|
Follow-up letter following plans panel meeting 10-March-2022 |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Dear Mr. Platten,
Racecourse Approach, Wetherby – Ref. 17/02594/OT – Plans Panel – 10th March, 2022.
I am writing on behalf of Better Wetherby Partnership (BW) in connection with last week’s meeting of the North and East Plans Panel (the Panel), where I was deputed by Ward Councillors to make representations along with Peter Catton who was given leave by the Chair to represent Wetherby Civic Society. Taylor Wimpey (TW) also spoke to update the Panel on progress with the Reserved Matters Application(s).
I indicated that BW had several comments on the Officer’s Report but would take more than our allotted time to cover them and I offered to write to you with those comments. In the event I was questioned about them by Cllr. Stephenson and covered them in a fashion but for the avoidance of doubt cover them here with reference to the Officer’s Report.
Page 2 Para 7 – I did not mention this in my answer, however, BW would appreciate being kept advised of future such Positioning or other meetings on the subject of the Reserved Matters Application / progress given the term “in due course” is used in the Report.
Page 3 Para 11 – I highlighted that York Road is now unclassified and as such all responsibilities fall on LCC from the Racecourse Approach roundabout to the Deighton Road junction adjacent Morrisons Filling Station. There had been two (corrected by Cllr. Lamb to three) fatalities on this road and I highlighted that Cllr. Nash had been in contact with the Civic Society. There are no crossings on this road and children from 11-16 will be travelling from the development to Wetherby High School with the possibility of School Bus collection for children travelling to Harrogate schools, on a road with a 40mph limit. Peter Catton went further and highlighted Primary School children travelling to Hallfield Lane and having to cross this road. Cllr Nash responded appropriately. Can I say outside of my comments to Panel, I am aware of similar issues around road layout and safety were raised in connection with the Bellway scheme at Spofforth Hill where there have been two RTA incidents in recent months and where a letter was sent from a resident to the West Yorkshire coroner who responded with an acknowledgement to the effect that in the event of a fatality the design would be an integral part of any inquest. I would strongly suggest that steps are taken to avoid that prospect arising here and, as I advised Panel, I sit on a group working on the new Wetherby High School and I will be raising this at our next meeting on 14th March.
Page 8 Para 35 – I raised the issue of the Construction Management Plan in the light of the woefully inadequate plan for the Bellway scheme which was a standard plan applied Nationwide by the strength of it. This will not do here, especially given the build period to 2036. Bellway have inflicted 40 tonne vehicles in areas of the Town, including the centre with no control or monitoring. BW accepts the Application site is more accessible, however, access needs to be from the A1(M) area and not through or even near the Town Centre. BW would appreciate sight of this document at the appropriate time.
Page 11 Para 44 – The Public Consultation event was on Thursday 10th February, not as stated.
Page 11 Para 45 – Whilst the Report summarises BW comments it does not mention the lengthly letter from BW of 15th February which covered many of the unanswered Consultee comments in connection with each of the Reserved Matter Applications lodged to date and available on the LCC Planning Portal. BW were advised at our meeting with TW on that day that answers were on the Portal and this was repeated at Panel. BW can still not locate these answers from Consultees, nor indeed additional information which tends to suggest the information is either not provided or not posted. Can you help on this as there are currently some rather obvious omissions around such as pollution, to name one.
Page 12 Para 48 – The statement of “No Objections” is incorrect. The consultation from Flood Risk Management actually says they will support the submission but want more details. What clearly would follow is that if details provided do not meet requirements or are flawed then the FLR team would object, that is some way from not objecting, I think you would agree.
Page 12 Para 49 – Whilst there remains a YW objection I highlighted that day’s media coverage that YW amongst others are under investigation for illegal discharges. BW accepts that off site drainage is not necessarily an issue for TW direct but it is a consequence of the development and needs resolution before Reserved Matters consent or there will likely be significant problems.
