Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ... Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...
1.4.1 Sherburn in Elmet Parish Council: Comments raised in relation to application 2011/0893/EIA are relevant to the application and objections still stand. The Parish Council has sought views of residents by holding a further public meeting and taking into account the points raised the Parish objects to these applications. Policy Objections • The dwellings in the three applications represent the entire allocation referred to in the Submission Core Strategy. If these planning applications (2012/0399/EIA, 2012/0499/EIA and 2012/0468/EIA) are granted no further development would be allowed in Sherburn before 2027. • The decision of the District Council to partially release this site on the 13 th September 2011 has already effectively reduced the scope of residents to properly debate the preferred location for development in Sherburn in the period to 2027. • The outcome of these applications, if approved by the Council, could have two outcomes – Firstly, it could completely preclude any further input into the SADPD since it would be a forgone conclusion and secondly and possibly even more likely, it could result in a much greater level of development in the village than currently proposed. • Would ask you to refuse this application (and the other two applications) as premature and give our community a chance to consider appropriate allocations within the finally agreed Core Strategy figure of 2027. Highways Issues • The impact of 598 new dwellings on the highway network (plus a potential 120 at Carousel Walk) would be substantial. The Parish are currently carrying out further work on the implications of these developments on the highway network and have particular concerns about: • The impact of development on the centre of the village we do not believe the central traffic lights have the capacity to accommodate these developments. • The implications for rat running through residential estates in the village. • Do not consider either of these issues has been considered sufficiently in the applications, and would further question the traffic routing assumptions. Education • We are not confident that the County Council are taking full account of the likely need for primary school places by 2020 and like the Highway Authority are dealing with the matter piecemeal. In particular we are unconvinced that an extension to Athleston School can provide sufficient capacity in our schools for all potential development by 2026. Other Issues 100
• The increase in numbers of residents would put the police under considerable pressures to maintain law and order. • The village facilities at present would not support the influx of new residents, for example the doctors surgery is full, the police station is manned by volunteers, there is no fire station, no public indoor leisure facilities, no household waste recycling centre and no bus services after 7pm or on Sundays. Train services are limited and there is very limited parking at either South Milford or Sherburn stations. Whilst some of these problems could be mitigated to some extent by developer contributions, the basic problem is that village services and infrastructure are at and beyond capacity without the currently proposed housing developments which could increase the population of the village by at least 25%. The Parish Council therefore does not support the application, and request that they are refused on the ground that they are premature and contrary to current policy, will create unacceptable congestion and highways safety problems on residential roads and in the village centre and will put unacceptable strain on village services, schools and facilities. Further comments were received from the Parish Council on 7 August 2012 relating to highways and these can be summarised as follows: There are significant deficiencies with the traffic forecasting and modelling work presented in particular the following needs to be addressed: • Discrepancies in traffic routing presented. • Junction blocking with Wolsey Court and Church Hill. • Traffic signal capacity modelling incorrect. • Saturation flows are flawed. • Intergreens are a significant reduction from the periods required to allow safe operation of traffic signals and NYCC need to review this. • Queue lengths presented are inaccurate. • Pedestrian crossing at Low Street/Moor Lane figures are flawed. • Sherburn Enterprise Park access will mean more vehicles going through Sherburn. • Modelling is not sufficiently robust. The Parish Council must stress that all we are asking for is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation which recognises the reality on the ground. Video footage presented makes it easy to identify the number of vehicles which can pass through the Low Street/Moor Lane junction under congestion type conditions and differ from the figures presented by the developer. 101
- Page 49 and 50: Taking these in turn. vi) Provision
- Page 51 and 52: 2.8.11 The Regional Spatial Strateg
- Page 53 and 54: compliance of the proposals with th
- Page 55 and 56: • Vehicular site access arrangeme
- Page 57 and 58: vehicles; and consider the needs of
- Page 59 and 60: 2.9.33 NYCC Highways have confirmed
