Kirk, are you able to proceed? Hello, can everybody see and hear me okay. Yes, yes. I think we've got a good view of the people that were speaking earlier, but some of the panel are hidden from my view. So if you do have a question, if somebody could just make sure that we're aware of it, that would be very helpful. I'm just going to share the presentation on the screen now, and then I'll just double check that you can see it okay. We got that on the screen, please proceed. Can you see the presentation now? Yeah, perfectly. Yes, good to go, Tanya. Excellent. So, this is a map of the CPZ I thought, just to start with, I'd introduce myself. I'm Tanya Kirk, I'm a landscape director at HDA. I've worked on evidence, the landscape evidence base for local plans. I've provided specialist landscape advice for local authorities. I have been an expert witness and provided support of public inquiry in the IP. So although I'm a landscape architect to do have quite a lot of kind of landscape planning, knowledge and experience. My colleague Simon with me here is a principal landscape planner at HDA, and he specializes in landscape character assessment and sensitivity studies and has helped me with things like gap policies and green belt assessments. So that's kind of a background of us and who we are. I'll start by running through the presentation, but again, please do stop if you have any questions. Some of the slides are concurrent, so I'll stop after a kind of theme has ended, if that's acceptable. And then I'll ask if you have anything to talk through, and then hopefully we can discuss things at the end. I would like to reiterate and based upon some of the comments that have come up previously that this is a work in progress, none of this has been finalized. And from the perspective of HDA, we haven't worked on any of the evidence bases for the allocations. This is purely looking at the CPZ policy in particular. So just to start, and I think this has already been covered to some extent in this, so I'll go over this part relatively quickly, but the background is we're looking at the country side protection zone, which I'm going to refer to as the CPZ just for ease, which is a way to control the expansion of Stanstead Airport, and we've got a map here with some of the key landmarks around the area that I'll be referring to. And the idea of the CPZ is to maintain Stanstead as an airport in the countryside by maintaining a local belt of countryside around the airport. And then underneath on this slide, I've got an extract from the reggae team local plan, which is talking about obtaining the character and immunity experience in and derived from the surrounding countryside between the airport and villages. This plan shows some of the constraints to development that are around the airport as existing. So what we've done is we've mapped some of these constraints, and if you look to the west of the M11, you've got the green belt and a shade of green there. We've picked out some of the main settlements. We've got Stanstead Airport labelled along with the noise contours, which follow the alignment of the runways. The yellow, red and orange dots are listed buildings with the red dots being the grade one listed buildings going through to the yellow dots being grade two. We're attaching, which looks at the schedule monuments in the area, conservation areas are picked out in a white colour, and then we've got some of the more ecological or protections like triple SIs in ancient woodland in green hatching. So as you can see, there are some areas that are constrained within the CPZ and the blue is flood risk. So there are constraints to development within the CPZ, as well as the overarching sort of verbal nature of some of the landscape. So we've done this as kind of a background to our work. We've also looked at the current adopted policy, so we've looked at what the CPZ is at the moment. It's a zone of countryside defined around the airport, which emerged as policy in 1995 and is carried through to the adopted local plan as policy S8. And then we've got an extract of that policy there. So there's the descriptive wording of the policy, and then there are two tests, A and B, about what you would need to do in order to allow development within the CPZ, and this is the common policy. So you're looking to say that development would not be permitted if new buildings or uses would promote coalescence between the airport and existing development in the surrounding countryside, and/or it would adversely affect the open characteristics of the zone. And this map shows the adopted CPZ boundary as it stands. We've then looked at the success of the policy. So, from our perspective, the policy has been successful to a point. However, there have been a number of planning decisions that have allowed development within CPZ in spite of its local protection. And that's shown on the mapping green, and I must say that the permitted development shown in green includes things built form, but another and other forms of development. So I put some larger labels on some of them that would look potentially alarming at first, but some of them are about land raising or health facility that doesn't involve everything within the green boundary. But does kind of this does give you an overview of the sort of things that have been approved within the CPZ since 2005. Many of these have come through planning appeals, and what we found through looking through the inspectors reports from appeals and evidence like that, is that where things have been approved within the CPZ, some planners and the inspectors have identified that the adopted policy within the 2005 local plan is not wholly compliant with national planning policy framework, the MPPA. This is partly due to the lack of an up to date local plan, i.e. the housing of the benefits, you know, of development seem to outweigh the dis-benefits, but it's also partly due to the wording of the policy. And what inspectors are referring to is the restrictive wording of the policy. So, for example, it says development