Page 12 Para 50 – BW wrote to LCC specifically regarding Conditions 31 and 32 following my ‘zoom’ meeting with you and colleagues in January. The current response by your Environmental Studies team seems to suggest that noise has been dealt with as a result of the BW letter of 15th February. This is not the case and at Panel I explained the concerns of BW in regard to both noise (evidenced by residents of the David Wilson scheme at Sandbeck), the fact that Affordable housing is located adjacent to the A1(M) and my previous comments to you regarding the Dutch solutions to motorway noise and particulate pollution. I also underlined this to Panel by highlighting on going maintenance issues with timber fencing. TW said they believed the Air Quality reports were on the LCC portal but BW can find no trace of this. Either way the opinion of BW is that this element is some way from being satisfactory for approval purposes.
Page 13 Para 55 – The report to Panel is incorrect. Footpath 7 should be defined as a Bridleway and Footpath 8 as a Right of Way/Public Footpath. BW are of the view this confusion came about as a result of the PROW consultation by Angela Cookland. Equally Footpath 8 represents the shortest walking distance from the site towards the Town Centre. Might I respectfully suggest Officers revisit the whole of this element especially as Footpath 8 lies outside of TW ownership and control.
Page 13 Para 60 – I repeat the BW comments made in Para 45.
With regard to the remainder of the Officer’s Report to Panel, BW agrees with the content and concerns expressed at various positions from Para 74 and on, especially in the Conclusion section. In many of these respects and set against them, with the potential to affect outcomes, I highlighted to Panel the outcomes of not just the current conflicts but world issues regarding fuel shortages, recession, such as a shorter working week as the 1970’s, together with power cuts and over riding all these, currently, the LCC Climate Emergency which appears to have been paid scant(ish) regard by TW apart from the positive matters they have addressed and which I noted in my letter dated 15th February to yourself.
BW, supported by Peter Catton, raised the issue of emissions generated in material production such as chimney pots and the need to be more creative, this is also specifically raised in the Officer’s Report at Para 108 and 109 as is road safety at Para 118.
I have no wish to repeat other points of the Panel report with which BW agrees but there is a significant amount of progress still to be made. If you can help with an indication of where BW can find the ‘missing’ consultations, that will be helpful.
Finally BW does applaud some of the progress and efforts made by TW, we are grateful comments made by BW at the Design Workshops appear to have been taken on board but this Application does in some parts require more scrutiny from both internal and external Consultees and we trust this will be forthcoming.
Yours Sincerely’
Roger Owen
Chair: Better Wetherby Partnership
Racecourse Approach, Wetherby – Ref. 17/02594/OT – Plans Panel – 10th March, 2022.
I am writing on behalf of Better Wetherby Partnership (BW) in connection with last week’s meeting of the North and East Plans Panel (the Panel), where I was deputed by Ward Councillors to make representations along with Peter Catton who was given leave by the Chair to represent Wetherby Civic Society. Taylor Wimpey (TW) also spoke to update the Panel on progress with the Reserved Matters Application(s).
I indicated that BW had several comments on the Officer’s Report but would take more than our allotted time to cover them and I offered to write to you with those comments. In the event I was questioned about them by Cllr. Stephenson and covered them in a fashion but for the avoidance of doubt cover them here with reference to the Officer’s Report.
Page 2 Para 7 – I did not mention this in my answer, however, BW would appreciate being kept advised of future such Positioning or other meetings on the subject of the Reserved Matters Application / progress given the term “in due course” is used in the Report.
Page 3 Para 11 – I highlighted that York Road is now unclassified and as such all responsibilities fall on LCC from the Racecourse Approach roundabout to the Deighton Road junction adjacent Morrisons Filling Station. There had been two (corrected by Cllr. Lamb to three) fatalities on this road and I highlighted that Cllr. Nash had been in contact with the Civic Society. There are no crossings on this road and children from 11-16 will be travelling from the development to Wetherby High School with the possibility of School Bus collection for children travelling to Harrogate schools, on a road with a 40mph limit. Peter Catton went further and highlighted Primary School children travelling to Hallfield Lane and having to cross this road. Cllr Nash responded appropriately. Can I say outside of my comments to Panel, I am aware of similar issues around road layout and safety were raised in connection with the Bellway scheme at Spofforth Hill where there have been two RTA incidents in recent months and where a letter was sent from a resident to the West Yorkshire coroner who responded with an acknowledgement to the effect that in the event of a fatality the design would be an integral part of any inquest. I would strongly suggest that steps are taken to avoid that prospect arising here and, as I advised Panel, I sit on a group working on the new Wetherby High School and I will be raising this at our next meeting on 14th March.
Page 8 Para 35 – I raised the issue of the Construction Management Plan in the light of the woefully inadequate plan for the Bellway scheme which was a standard plan applied Nationwide by the strength of it. This will not do here, especially given the build period to 2036. Bellway have inflicted 40 tonne vehicles in areas of the Town, including the centre with no control or monitoring. BW accepts the Application site is more accessible, however, access needs to be from the A1(M) area and not through or even near the Town Centre. BW would appreciate sight of this document at the appropriate time.
Page 11 Para 44 – The Public Consultation event was on Thursday 10th February, not as stated.
Page 11 Para 45 – Whilst the Report summarises BW comments it does not mention the lengthly letter from BW of 15th February which covered many of the unanswered Consultee comments in connection with each of the Reserved Matter Applications lodged to date and available on the LCC Planning Portal. BW were advised at our meeting with TW on that day that answers were on the Portal and this was repeated at Panel. BW can still not locate these answers from Consultees, nor indeed additional information which tends to suggest the information is either not provided or not posted. Can you help on this as there are currently some rather obvious omissions around such as pollution, to name one.
Page 12 Para 48 – The statement of “No Objections” is incorrect. The consultation from Flood Risk Management actually says they will support the submission but want more details. What clearly would follow is that if details provided do not meet requirements or are flawed then the FLR team would object, that is some way from not objecting, I think you would agree.
Page 12 Para 49 – Whilst there remains a YW objection I highlighted that day’s media coverage that YW amongst others are under investigation for illegal discharges. BW accepts that off site drainage is not necessarily an issue for TW direct but it is a consequence of the development and needs resolution before Reserved Matters consent or there will likely be significant problems.
Page 12 Para 50 – BW wrote to LCC specifically regarding Conditions 31 and 32 following my ‘zoom’ meeting with you and colleagues in January. The current response by your Environmental Studies team seems to suggest that noise has been dealt with as a result of the BW letter of 15th February. This is not the case and at Panel I explained the concerns of BW in regard to both noise (evidenced by residents of the David Wilson scheme at Sandbeck), the fact that Affordable housing is located adjacent to the A1(M) and my previous comments to you regarding the Dutch solutions to motorway noise and particulate pollution. I also underlined this to Panel by highlighting on going maintenance issues with timber fencing. TW said they believed the Air Quality reports were on the LCC portal but BW can find no trace of this. Either way the opinion of BW is that this element is some way from being satisfactory for approval purposes.
Page 13 Para 55 – The report to Panel is incorrect. Footpath 7 should be defined as a Bridleway and Footpath 8 as a Right of Way/Public Footpath. BW are of the view this confusion came about as a result of the PROW consultation by Angela Cookland. Equally Footpath 8 represents the shortest walking distance from the site towards the Town Centre. Might I respectfully suggest Officers revisit the whole of this element especially as Footpath 8 lies outside of TW ownership and control.
Page 13 Para 60 – I repeat the BW comments made in Para 45.
With regard to the remainder of the Officer’s Report to Panel, BW agrees with the content and concerns expressed at various positions from Para 74 and on, especially in the Conclusion section. In many of these respects and set against them, with the potential to affect outcomes, I highlighted to Panel the outcomes of not just the current conflicts but world issues regarding fuel shortages, recession, such as a shorter working week as the 1970’s, together with power cuts and over riding all these, currently, the LCC Climate Emergency which appears to have been paid scant(ish) regard by TW apart from the positive matters they have addressed and which I noted in my letter dated 15th February to yourself.
BW, supported by Peter Catton, raised the issue of emissions generated in material production such as chimney pots and the need to be more creative, this is also specifically raised in the Officer’s Report at Para 108 and 109 as is road safety at Para 118.
I have no wish to repeat other points of the Panel report with which BW agrees but there is a significant amount of progress still to be made. If you can help with an indication of where BW can find the ‘missing’ consultations, that will be helpful.
Finally BW does applaud some of the progress and efforts made by TW, we are grateful comments made by BW at the Design Workshops appear to have been taken on board but this Application does in some parts require more scrutiny from both internal and external Consultees and we trust this will be forthcoming.
Yours Sincerely’
Roger Owen
Chair: Better Wetherby Partnership