- Page 61 and 62: 2.10.5 At a regional level the RSS
- Page 63 and 64: 2.11.5 The report concludes that th
- Page 65 and 66: 10) An appropriate flood risk asses
- Page 67 and 68: ii. and a site-specific flood risk
- Page 69 and 70: carried out in accordance with the
- Page 71 and 72: earlier in this Report seeking use
- Page 73 and 74: 2.17.8 In conclusion, it is conside
- Page 75 and 76: The indicative plans submitted demo
- Page 77 and 78: infrastructure) and came into force
- Page 79 and 80: 2.22.9 As such the scheme is consid
- Page 81 and 82: 2.23 Climate Change, Energy Efficie
- Page 83 and 84: have raised the need for affordable
- Page 85 and 86: ii) affordable housing provision, r
- Page 87 and 88: climate change flood event. Details
- Page 89 and 90: The agreed drawings must be approve
- Page 91 and 92: No dwellings shall be constructed w
- Page 95 and 96: Public Session Report Reference Num
- Page 97 and 98: Low Street to the south of the vill
- Page 99: Reason for Refusal 1 The proposal b
- Page 103 and 104: of adoption an indicative capacity
- Page 105 and 106: • Types and Sizes - Affordable Ho
- Page 107 and 108: and that further clarification/evid
- Page 109 and 110: ecording a condition should be appe
- Page 111 and 112: • The provision of well designed
- Page 113 and 114: presented as an Appendix within the
- Page 115 and 116: We support the proposed preservatio
- Page 117 and 118: - When travelling around Leeds and
- Page 119 and 120: - The traffic projections are woefu
- Page 121 and 122: - The Sherburn village centre is al
- Page 123 and 124: determination must be made in accor
- Page 125 and 126: xvi) xvii) xviii) Climate Change, E
- Page 127 and 128: the Regional Spatial Strategy Polic
- Page 129 and 130: 2.9.1 Policy ENV1 (2) states that i
- Page 131 and 132: 2.9.10 In addition the report confi
- Page 133 and 134: 2.9.19 The Travel Plan Framework se
- Page 135 and 136: Phase 1 development on Moor Lane, w
- Page 137 and 138: 2.10.6 In addition, Paragraph 58 of
- Page 139 and 140: is no reason why the likely landsca
- Page 141 and 142: 2.14.2 In terms of flood risk the
- Page 143 and 144: 2.14.15 The application states that
- Page 145 and 146: 2.16.3 The Geoenvironmental Apprais
- Page 147 and 148: stage and a condition can be utilis
- Page 149 and 150: 2.19.9 In commenting on the applica
• The increase in numbers of residents would put the police under<br />
considerable pressures to maintain law <strong>and</strong> order.<br />
• The village facilities at present would not support the influx of<br />
new residents, for example the doctors surgery is full, the police<br />
station is manned by volunteers, there is no fire station, no<br />
public indoor leisure facilities, no household waste recycling<br />
centre <strong>and</strong> no bus services after 7pm or on Sundays. Train<br />
services are limited <strong>and</strong> there is very limited parking at either<br />
South Milford or Sherburn stations.<br />
Whilst some of these problems could be mitigated to some extent by<br />
developer contributions, the basic problem is that village services <strong>and</strong><br />
infrastructure are at <strong>and</strong> beyond capacity <strong>with</strong>out the currently<br />
proposed housing developments which could increase the population of<br />
the village by at least 25%.<br />
The Parish Council therefore does not support the application, <strong>and</strong><br />
request that they are refused on the ground that they are premature<br />
<strong>and</strong> contrary to current policy, will create unacceptable congestion <strong>and</strong><br />
highways safety problems on residential roads <strong>and</strong> in the village centre<br />
<strong>and</strong> will put unacceptable strain on village services, schools <strong>and</strong><br />
facilities.<br />
Further comments were received from the Parish Council on 7 August<br />
2012 relating to highways <strong>and</strong> these can be summarised as follows:<br />
There are significant deficiencies <strong>with</strong> the traffic forecasting <strong>and</strong><br />
modelling work presented in particular the following needs to be<br />
addressed:<br />
• Discrepancies in traffic routing presented.<br />
• Junction blocking <strong>with</strong> Wolsey Court <strong>and</strong> Church Hill.<br />
• Traffic signal capacity modelling incorrect.<br />
• Saturation flows are flawed.<br />
• Intergreens are a significant reduction from the periods required<br />
to allow safe operation of traffic signals <strong>and</strong> NYCC need to<br />
review this.<br />
• Queue lengths presented are inaccurate.<br />
• Pedestrian crossing at Low Street/Moor Lane figures are flawed.<br />
• Sherburn Enterprise Park access will mean more vehicles going<br />
through Sherburn.<br />
• Modelling is not sufficiently robust.<br />
The Parish Council must stress that all we are asking for is a fair <strong>and</strong><br />
accurate assessment of the situation which recognises the reality on<br />
the ground. Video footage presented makes it easy to identify the<br />
number of vehicles which can pass through the Low Street/Moor Lane<br />
junction under congestion type conditions <strong>and</strong> differ from the figures<br />
presented by the developer.<br />
101