is not permitted, which in terms of the MPP has a slightly different emphasis. So, we've also looked at planning and appeals decisions, and through that, the evidence suggests that the second test of the policy, i.e. the one that looks at openness. This has been more successful or has gained more traction in decision taking, whereas the first test which looks at coalescence between development and the airport specifically appears to have been weaker or useless in terms of arguing about decision making. And this seems to be for two reasons. The first is that you could get a substantial amount of built development within the CPZ without causing coalescence, like actually having it abutting the airport, and that the restriction in terms of coalescence is only placed between the airport and development. So, any built development that seems to be further away from the airport or that is about ribbon development, for example, has not had the same kind of protection because it doesn't physically coalesce with the airport in line with the policy as it stands. We then looked at, you know, from from our perspective, there have been benefits of having the policy and there have been a lot instances also where the policy has been successful in reducing the amount of development within the CPZ. So, from our perspective, the retention of the policy would be acceptable, but that the wording should be carefully considered. There's no statutory requirement for the national or national policy that requires the CPZ. So I think one of our questions for you to discuss was, is it still relevant, although the rest of our presentation puts forward the argument that yes it is, but that we've got some suggestions for how to make it more relevant or how to make it stronger, I suppose, in terms of policy. Was there any immediate things on that kind of background information that you wanted to discuss or should we get into some final suggestions. Thank you for that introduction to your presentation. You asked a direct question, is it still relevant? Well, my answer is yes, it is evidently still relevant that we need to have a TV bed, whether we use continued to use the same name or change it some other name, but the concept of having a boundary of open land around the airport. It's still relevant and now that we're supporting that. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation so far. There has clearly been a hell of a lot of work to understand the implications of people decisions that were allowed, but nowhere do I see any of the decisions that were dismissed. To me, it's not obvious that they have been considered. We've had that it's been successful to a point and then quite a long explanation of how our buildings have been allowed, and I'm seeing very balanced. I'm not sure it would give the public confidence that we looked at the strength of the TV bed in that sense. Yes, I mean, I don't know whether I can't see who's talking to me at the moment, and I don't know whether it's appropriate for me to, are you happy for me to jump in and answer your questions as they come or would you like me to wait for everybody. I think it would be good if you could answer that now. Yes, so I've definitely looked, we've definitely looked at appeals decisions that have been dismissed. I think I was going to get on to some of them where, you know, that's been helpful and that's been the case and yes, I do agree that many of them had been dismissed. I think in terms of looking at improving the policy of both of those success and, you know, both both types of decision making. And I think that's the reason for on this page that's in front of us at the moment. So, when we're looking at the second test of the policy regarding openness, that's the one that's been quoted by inspectors more regularly in appeals that have been dismissed, because it seems to be, it seems to gain more traction with them and it seems to have more commonality with the MPPF. So apologies if it didn't appear balanced but we have definitely looked at both and there have been ones that have been dismissed. But it's just that I think from from my perspective, if we're looking forward, what we want to do is get an idea of both the strengths and the weaknesses of it and see how we can take the policy forward into the future. I think what you're looking at, around the panel here we have one, two, three of us are members of, four, three, three of us are members of the planning committee here and sitting in the public alley there's two more. One thing that's really really rare if you practice planning is that it's not exactly a sign, or even necessarily our outcomes can be unpredictable I think that basically the background noise is what you're looking at there. Thank you. I mentioned this before when we're in the meeting, the brief, the debrief. It's a question really about, you can see the hatch into the left hand side of the drawing that you've got on the screen now, which is the edge of the, yes, to the green belt. I think the kind of idea of maintaining a green zone around a development area and maintain the openness of that. There is definitely comparison to be drawn with the objectives of the CVZ and what the green belt achieves. So it just be interesting if you could touch on that at some point during the presentation about what the differences are and if that could, you know, is it possible to extend the green belt to encompass the area that we're looking at for the CVZ with that achieve what we wanted to do, or the intentions of those two components too different to be able to do that. Thank you. I think for the purposes of this, I'm hoping that maybe I could carry on a bit with the presentation because I think some of the answers your question, and then I'll come back to it later to draw if there is a if there are any gaps that you think are. So the next thing we've looked at so this plan looks at the first part that part of the existing policy and the separation analysis and what coalescence what development would happen that will cause coalescence with