225 homes plan for Kirkbymoorside set for approval

Gazette & Herald: Coun David Cussons Coun David Cussons

COUNCILLORS will next week decide whether a huge housing development can be built in a Ryedale town on a site which has been dogged by controversy.

Gladman Developments is seeking permission for up to 225 homes at Westfields, in Kirkbymoorside, after rethinking a previously approved scheme which would have included a care complex.

It was given the go-ahead after a councillor who opposed it pressed the wrong voting button.

Planning officials at Ryedale District Council have said Gladman’s latest proposals should go ahead, with a meeting to debate the application being held on Tuesday, as Ryedale does not have a five-year supply of housing land. Kirkbymoorside Town Council has opposed the development and 39 objection letters have been lodged.

The concerns range from the impact on the town’s character, a shortage of local school places, the loss of trees and farmland and potential harm to local footpaths and views across the countryside.

Gladman’s original application, including 210 homes and 50 care apartments for elderly people, was approved last August.

However, committee member Coun David Cussons, who had spoken against the development, inadvertently pressed the “approval” button on the electronic voting system when the time came to make a decision.

Next week’s vote will now be taken on a show of hands, with the mistake leading to two residents submitting an application to Leeds High Court for a judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission.

A report on the new scheme by planning official Shaun Robson said North Yorkshire County Council had raised issues about the care facility previously intended for the Westfields site and was “pleased” it had been withdrawn.

It said Gladman would contribute towards education, road improvements and affordable housing, including land for the local school to expand.

In its objection, the town council said: “The proposal is far in excess of what is suitable for Kirkbymoorside and would have a considerable adverse effect on the environment, while we are concerned it would lead to an unacceptable increase in the level of traffic in the area.”

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

browbeaten says...

0f course it will go ahead. all that lovely council tax to be carved up by North Yorkshire and Ryedale Simple maths 225 houses times an average of £1500 = over £300,000 income a year, oh and I forgot about the rate support grant increase from central government. This getting turned down is as likely as prostitutes voting to close their brothel down !
Democracy in action , I think not .
0f course it will go ahead. all that lovely council tax to be carved up by North Yorkshire and Ryedale Simple maths 225 houses times an average of £1500 = over £300,000 income a year, oh and I forgot about the rate support grant increase from central government. This getting turned down is as likely as prostitutes voting to close their brothel down ! Democracy in action , I think not . browbeaten

4:48pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Roger S says...

Yes we have very little small homebuilding industry left now, a good earner by Ryedale's standards, because the council and the government just wants to pile in the cash in the short term and bully to the people that actually have to try and live locally in the aftermath, not able to hand them a million or two. You can go work for a new supermarket I suppose if you are an incomer unhappy with your subsidised house and benefits. Land allocations are imminent as is a huge scheme in Malton so why lay the doormat for Gladman who don't have a builder lined up as far as we know and could stockpile the land. We spent years making a plan that through thorough consultation said estates bigger than 100 were not suitable for Kirkbymoorside - yet we ignore it. No wonder people think it stinks.
Yes we have very little small homebuilding industry left now, a good earner by Ryedale's standards, because the council and the government just wants to pile in the cash in the short term and bully to the people that actually have to try and live locally in the aftermath, not able to hand them a million or two. You can go work for a new supermarket I suppose if you are an incomer unhappy with your subsidised house and benefits. Land allocations are imminent as is a huge scheme in Malton so why lay the doormat for Gladman who don't have a builder lined up as far as we know and could stockpile the land. We spent years making a plan that through thorough consultation said estates bigger than 100 were not suitable for Kirkbymoorside - yet we ignore it. No wonder people think it stinks. Roger S

9:30pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Brian G0AHC says...

I hope there is a noisy turnout at Lady Lumley's to show what strength of feeling exists. Incremental growth is required for Kirkby, not a 30% increase in size. How can RDC ignore their own Plan? Officers twist their own figures using every argument to persuade us that the Gladman development is the best thing since roast lamb. Makes you wonder who is being fleeced...
I hope there is a noisy turnout at Lady Lumley's to show what strength of feeling exists. Incremental growth is required for Kirkby, not a 30% increase in size. How can RDC ignore their own Plan? Officers twist their own figures using every argument to persuade us that the Gladman development is the best thing since roast lamb. Makes you wonder who is being fleeced... Brian G0AHC

10:45am Fri 31 Jan 14

RooBeck says...

Could the Gazette reporter not gain a name, designation and direct quote from the planning unit, council official who stated this application should go ahead and in what context it was made? More in-depth reporting required here! Also, on who's authority were they making this comment? At the very least, this is likely to stifle debate at next week's meeting and at worst, will stop debate and be obstructive to local democracy. If correct, it appears that officials and officialdom will control this meeting and concerned, local debate/challenge, will come in a poor second! Finally, will information and full costs be disclosed over the legal services, brought about by the error driven procedures of this application and additionally, who will pay for them?
Could the Gazette reporter not gain a name, designation and direct quote from the planning unit, council official who stated this application should go ahead and in what context it was made? More in-depth reporting required here! Also, on who's authority were they making this comment? At the very least, this is likely to stifle debate at next week's meeting and at worst, will stop debate and be obstructive to local democracy. If correct, it appears that officials and officialdom will control this meeting and concerned, local debate/challenge, will come in a poor second! Finally, will information and full costs be disclosed over the legal services, brought about by the error driven procedures of this application and additionally, who will pay for them? RooBeck

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree