Idiom: left and right (used idiomatically: yes)
Erm I think it 's also now pretty much common ground that the capacity of York city is around three thousand three hundred , but I think in in in taking an view on that , and in taking any view o on future windfalls , it is necessary for the panel to keep in mind that historically in the nineteen eighties windfalls were coming through at a time when it was not a adopted local plan for the city of York , so to some extent anything by definition of a substantial size was likely to be a windfall , erm , but also more to the point than that definitional point , I would expect to see , and I think what Mr Curtis has said earlier on that the local plan is likely to tighten up on criteria for release of sites , both small and large , he referred to the shortage of open space , and I would expect to see a policy change in short , a policy climate change , within the city of York that would constrain past historical rates of windfall release . So that I think the situation affecting the Greater York area is that there wis there is a requirement to accommodate within the ring part of the needs of the city , and on our best estimate that er I apologize for the word overspill , but it it is descriptive , is of the order of three thousand three hundred dwellings to be accommodated in the ring which after the needs of York . I do n't intend to discuss the housing , whether seven hundred acres , sorry seven l land for seven hundred houses is owned by the City of York , that 's not part of our case one way or the other , but we have offered you a distribution of the Greater York provision figure between the districts , because from Barton Willmore 's very extensive experience of participation in local plan work up and down the country , I think we share the view that er City of York have , that Ryedale have , my colleagues to the left and right on this side of the table have , that there does need to be a distribution , otherwise there will be at best confusion as to whether local plans comply with the structure plan , and at worst a game of of pass the parcel and everybody will be conforming , but nobody will actually be possibly meeting the figures , and that is the situation that I do n't think anybody would wish to see as a result of er the outcome of of alteration number three , I mean I do n't know how the County Council would would really be able to to say whether they thought a local plan conformed to the structure plan , without knowing what that distribution was , perhaps in some bottom draw manner which is not now the approved way of going about these things , so that I think there does need to be a distribution for the proper planning of York , and before coming on to our to explain our figures a little bit , I should also say , perhaps in in response to remarks Mr Thomas made earlier on about the general character of the York area and the need to to protect that , that that course is precisely what the greenbelt is for , and what it does , it is n't necessary to extend that concept across the whole of the vale of York , and therefore to seek to er discount migration outside the greenbelt . That is what the greenbelt is actually there for , and if you have it there for that purpose , as I said yesterday , the necessary corollary is that you have additional provision beyond it , and I ca n't resist to offer Mr Wincup some support , I 'm sure one piece of evidence that he gave you about the letter from the Parish Council , he 's probably already replied to that Parish Council saying , as you 're in the York greenbelt have no fear , all the Selby needs will pass straight across your heads and land somewhere else . The erm point about are distribution within Greater York is that we have attempted to look at this in what I think is a a rational and realistic manner , we have looked , and you 'll see this from our supplementary paper , I apologize for its lateness , but I think it 's benefited from the additional thought that could be given to it , we have looked both backwards , at the present day , and forwards , we 've looked backwards at past build rates , we 've looked at the present day position in the sense of the population shares within Greater York , and we 've looked forwards in terms of the commitment figures that are given in the N Y one paper that we 've just been looking at , and taking all those things into account , and adding in what we see as the right location for a new settlement , namely Selby district , we come to the figures that are in our supplementary paper , and there is clearly a great deal of common ground between the evidence you get from looking either at past building rates or population shares , as now , or future commitments which all point towards a broadly similar distribution , we say , with the addition of a new feature namely the new settlement , so that I commend those figures to you as somebody who 's actually dared to put their toe , or maybe their whole body into the water , and given you not only some numbers , but also a basis by which if you should er have a different Greater York figure in mind , a basis on which that could be rationally er approached , I would not certainly defend to the last ditch the need to put a figure of fifty dwellings into the structure plan for the Hambledon part of Greater York , there may be a cut off point beyond which you do n't go , but certainly for Ryedale and Selby , with very substantial numbers there is a need to indicate what the appropriate division should be , and you could not for instance indicate what the er Ryedale non Greater York figure was , without someone telling us the , as the Chairman rightly said , having an idea of what the Ryedale Greater York figure should be , so it is n't really I think feasible to have district figures for non Greater York , and one Greater York figure , that does n't er get away from the issue , and nor does it solve the potential for confusion .