stand step does it as it stands. But also areas that we think are very important in terms of separation and ones that are locations where we think there is this wider separation between stand step and settlement. So the red arrows are about areas that are closer to the airport and the orange arrows are kind of a wider but still important separation that we've mapped. We've also shown that the M1 is quite strong feature in terms of separation but as you've pointed out quite rightly the green belt does extend up to that so there is further separation protection provided to the to the west of the M11. And then that's the 120 to a degree also provides a separating feature or be it more to the north east to take play rather than to the northwest. We've also looked at this area of the boundary which is a bit of a I think to my mind is actually a bit of an anomaly within the within the existing seeking said in that it appears to me and this is obviously where it comes in as a draft that this is actually quite a rural and use at the moment and that there wouldn't be necessarily any harm and including that within the CPZ area rather than excluding it. We've mapped the approvals on this plan as well, although noting that and in particular this applies to some of these developments around take place that some not all of this is due for as a being approved as development there are areas of open space within this and that will become apparent later on within this presentation. And that kind of talks to some of these things that we've noticed where with where the policy looks at coalescence with standards are viewers that there are actually things that could be thought about between coalescence between settlement along in particular along to the south. So we've then looked at the regulation 18 submission, which is sort of to take the policy forward through core policy 12 but also revised CPZ boundary. We've repeated the policy wording here for information but I'm fairly sure that you're familiar with it. And this is the figure appendix seven, an extract from the appendix seven with the regulator from the 18 CPZ boundary and we've noted that the wording is very similar to the adopted policy at president, but it does have less restricted terminology. For example, it's talking about development will be only be supported where either of the following supplier which is more in line with the NP PF wording and ideals. So, as we go through the presentation we've sought to identify opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the policy and to refine the policy and the boundary potentially for the regulation 19 version of the plan. In our view, the area between the 120 and start for road which I've circled on this plan down here needs careful consideration and for the following reasons. So there's intense development pressure in this area, there's limited space between settlement and the airport, and that it's already been noted within other published evidence. For example, the 2023 landscape character assessment that some of the realities being eroded in this area. So, our view is that the concept of protecting the countryside around Stansted airport is supported by both the location of the CPZ boundary and by the specific wording of the draft policy. Our view is that the current boundary alterations have the potential to compromise the future effectiveness of the policy. We think that there's a benefit of having specified boundary, but our, our sort of advice at the moment, our working advice if you like, is to have a look at the CPZ boundary, but also to have a look at some of the policy wording to try and highlight some areas that we think it could be strengthened. I don't know if you want to pause there if we're going to do some potential opportunities that we think we've identified. Any questions or the speaker. Thanks for it to quickly. You mentioned coalescence actually in the first part of the presentation, and how in effect that side of the policy is weaker, but also the coalescence is the joining emerging of a settlement in the airport in this context. Of course, a planning application or a development site in and of itself might be coalescence. But in this new policy, and this is where I hope you'd sort correct me, it seems at first sight, but because the policy in and of itself is weaker and less restrictive, that 10 planning applications in a row could come forward. And in the themselves would not be coalescence, but they would create the coalescence. How is the policy speaking to restrict that iterative coalescence, because at the moment it's not quickly clear. So I think this is one of our recommendations that we're hoping to take forward with you in the next slide is to try and change that wording for the first part of core policy 12. So it's part I where it reiterates the wording that's in the adopted policy at the moment where it says new buildings or uses would not promote the coalescence between the airport and the existing or allocated development. And to our mind, that's a part of the policy that could actually be strengthened, because, and this is where we were looking at the inspectors reports from appeal decisions. And they've taken it quite many times, not all the time, obviously, as it's been pointed out, there is a balancing way, but a lot of the time where an inspector has gone on the decision of dismissing an appeal. It's because it hasn't, because it would affect adversely affect the open characteristics of the CPZ. But often the inspectors have been silent or said that the application wouldn't promote the coalescence between the airport and whatever development it is that's coming forward. So one of our views is, and one of our recommendations is to change that wording in that part of the draft policy. So that, as you say, you think more about cumulative and more about maintaining existing spatial parameters rather than being specific about coalescence because it takes quite a lot to get coalescence and prove it. Whereas there are other tests that you could apply to the policy