Whilst respecting the principals of free speech, Riccall Parish Council expect comments to be decent and inoffensive to others. Any material which the Parish Council considers offensive or defamatory will be removed immediately. This may include all of the comments being removed from certain news stories.

Riccall Public Meeting 18th Feb 2011

Riccall Parish Council has called a Public Meeting to discuss the Selby District Council 'Site Allocations Development Plan Document.' The meeting will take place on Friday 18th February 2011 from 7pm at Riccall Village Institute and aims to provide clear and accurate information about Selby DC proposals for the future use of potential development land in and around Riccall, including the possibility of gypsy and traveller sites.

The meeting will be chaired by Riccall Parish Council, with the following people in attendance:

Andrew McMillan - Senior Development Policy Officer at Selby District Council

County and District Cllr for Riccall - Liz Casling

Nigel Adams MP will provide a statement

Back to all posts

Comments

  1. we are strongly opposed to a traveller site being sitituated in Riccall. The village population is already increasing due to private developoment and with the additiion of this would take away the charm of the village and overload the limited amenities

  2. Judith’s point is valid, our argument is not just against travellers but the proposed permanent housing quotas. Whilst the pubs, shops and restaurants will be delighted to welcome more residents (and I wish them all the success), our schools cannot accommodate any more children so how will this be addressed? Furthermore, they are looking to reduce the bus service which is contradictory to enlarging our village population. We need to concentrate on environmental, fiscal and community issues, not crime and ‘not on my patch’ arguments as these do not wash with the Council.

  3. I am sure we agree that travellers need to go somewhere, but surley the case made by the application is for the travellers to be near all amminities; dare I suggest that a “rural community” does NOT offer them that;far from it; it will streach the already strained services to the limits for its “permanent” residents.

    This will sound cynical I am sure; but I feel that all this offers is a “pretty place” for them to come and go as they please, without real regards to the community.

    Might I also dare suggest that, the outsirks of Selby town gives the travellers ALL that they need.

    After all its not that Selby does not have the sites, is it ?

  4. In addition to my previous comments.

    I would also add that whilst petitions are good and meetings provide a great “mouth piece” for those wnating to express thier concerns about this matter; that I really feel that sending a letter directly to the council, might also make a bigger impact.

    For those “travellers” and or thiere supporters reading this comment; this is not a dig at your life style; it is about protecting ours and trying offer alternative and more acceptable solutions for all concerned.

  5. I have been a resident in Riccall for nearly 5 years. Before I moved to Riccall, it took some time to look for a suible location that me and my wife felt was a suitable village to settle down and start a family, I feel that Riccall has everything we need and its is such a beautiful village. I dont see that letting a travellers site to be built here would do any good at all. If they need amminities, surely Selby is a better location, there is more land and surely the infastructure of selby is far more rubust than an already growing village. I am definately attending the meeting as this village does want this!!!

  6. To an extent I agree with John Stanton’s post above – Selby does have sites. If you read the SADPD you will see that Selby DC have identified 60 possible sites for travellers across the Selby area, not just the two in Riccall. This issue seems to be such a storm in a teacup. I think it very unlikely we will have a travellers site foisted on us when brown field sites have been identifed elsewhere.
    The real issue for me is the amount of new housing – 83 in the SADPD. That’s a lot of people and a lot of cars which we really don’t need.

  7. Sorry, slight amendment to my last post. The village DOES NOT want this to happen!!!

  8. Re the proposed Traveller’s site in Riccall.

    Dictionary definition:-
    Village…...................a self contained district in a rural setting. ——————————————— Self Contained ….... Complete. Having all that is needed.

    Riccall is a definition both

    Expansion of any kind should be discouraged, especially plans that encroach on the village’s building boundary. I’m given to understand that the proposed Traveller’s site at the end of Northfield is in fact outside of the boundary . I do hope this isn’t the first of many projects that will fail to comply with the village’s guidelines.
    Before I came to live in Riccall I lived for forty years in the…. ‘village’ of Brayton. Those years saw Brayton change from a rural village into a suburb of Selby. It would be dreadful if Riccall followed the same path. Perhaps it will one day, through necessity. While there is choice , any scheme that increases the spread of the village should be resisted.

    The present proposal is of particular concern to the residents of Pinfold Close and the surrounding area. The majority of people who live in the Close chose this small, quiet, cul-de-sac road for their retirement years. The road skirts the plot that’s now up for consideration. Not in their wildest dreams did the residents, when purchasing their properties, contemplate the possibility of having a caravan site at the end of their garden. After all, Pinfold Close is on the fringe of the village. The site would cater to Travellers———i.e. people continually on the move. The idea of caravans / towing vehicles/ perhaps dogs and an occasional horse maneuvering Northfield Rd (the gateway to the site) is something else. The road isn’t wide enough to allow even two cars to pass side by side. Not only is Riccall complete and have ‘all that is needed’ but if it is to retain it’s character and it’s status as a beautiful rural village it’s got all that it’s possible to have too.

  9. Here’s a link straight to the Selby DC planning consultation site for the Ricall SADPD, where you can download & comment on the options.

    http://selby.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sadpd_i_and_o/sadpd__io?pointId=1294232201738

  10. I can only reiterate the response made to the SADPD by Riccall Parish Council. Additionally I would add that any site would be in direct opposition to the Riccall Village Design Statement which SDC has already adopted as a development guide. Further, I would question if the criteria set out in government guidelines ref:-
    08GTU05266 are met by either of the proposed Riccall sites – in particular with regard to adequate health provision (especially dentist), secondary education including transport,increased provision for special needs education, visual and acoustic privacy,noise and disturbance to residents (especially with regard to vehicle movements), drainage/sanitation/sewerage/refuse disposal, preservation of the countryside,lighting/light pollution.

  11. Anyone considered or talked to the travellers about what they might want?? or their rights as citizens of this country. This government has ‘done away with a string of measures that were brought in to protect the traveller communities from prejudice and encourage them to settle.’ (The Independent 14/3/11 p.11) The new Localism Bill, will give local communities far more say in the planning process. In these days of equality for minority groups perhaps we should consider our attitudes carefully and learn more about the culture and rich history of the travelling communities before we judge them as people who thief make a mess, de-value our homes and ‘provide donkey rides in the village summer fayre’ all views and much worse that I have heard locally.

  12. It is well known that the foul drainage system in the north of the village is already overloaded and floods during storm conditions. Any further development in this area would compound this problem. One of the main concerns of the Neighbourhood Watch is the traffic congestion, especially around the school. This congestion is already being made worse by the development and housing on Station Road and would only increase with further developments. We are aware that there are other sites earmarked for this purpose which are far more suitable in respect of developed infrastructure and facilities.

  13. Posted by Susanne Goodridge 1 day, 23 hours ago
    Anyone considered or talked to the travellers about what they might want?? or their rights as citizens of this country. This government has ‘done away with a string of measures that were brought in to protect the traveller communities from prejudice and encourage them to settle.’ (The Independent 14/3/11 p.11) The new Localism Bill, will give local communities far more say in the planning process. In these days of equality for minority groups perhaps we should consider our attitudes carefully and learn more about the culture and rich history of the travelling communities before we judge them as people who thief make a mess, de-value our homes and ‘provide donkey rides in the village summer fayre’ all views and much worse that I have heard locally.

    Nice fantasy world you live in. Go to anywhere where travellers have settled, ask the local police about crime, then you will understand the real reason that people do not want travellers here, or i suspect anywhere else.

Post a comment