Current status
The access road that has been proposed directly opposite the school to form a crossroads with Laurels Farm Drive is going to Selby District Council's planning committee on Wednesday 9th December at 2pm via Microsoft Teams.
Their recommendation is for the APPROVAL of this road!
Details of the event, including an agenda, and the reasons behind the recommendation are on Selby District Council's website
Please get in touch with the members of the planning commitee and ask them to refuse the applications. Details of how to do that are below.
The road access is in twice. Please mention both reference numbers. Reference numbers and links:
If you have not objected to the applications, please do. You can do it from the links above.Alternatively, you can simply email planningcomments@selby.gov.uk and express your objection to this application
Planning Committee
Email your comments to Planning committee members before midnight on Tuesday 8th December
Planning committee meetings are held at 2pm via Microsoft Teams. Details here. More villagers attending this meeting will reinforce the message that the village is against this application. If you can please come along and show your objection to this application.
- Councillor J Cattanach (Chair): jcattanach@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor I Chilvers: ichilvers@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor R Packham: rpackham@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor P Welch: pwelch@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor M Topping: mtopping@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor K Ellis: kellis@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor D Mackay: dbain-mackay@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor S Shaw-Wright: sshaw-wright@selby.gov.uk
- Councillor J Mackman (Vice-Chair): jmackman@selby.gov.uk
jcattanach@selby.gov.uk, ichilvers@selby.gov.uk, rpackham@selby.gov.uk, pwelch@selby.gov.uk, mtopping@selby.gov.uk, kellis@selby.gov.uk, dbain-mackay@selby.gov.uk, sshaw-wright@selby.gov.uk, jmackman@selby.gov.uk
To open an email with these addresses in, click here
Reasons to object
- The related application for the reserved matters has been refused.
- This is the busiest point in the village, with the school, Jigsaws childcare, the village hall, the largest pub, bus stops for public transport and both high schools, and a problematic mini roundabout.
- It is directly opposite an existing road. On construction of the Laurels estate, running sand and gypsum were discovered, leading to the road being closed for many weeks. It caused significant problems for many people in the village regarding transport, access and water supply.
- It was noted in the geotechnical report of the refused application that both gypsum and running sand exist behind the village hall. This would include the proposed access road
- In the refused application, it was stated clearly on page 4 of the planning committee response at outline "The LHA consider a separate access for emergency vehicles should be provided and this could be formed informally along the route of the secondary pedestrian access". Why is this not needed now? It was originally a pedestrian access until the highways assessment 14/10/2015 wanted a secondary access for emergency vehicles .
- This application has been entered for comments during holiday season, in a month when the parish council are not sitting and possibly some councillors may be on holiday. Compounding this with the fact that the school, Jigsaws, the Laurels estate were not directly consulted, this, like the refused application, has not been well consulted, which is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 128
- The traffic survey was conducted in a lockdown when school and nursery only had a few classes. Most people were working from home and therefore were not rushing on their usual commute. Therefore it does not accurately reflect the true speeds of vehicles on Main Street, nor the volume of traffic.
- Emergency vehicles/bin lorries/large vehicles would potentially have to reverse back onto the main road because there’s a pinch point of 4.8 metres. Refuse lorries stipulate that they require 5 metres. Paragraph 110(d) of the NPPF states that developments should "allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; "
- If this is designed to be the main access point for 50 houses, the original proposed layout will not be valid.
- The application mentions similar junctions at Fieldside Court, and another in Cawood. Those are both staggered junctions. This is not.
- Fieldside/Brockley serves 55 houses, with a stagger distance of 11.3m. The Cawood junction mentioned serves 31 houses with a stagger distance of 7.3m. This one would serve 75 houses with a stagger distance of 4.5m - in practice the roads would form a crossroads with 50% more cars than Fieldside/Brockley, making this a more dangerous, and much busier junction, in a much busier part of the village.
- There has been a dog killed whilst on a lead near this proposed road, and a very near miss of a child being dropped off for school.
- There does not seem to have been any accounting for the public footpath, which NYCC have acknowledged is in the wrong place.
- A refusal on development at nearby Hilahgarth commented on the problems with the nature of the road in Church Fenton "01. The proposed development of the site for 3 (no.) dwellings is not considered to be acceptable on highways grounds on the basis that the proposed introduction of three access points onto Main Street Church Fenton from the site would result in highways issues given the character of the road, surrounding uses and the speed of traffic using the road. As such the development is considered to be to be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005), Policy T1 of the of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) and the NPPF"
- The proposed development that this leads to has not had an up to date Flood Risk Assessment. As this development would be in Flood Zone 2, an up to date Flood Risk Assessment is required.
- The Church Fenton Neighbourhood Development Plan is at Regulation Stage 15 which means that it has been submitted to Selby District Council and it is going out to final consultation ont he 18th December.