that would maybe look to protect settlement identity or look to protect the, and we'll get on to this hopefully, but hopefully have a discussion about it. But I think that's where our sort of critique, if you like, of the draft policy as it stands has come from is that we think that there's wording that could still be positive and in line with the NPPF, but also can be clear when looked at under scrutiny, for example, through a planning appeal that would give more strength to the, to the, to the pollens to the countryside protection zone as a whole. Does that make sense. Thank you. I think it makes sense, but the risk of oversimplifying. If one ignores the concept of coalescence, if we make a country's item zone, then basically we're saying there will be no development in this new zone. More than there is now, and that's what we're trying to achieve because I can understand the problems that you have the concept of coalescence and that why in the north, there was some development work approved because they're, they're not coalescing with the effort in themselves. And therefore that's difficult to agree. But if you ought to argue with an inspector, but if one is having a policy that says the area within the newly defined protection zone, shall not be for development, then you're just simply clarifying that in my mind, the words that need to be used to define that, then clever planning lawyers need to define that. But to me, it's just a simple concept that if we have a zone with boundary rounded. What we want in our local plan is to say, inside this zone, there's going to be no more development. I can like a wide approach if anybody else. Yes, Councillor Evans. Thank you very much for your explanations to date and of course we do have to remember that the original policy was thought into effect long before the NTPF was even a tinkle in the eye of the relevant sector of state. But is there not a fundamental question which we colleagues need to understand and appreciate and that is whether development in the area of the airport and its surrounds, whether that development is to be a codon sanitary compliant with the NTPF, the purposes of restricting and or preventing development outbound as it were from the airport, or whether it's a policy which stands of itself and alone and I think that this is a question which we have not really grappled with yet. So, I think it's a question which perhaps isn't called for an immediate answer now but it is something which I'd just like to throw in the air for us to appreciate and come to understand the fundamental purpose. Of any differentiation from the land area around the airport as compared with the generalities within the district, because we will have, we do have in the draft, general policies for non-developable areas as it were in any event. And I wonder whether or not the airport in the countryside and the perception that the policy has stood us in good stead to date, how those matters actually are to be reconciled under the regime of current policy of the NTPF. I think in some part, the second speaker, again I can't see your faces apologies but has answered part of the question, part of my answer for the first speaker and again, I'd like to direct probably some of those questions back at your planning colleagues because they'll notice in more detail than I but to say that there would be no development within CPZ, to my mind would probably contradict the national planning policy framework. I think part of the reason why we're looking at this and trying to grapple with this is because it will need to comply with that and so I think yes, the second speaker is right that's something that you need to think about as a council. And secondly, I think there are other protections within the NTPF and your local policy that do a similar thing so yes it's for you to decide and I think that was when the question earlier in this presentation came up is that there are existing protections available. And so it's, I think, although my own view is that this policy is still relevant and then I haven't seen anything that would say that it's not possible to take it forward and if that's the will of the local people on the council then I think you can do it. And it will be successful, but again, there are, you know, I think it's right that you have the conversation around the other protections that are available personally, but that's probably not for me to say what your decision making should be. If there are no other questions I can carry on with this presentation and then we can come back to some of those points afterwards where other people that are in your room with you may have a better understanding or better opinions on it than I do. Please continue with your presentation. Thank you very much. And so we've then tried to look at some of the potential opportunities for the CP said, with regards to the boundary, this could include, including additional land to the south to compensate for any areas that may be taken out of the CP said, but also to consider the boundary of the CP said in the context of settlement and permissions that have happened within the locality, both of which I think have been raised earlier this evening. And in terms of the wording to look at changing some of the wording potentially so that there's greater conformity with the MPF. So recognizing that the character protection of the character of the countryside is very much in line with the MPF and things like that and using some of that to help guys wording within the policy. To also think about, and this came up back to the lady apologies I don't remember people's names very well. Question about parallels with green belt policy and maybe looking at potential benefits within the countryside protections that own whether the beneficial land uses or things that could happen within there that would be positive in terms of protecting the rural nature of it and fitting in with landscape character, consideration of settlement identity and separation as well as separation between the airport and development