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 ...
include access on Phase 2 land on land between Moor Lane and Low Street (to the south of the application site) is pending consideration. This application is the subject of a separate report. 1.4 Consultations 1.4.1 Sherburn in Elmet Parish Council: Highways Issues 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. We can state with 100% certainty that neither Bryan G Hall, NYCC nor Optima can produce video footage demonstrating that this approach can handle the amount of traffic they are claiming. A further response was received on 22 August 2012: The Parish Council confirms the comments submitted by Councillor Paul Doherty on 7 August 2012 are the views of the Parish Council and expect the County to provide a response to the issues raised. If the County has evidence that the views we have expressed in relation to highways issues are wrong they must reveal this information. If they cannot dispute the points we raise and do nothing to address the issues then that is maladministration. We remain concerned about the plans for educational provision for Sherburn and we are not convinced that the County Council has had regard to all potential future developments in the village. We rely on the Officers to ensure the County’s proposals are robust and to challenge them if they are not. 176
The Parish Council are not sure what funds will be available or when but additional funds for the benefit of the community are essential if such a large development is allowed. There are various projects ongoing at present. The 106 Agreement should provide as wide as possible a definition for the use of 106 money so it can be spent on whatever the village needs. This might not be recreational open space but may include contributions to various projects currently underway in the village including improvements to the village centre, the opening up and improvement of Sherburn High School facilities to the wider community and improvements within Eversley Park, including potential youth provision. Clearly without knowing how much money will be available and when, it is impossible to be specific but the lack of facilities is there for all to see and if there is to be development improvements are essential through developer contributions. 1.4.2 Selby District Council - Development Policy Local Plan Housing figures were originally based on the County Structure Plan and planned for a higher rate of development than current RSS targets. The Local Plan took consideration of this planned growth and set a target on 600 dwellings per annum (dpa) and allocated land accordingly. The subsequent RSS proposed an annual target of 440 dpa, much lower than the 600 dpa proposed at the start of the Local Plan in 2005. However the SDLP allocations remain based on a higher requirement. SHB/1(B) is a Phase 2 site as set out in Inset map 54 of SDLP. The subject site sits within a Phase 2 allocation. SHB/1(B) Low Street, Sherburn in Elmet has a total area of 39.30 (ha) and at the time of adoption an indicative capacity of 900+ dwellings as set out in Policy H2. H2A sets out the proposed release of Phase 2 sites only after 2006 and only if monitoring shows a potential shortfall of the required annual delivery of 440 in the RSS. At the Full Council Meeting on 13 September 2011, Councillors heard that the Council could no longer demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and must take action to boost land supply in the interim period until such time that the SADPD was adopted (where it would thus provide 15 years supply of land). The Officer’s report sets out that there was less than a 5 years supply of land which meant that Phase 2 sites could be released in accordance with SDLP Policy thus boosting housing land availability. However the Phase 2 sites could in theory deliver over 2000 dwellings which is far in excess of the amount required to boost the 5 years supply in that 18 month period. 177
- 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
- Page 151 and 152: (b) directly related to the develop
- Page 153 and 154: Primary Care Trust 2.22.10 In terms
- Page 155 and 156: floorspace should secure at least 1
- Page 157 and 158: allocated for housing purposes. It
- Page 159 and 160: 2.26.3 The key issues in the determ
- Page 161 and 162: dwellings close to the watercourse
- Page 163 and 164: (3) highway construction details in
- Page 165 and 166: (ii) An independent Stage 2 Safety
- Page 167 and 168: Reason: To safeguard to the rights
- Page 169 and 170: Reason: In the interests of ecology
- Page 171 and 172: 171
- Page 173 and 174: efficiency and cumulative impact th
- Page 175: • Construction would be phased fr
- Page 179 and 180: stronger emphasis on the delivery o
- Page 181 and 182: The Council has no evidence of any
- Page 183 and 184: The proposed development will only
- Page 185 and 186: countryside. The authority will nee
- Page 187 and 188: 1.4.20 Ramblers' Association No res
- Page 189 and 190: - Carousel Walk being opened up int
- Page 191 and 192: - Time frame for development up to
- Page 193 and 194: 2.7 Key Issues • Village Design S
- Page 195 and 196: 2.8.10 Policy H2A was clear that th
- Page 197 and 198: Elmet as being one of the most sust
- Page 199 and 200: an assessment of the cumulative imp
- Page 201 and 202: • Adequate facilities are provide
- Page 203 and 204: 2.9.31 As such the scheme is consid
- Page 205 and 206: • A linear belt of green space re
- Page 207 and 208: The proposals are therefore conside
- Page 209 and 210: watercourses. Furthermore flow atte
- Page 211 and 212: granted subject to conditions to pr
- Page 213 and 214: is in “outline” form details of
- Page 215 and 216: protected during the construction s
- Page 217 and 218: In light of the above, Officers wou
- Page 219 and 220: 2.22.13 The scheme does not include
- Page 221 and 222: Objectors have raised concerns rela
- Page 223 and 224: would provide financial contributio
- Page 225 and 226: 225
include access on Phase 2 l<strong>and</strong> on l<strong>and</strong> between Moor Lane <strong>and</strong> Low<br />
Street (to the south of the application site) is pending consideration.<br />
This application is the subject of a separate report.<br />
1.4 Consultations<br />
1.4.1 Sherburn in Elmet Parish Council:<br />
Highways Issues<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 />
We can state <strong>with</strong> 100% certainty that neither Bryan G Hall, NYCC nor<br />
Optima can produce video footage demonstrating that this approach<br />
can h<strong>and</strong>le the amount of traffic they are claiming.<br />
A further response was received on 22 August 2012:<br />
The Parish Council confirms the comments submitted by Councillor<br />
Paul Doherty on 7 August 2012 are the views of the Parish Council <strong>and</strong><br />
expect the County to provide a response to the issues raised. If the<br />
County has evidence that the views we have expressed in relation to<br />
highways issues are wrong they must reveal this information. If they<br />
cannot dispute the points we raise <strong>and</strong> do nothing to address the<br />
issues then that is maladministration.<br />
We remain concerned about the plans for educational provision for<br />
Sherburn <strong>and</strong> we are not convinced that the County Council has had<br />
regard to all potential future developments in the village. We rely on<br />
the Officers to ensure the County’s proposals are robust <strong>and</strong> to<br />
challenge them if they are not.<br />
176
Change language