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.

PARISH COUNCILS RESPONSE TO PLANNING APPLICATION

2016/0318/OUT (8/15/459/PA -Outline application to include access(all other matters reserved) for residential development of up to 130 dwellings- Land Off Wheatfields Walk, Riccall.

Riccall Parish Council OBJECTS to the proposal as submitted for the following reasons:

Plan Selby:

Riccall Parish Council took part in the consultation, “Plan Selby” and it is noted that the target for housing in Riccall by 2016 has already been achieved. This one development will take Riccall well over our target for the entire duration of the plan with a further eleven years left to run to 2027. We consider this to be gross over development and disproportionate relative to some of the other DSV’s e.g. Escrick

 

The site is outside the development limits of a Designated Service Village and so is contrary to the Core Strategy policy SP2(c), which now has full weight due to the Council having a 5 year housing supply.

 

Access and highways issues:

Concern is raised at the additional traffic accessing York Road from the one vehicular access to the site which is within close proximity to the junction of the A19.  Access to the A19 is already difficult particularly at peak times and the additional traffic emerging from the development can only exacerbate the situation as currently traffic queuing to access the A19 stretches past the proposed access to and from the site. In addition, traffic entering the village from the A19 may be compromised with traffic turning right across the queuing traffic to enter the development site. NYCC has already commented they feel there is a major concern regarding vehicles wishing to turn right onto the A19 in the report they sent back to the consultants.

 

The emergency access route via Northfield Lane is also seen as problematic as this is a residential area with many parked vehicles limiting the access.

 

The proposed entrance is also close to the access to the Sustrans cycletrack with the route crossing the proposed access. Currently many cyclists park vehicles in the lay-by spilling out along York Road and Holmes Drive as they use the cycle track particularly at weekends.

 

From a Health & Safety point of view this access is not acceptable in its current form for the above reasons.

 

Flood risk :

The site is within Flood Zone 2 as shown on the Environment Agency website, however, within the Flood Risk Assessment, in assessing the site specific flood risk relevant to the development, the Developers Agents have concluded that the site has lower flood risk than EA maps show.  They have then continued to refer to the site as flood zone 1 when describing the risk to the site. We understand that in order to change the flood zones a formal submission challenging EA data would have to be made and as far as we are aware this has not been done. As it is usual for sites in flood zone 2 to require a sequential test we would expect Selby DC to request one under the present flood zone 2.

 

In addition, concern has been raised regarding the cumulative effect on risk of flooding from the numerous developments in Barlby as well as this development as the recent flooding entered Riccall from the Barlby direction.

 

Drainage capacity:

The existing pumping station located on Kelfield Road to which the one on the proposed Wheatland’s estate is to be connected already suffers from capacity issues during periods of heavy rain and regularly overflows raw sewage into neighbouring properties gardens. We understand that Yorkshire water on several occasions have had to tanker away sewage from this pumping station, under the cover of darkness, to prevent raw sewage from contaminating surrounding properties. The proposal to include a 24hour holding well for surface water discharge in our opinion would appear to be totally inadequate for the additional run-off as we all know it can and does rain for days on end and will only get worse due to global warming. Details of access to the pumping station from the development have not been given.

 

Schools:

The ability of the village school to accommodate pupils from 130 extra dwellings from this development and of Barlby High School to accommodate extra pupils from the cumulative  surrounding developments within their in-take area is also a concern.

 

GP surgery :

Currently the surgery is unable to cope with the demand from patients already within the village therefore the ability of the surgery to cope with patients from 130 additional households is another area for genuine concern for Health & Safety of residents.

 

Loss of amenity value:

 The footpaths and walking areas are currently used by many residents on a regular basis, these areas will change with the development into a footpath around an estate which will not have the same value as walking in the countryside. We would expect access to these footpaths to be kept fully open throughout the construction period. In addition, the development will enclose an area of field gardens thus losing amenity value to those using them.

 

Effect on local wildlife:

Both protected species such as bats and great crested newts and deer, hares and barn owls are known to use the proposed development area currently. The construction period will cause disturbance for wildlife and the development will encroach into their habitats and limit the area they frequent and this in turn will affect the amenity value for residents who currently get pleasure from watching the local wildlife.

 

Open spaces:

The Parish Council strongly objects to the open spaces as shown on the plans, in preference  the use of existing facilities provided in the village is encouraged. Past experience has shown problems with management companies charging residents a small fortune and then not keeping these open spaces maintained to a satisfactory standard.

 

We would also like to point out that the application forms and the consultants reports had numerous instances of conflicting details and would like to know how this is validated in the submission process.

It is noted that the application is Outline application to include access (all other matters reserved) and as such we have commented on the principle of development and not details shown in the layout except for the access road as that is stipulated to be part of the application.

To safeguard the provision of the current bus service which is both an asset and a necessity to residents, we request that conditions are attached to any planning approval to stipulate that any construction or delivery vehicles relating to this site, during the development, are restricted to parking within the site at all times. A small development site just along the York Road has caused major problems for the buses getting through due to the construction services parking on York Road, this has resulted in the buses not entering the village, leaving residents stranded.

 

Back to all posts

Post a comment