potentially to tie in the recommendations of the 2023 landscape character assessment, which is evidence based for its evidence produced for the council that's more up to date than the last CP said studies so there are some incremental changes between what the landscape is like now and what it was like in 2016 that could be taken into consideration. And also to consider, consider, you know, putting forward positively things that would, if there was going to be a proposed development, what mitigation measures may reduce the harm of that development to the CPZ. And these are just suggestions but for example, you know, tree and head for planting or where open spaces in terms of putting it towards the airport rather than towards other settlement things like that. And again, this is just ideas it's just a draft, it's not anything that we're setting in stone, but in terms of our perspective on what the future boundary could look like this is one suggestion that we had. Which is the area in blue. So this has a number of commonalities but also differences both with the adopted policy and the regulation 18 policy. So we've looked at potentially changing areas where permitted development is accepted to follow, for example, here it would follow the railway line, so that this is excluded from the CPZ because it's no longer representing country side. To leave some boundaries as it as they exist, for example, in these locations and along the motorway sorry. But to look to extend the CPZ to the south around Hatfield forest and some areas to the south here to maintain that. But for a country side to the south, which personally I think is important but it's for discussion. And then to have a really close look at where the boundary may be drawn around. In order to use some of the draw along the main road for a part but then potentially maintain some of the CPZ in this location to protect settlement identity. The draw around the developed, the permitted developed areas, but leaving the open space within these commissions within the CPZ, which will provide an extra layer of protection to that proposed open space, so that that will maintain this kind of, but also to include this area that's currently outside of the CPZ within the CPZ so that this area still has some strength in our view. And then we've got some suggestions for the policy wording, which again falls in line with the LEC evidence that's been talked about earlier. And to maybe look to that in order to think about setting out wider purposes for the designation too. So we've still got open characteristics, but we've got restricting the spread of development from the airport and protecting the rural character of the countryside and to prevent changes to the rural settlement pattern by restricting common lessons. So I think those are things that are still more positively worded and have, and would probably align with the MPPF, but that they provide a wider range of criteria for applications to be judged against. Other alternatives that we've thought about or to put forward are example wording could include retaining the integrity and sense of separation between development and standard, so that instead of the word power lessons we use sense of separation which has wider connotations to maintain the identity of settlements within the CPZ by preventing sprawl. And again, this goes back to one of the earlier questions about parallels with Greenbelt. The wording that we're looking at has more, I think, commonality with Greenbelt wording, albeit slightly different but thinking along those themes, preventing sprawl and the loss of separation, and then maintaining the integrity and rural character of the CPZ. I think tying in the word rural character within the tests of the policy as well as the overarching ambition of the policy, I think that would be useful. And then our opinion was that these recommendations would then maintain the policy within a future local plan, but would seek to protect the CPZ more effectively. And this is our opinion at the moment, then currently allow for within the regulation 18 local plan. And then at the bottom here, I've just got with this is the adopted boundary, this is the regulation 18 boundary and then this is the draft suggestion of a boundary. Yes, that's, that's the end of my sort of presentation so we open up the discussion for the full wide audience now. I think if you have time.

I wasn't initially just going to jump in, but I will, I think, seems to revolve around the world, so a lesson. And the difficulties about it is understanding this concept. For me, it's a non planner. It's, but I do take the point that I was like Christian about the risk of it. Gradually involving coalescence rather than under that. So what I noticed was that the, on, on the map, an early map where you were illustrating coalescence, you had some arrows on the, on the west side of the south of the a 120, there were red lines, which seemed to indicate a major problem for coalescence or where it had been possibly, there was a high risk of coalescence would occur. And on the eastern side, there are orange lines where it had been more successful in the, in the. And that it had been a successful concept. And so I noticed with your redrawn subjective or redrawn map, I might be going, yeah, that's your, your sort of reinstate and look, so you might be suggesting a reinstatement of a countryside protection zone, where the lines were read, which seemed to me to be a way of providing this threat and maybe also the, again, the suggestion that we use this sense of separation rather than coalescence, but to me, it's all seems to the whole. Yeah, I don't think, I think I agree, I think from my perspective, promoting separation is, is a more positive way of, and I'm probably a more robust way, in my perspective. It's a robust way, in my opinion, of dealing with the looking at coalescence because on a case by case basis, it's quite hard to prove that something is coalescing, whereas on a case by case basis, it is easier to show that something is encroaching into