Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Appleton Roebuck – schedule of comments<br />
Your Name and<br />
Contact Details<br />
Your comments (where relevant: including how we can solve your<br />
concerns<br />
SDC response<br />
Cunane Town<br />
Planning obo<br />
Samuel Smith<br />
Old Brewery<br />
Cunane Town<br />
Planning obo<br />
Samuel Smith<br />
Old Brewery<br />
We have previously expressed concern about the inclusion of Acaster <strong>Selby</strong><br />
within the Appleton Roebuck VDS as there are very major differences between<br />
the two settlements in relation to size, history and current planning policy<br />
considerations. Acaster <strong>Selby</strong> is located partly within the open countryside and<br />
within the Green Belt, it has no defined development limit and should not be<br />
subject to the kind of development pressures that will be relatively greater in<br />
relation to Appleton Roebuck. You will be aware that our client has been forced<br />
to oppose a number of attempts to secure housing development within and<br />
around the settlement of Acaster <strong>Selby</strong> and we are concerned that a VDS should<br />
not encourage further attempts to secure such development.<br />
In various correspondence you have conceded that “Appleton Roebuck” as the<br />
title of the document refers to the Parish and to the community rather than the<br />
physical boundaries of Appleton Roebuck [village] itself. You accept that<br />
Acaster <strong>Selby</strong> and Holme Green are intrinsically linked to the “main village”, from<br />
an historical perspective, but also that they are within the “rural hinterland” of<br />
Appleton Roebuck and you accept there are differences in function and<br />
appearance and that there is an improbability of large development. Keeping in<br />
mind the VDS is an SPD, that is to say a planning document, it is essential that<br />
the highly material differences are emphasised in the text of the document,<br />
which should be amended accordingly.<br />
With regard to the setting out of the VDS, I have major concerns about the<br />
positioning of the section on “infill estates” after those relating to Acaster <strong>Selby</strong><br />
and Holme Green. The section relating to infill estates must form part of the<br />
description of Appleton Roebuck and should at the very least follow on as a sub<br />
section after character area 2: main Street. This will assist further in<br />
The differences in the settlements are<br />
highlighted by the different character areas.<br />
The likelihood or otherwise of large scale<br />
development does not influence the reasoning<br />
behind a VDS. As noted elsewhere in the<br />
objection, the VDS may be used formally in a<br />
planning application and also in influencing<br />
minor development such as replacement doors.<br />
It is unnecessary to repeat national planning<br />
policy in local planning policy, and therefore it<br />
is unnecessary to repeat local policy in SPD.<br />
Nowhere in the VDS does it promote large<br />
scale development. The role and status of the<br />
VDS are clearly set out in the VDS.<br />
Agreed – the infill estates section would<br />
logically be included with the Appleton<br />
Roebuck area, not Acaster <strong>Selby</strong> or Holme<br />
Green.<br />
54
Change language