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 ...
esult 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 • 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. 26
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 he 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 or 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 confirm 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. 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 27
- Page 1 and 2: Meeting: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: W
- Page 3 and 4: Minutes Planning Committee Venue: C
- Page 5 and 6: 13.1 Application: 2012/0028/COU Loc
- Page 7 and 8: • TAG2 have suggested alternative
- Page 9 and 10: 13.3 Application: 2012/0342/FUL Loc
- Page 11 and 12: Public Speaker - Stephen Fell, Appl
- Page 13 and 14: explained that the proposal was the
- Page 15 and 16: Items for Planning Committee 12 Sep
- Page 17 and 18: Policy Matters Detailed below is th
- Page 21 and 22: Public Session Report Reference Num
- Page 23 and 24: 1.1.5 The site does not contain any
- Page 25: the wider allocation contrary to Pa
- Page 29 and 30: expected to accommodate in the orde
- Page 31 and 32: sufficient sites available within S
- Page 33 and 34: The Council has a 5.57 year supply
- Page 35 and 36: scheme of this size therefore has t
- Page 37 and 38: the site and other panned hedgerows
- Page 39 and 40: een carried out. Although it would
- Page 41 and 42: character of surrounding dwellings
- Page 43 and 44: • It would appear that the develo
- Page 45 and 46: problems for local residents who, f
- Page 47 and 48: 2. The Report allow a further 8 yea
- 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
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 he 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 or<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 confirm the comments submitted by Councillor Paul<br />
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 />
The Parish Council are not sure what funds will be available or when<br />
but additional funds for the benefit of the community are essential if<br />
27