something that into an area that you want to keep separate. So I think using, it's the, it's for you as a council, and this is, again, just my opinion, to think about the wording of the policy to make it work for you, but in a way that doesn't compromise its ability to fit in with the MPP. And I think I'd probably go over to planning, your planning colleagues there to talk about it more, but yes, my perspective was that if the thing wording like separation and settlement identity, they're more in common with green belt terminology and green belt tests. And then that if you're aligning with that, it seems to me to be slightly more robust when you're looking at how to word it, but also to, you know, get the effects that you want within that policy. Thank you, and I was reading through the way that the green belt policy was phrase because that openness is definitely a character that appears about, and I'm reminded when you were talking about the more trying to avoid the sort of protection policy, which is, which is definitely what the MPP takes to, takes to avoid, that actually may be a better way of, or an alternative way of looking at it might be something in our labour plan, which is that where we have development limits. There's a set of criteria for what will be accepted outside development limits. We say development will not be supported other than, and we've got a set of criteria so agricultural activities and limited in so I can't remember all of them. It's been two years since we wrote it, but we have used that successfully at appeal. There are 15 times there, and we've won all of our applications, and a lot of those applications that come forward outside development limits, I mean, we supported some schemes within the development limits under the same policy, but maybe a way of looking at it would be, rather than saying what we won't commit. We won't support development in this zone, and maybe it's a, I don't know, a standard proximity zone rather than a countryside protection zone is actually, because you're looking at it then from a point of view of noise impact pollution, not just about the fact that the airport is listed in the countryside and that's laudable, but that's not the only thing that's significant here. It's actually avoiding people being put in harm's way by having their house built at the end of the runway. So, I wonder whether development will not be supported other than, and then set that a very clear criteria for the half dozen reasons that they might be acceptable, and we could use the green belt policy as it, and it's not worth it for that. If I, if I may, may just make a very quick and observation, I think, in terms of what comes when I was saying, I think the local plan does that to, you know, almost for the whole of the countryside, the whole district. So then we benefit having a much state level plan in the landscape is the local panel actually provide quite strong effective protection against development in the countryside everywhere. And actually the policy is not, not that dissimilar to what you described puts in your neighborhood. So, I think it's just worth it, sort of remembering that actually, ultimately the local plan provides, you know, once it's adopted, it's up to date and it's got a, you know, good land to plan position. Actually, you've got a very strong protection for all of the time, so I appreciate there's value in having the CPT policy in its own right. But you actually got quite a strong protection everywhere else as well. So, that's probably where it's just been in mind when we start to have to think about how we want to update the policy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can we get tonight spoken about that and speaking of the point that Council Christianity made in the previous agenda item on the update, that was that we hear around this panel with representatives, the resident of the bubble that are here to speak, what in front of them and peer it towards acceptability. And I have a huge amount of sympathy with the residents, actually. I mean, everyone's planning committee and he knows what the application comes through there and has been obtained by what's been the first. One of the things I would say, I mean, obviously, this one is the time we cannot, as a fact, as a panel, our biology is actually what this being for. I think you can be reassured is that I'm impressed by the fact, for the way the offices have really, really worked, defining solutions that are going to meet. The fact that you've seen a presentation here, that's really taking an open minded approach to how we might solve the questions. There's also the question of what you will actually see in terms of housing, along with the area being prepared to be in the 18. I am an argument to say to you, pick your own trust of the loans, I'd love to be able to say, hey, look, this is one of the greatest, fantastic, but I think you will find when it all comes forward, a great deal of what you're concerned about will have been addressed. And it's a good, good solution. It's not the right word, it's not the right word, because it's actually there to achieve the right things for everybody, be it residents, be it the district, and it's the right thing to find. And the pressures that comes into the office, which is the other thing that the office has been very focused on, is that there is going to be a lot of affected interest, banging up the door. I'm right now on this kind of letter, I can't out the bag, but I'm really impressed by the kind of work I've been doing, and bear in mind, I sit here on the inside looking out at the moment, but in 2017, 2018, I was on the outside looking at it, that I was rather like you in Turkey, I was fighting, you know, a local plan. And when I see the reception, the ability of offices now to receive the work with women, an opportunity to fast, for instance, in the bottom back then. And if I understand it, you are taking this. That's quite right, it's very effective to take it over the evening. But the choice is that that is the only way I hope, helps to put some people's minds at the present. Thank you. Yes, certainly for my experience, I'm sat in many planning committees where we've sat and had a case, and they said, "Well, it's in the countryside protection zone. One way or another, that would always work around, because we didn't have enough plans for an eye or whatever, it was always worked around. Witness this many times, and then take it to appeal, and then kind of inspect that sort of policy of film. So robustness is important of the local plan, and we're certainly getting there, I certainly agree with you on the panic. Anybody else, Council appreciate anything? Thank you. Just in general comments, I actually agree with Councillor Evans, not just because I'd like to live time. But predominantly, because I do think it's that well-interested enough when it comes to an effort, the inbound and outbound that we're coming to consider. Is it to prevent outbound or inbound development? It is existential, really, to the policy, and I think that's something that we need to decide really. I am a bit concerned, I think, I think in his contribution, spoke of the LUC report. It does concern me. I'm sure there's a saying somewhere that if at first you don't succeed, hire another consultant that will give you the answer you like, there will be others concerned about that. I'm slightly concerned about that. The LUC report made different alternative suggestions for the CPSN. I think we need to flesh out why we have adopted a different approach, and that I do say that there's all due respect to our visitors on spring there. And then even more so, why it seems that we have departed from Mrs Kirk's recommendations about an expanded CPSN in places that the green map seems to show something different to that. So, are we ignoring LUC City, and are we ignoring these guys as well? I think the presentation was talking about the presentation, I think it's partly on to the first one, which is that in the sort of eight years or so in 2016 quite a lot of things have changed, but it's quite a lot of development has happened, partly through appeal. One of the maps showed, you know, quite extensive areas of development, which does demonstrate there's been change, which we were doing to reflect, so it's important that we have evidence that's up to date that informs this plant. So, I think another thing that was referenced is the 2020 free update to some of the landscape works, which again reflects lots of things that have changed in the last six, seven, eight, nine years, and it's important that we do have up to date evidence that reflects all of those things that have changed. But the other thing that I think is really important is the green map is what was published at the red 18 stage, and what the council did is produce a draft in order to facilitate consultation, so that anyone who wants to contribute to the process and there were lots of, you know, several thousand comments, and the council, I'm now doing your work to build on that initial draft to try to ensure the red 19 is a much stronger document, and as reflected on the consultation comments as well as all the other things, all the updated evidence and so on and so forth. So, this is emerging work, which is almost as new to officers as this to council, so haven't started to sort of think about how we would write a new policy, because it's important that LPC this before any sort of office work starts to happen. But what the result of suggesting is what actually there's an opportunity to substantially improve the CSA policy from 18, possibly to improve it from the 2005 wording actually make it more effective, because I think it's been demonstrated. There's been a lot of decisions were actually inspectors haven't been supporting the team was in five policies is an opportunity to make it a lot of improvements, and actually to increase the area that's protected from the. The red 18, but possibly even to include areas that were even in the 2000 version, so we're certainly not ignoring anything. But, you know, over the 2016 and so this is all new work, it's helping the council to, you know, do what it needs to do to make sure the red 19 document is a stronger document versus the red 18 that has more up to date evidence that starts to reflect all of the comments that came in and so on total. Thank you, and I think we can let you go and have a little bit, unless we have any more questions for. Thank you very much for your input. Thank you for having me. Yes, just to reiterate, we've been brought in post what you referred to as the green map so the blue map is the work we've fed into the road map was existing policy and the green map is what happened prior to our involvement so I really appreciate you taking the time to listen to us and I hope you have a nice evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other points colleagues, I guess more than anything else. There's no reason, while this presentation has been part of the agenda. You know, you saw me move over there. It really was to see the screen not to make some sort of point to have the presentation is not a difficult request. I don't, I'm not privy to the details behind it, but I can certainly take your point. Mr Mr. Hermitage. Chair, just work backwards and the presentation wasn't equal to finalised until I think today, and we are working at pace and to meet the deadlines that we are working to. Part of the ODS, everything is meticulously planned up until literally the day of deadlines, having to be worked to. We will include these slides for members in the minutes. But I hope it, and again, this meeting, we're not expecting the panel to be giving us draft policy work in the policies. And we're looking for sears and strategic direction from this panel and we'll obviously go away and work up the specific wording of policies in discussion with our barrister. But it's very useful that a number of takeaways. I'll be taking away in the notes from the discussion of the panel of race. A very useful process is a number of points have been made and I think it's important to note that any CP that whatever we call it or whatever it ends up like, well, we'll never be applying it for ambition on development. That would not be NPPF compliant. And the plan must be NPPF compliant. We talked about initial concept back in the 80s where the purpose was to contain the spread of the airport. It's been used in the opposite direction as some members have said for many years, in terms of preventing development creeping towards the airport. So perhaps a broadening of its initial concept. The question of coalescence has been discussed, significant, you know, at some length. And I think that's an important one we, our consultants, as you heard, have looked at the stats and looked at what worked to appeal and what hasn't, what words have worked, what words happened. I think that's very important because we want to create a policy that is as near as bulletproof all of our policies as near as bulletproof as they can be. And nothing is bulletproof in planning because everything has to be weighed in the balance, doesn't it? The planning committee will know more than anyone. But we do, you know, we have looked at the responses that were received at regulation 18 and a significant volume of responses at regulating were around the take little cancer area CPZ, those sorts of issues. And the work that H got my initialism that the consultant has been doing with us looks to put back far more CPZ than was put forward in the regulation 18 document. And I hope that was apparent in those last slides. Apologies that you didn't have days to absorb those slides prior to this meeting. But to be honest, need to die. And we are working at that sort pace and that they will be made available to everyone following this meeting. Yeah. One microphone seems to work. Yes. Councillor Evans. Thank you. Just picking up on Councillor Christianity's observation and your response Mr Hermitage for the availability of that material. The fact that it is literally as it were half of the press perhaps does give the line to any suggestion that things would be fixed stages ago, the fact that this is actually very current material does, I think, reinforce the fact that we do have an open mind and matters have not been. Matters haven't been attended to and arranged as it were historically and presented as a, it is not the case. We are coming to matters with an open mind. But if you pass would permit me just to add a little bit of additional information for colleagues in relation to what will happen here after assuming that we do find ourselves with Council approving the regulation 19 version. Could we be in that position which I certainly hope we shall be that consultation exercise will be undertaken using a different form of software compared with that which would use for regulation 18. The purpose being that that should be more accessible and more user friendly and the material will be more accessible in an HTML form and workers underway at the moment to consider awarding contracts to a software supplier to that end. Thank you. We're only ever as good as their software. This work is in near real time so it really does change very quickly and evolves very quickly. Can I say to the members of the public. You were asking for steers. I'd give a steer and that's irrespective of what happens around the take the little can feel. And adding that southern southern part of protection, also noting that there's an argument about how much additional protection the CP said is giving from the other policies in plan. And if I was oversensifying I apologize early with my earlier comment. That point was also meant as a step. Just keep that theme. But the point I'm wanting to make now is that by extending south. I think that is a useful addition for every particular thing. There's a couple of different things here. One is that there is, I think that I keep coming back to the green belt on that comparison with the openness and maintaining that openness around the airport. There is a definite synergy with that. And I think that's the focus that perhaps the policy needs to work around. But it doesn't do any other metrics to the back of that around noise and pollution because that was raised by residents. Right. Not actually just in relation to the airport. But, you know, the motorway and the realm that work has definitely made some tools associated to them. So does the airport. I know it's slightly different. They've written off upon Irish online is quite such a convenient format, but the way you know that someone in that zone is going to be exposed to noises of over 57 or 65. You know that harmful because the World Health Organization, I think we almost need, I don't know. Obviously, I've read lots of what was in reggae team now I can't recall every policy by number. I think it's not going to take a while to do, but I can't recall seeing anything specifically about development and noise sensitive areas. I haven't read comments about it today and I can't remember if I've seen a policy that that ties that down. So that's, I think that's slightly separate to you. And I think we do need to see how the policy around, you know, and having had this discussion that we see about the developments in us know about development and noise and this location like that. I think it is important that we can do that as far as the next stage of the plan. I do remember it, it explains me once that I was going to exist the pre market towns, and one of the London airports. And this conversation certainly almost suggests that, but it's been an awful lot of time in the airport. It's my thing to do. But there's more thought than just said to the airport. Can I say thank you very much and members of the public that have taken the time to come and give us a seasoning and to put forward very relevant arguments. Which are appreciated. And they are listening to whether we managed to embed them satisfactory remains to be seen, but thank you very much. Make the effort to do it that is appreciated. Thank you, colleagues for your robustness and on with it.