THERE is no room for three-storey townhouses in Selby district's picturesque village communities.
That's the message from elected councillors who have called for a complete rethink of the council's planning procedures to put a stop to the oversized buildings once and for all.
Councillors defied their own professional officers' advice and threw out controversial plans for a 158-home development in Brayton, near Selby.
But they said the fact that they were even considering the scheme showed just how "out of touch" the council was with residents' concerns about three-storey homes.
District councillor Roy Wilson said: "Communities across the district unanimously oppose these three-storey dwellings. They are right, and we should be listening to their concerns."
Developer George Wimpey North Yorkshire has already won planning permission to build on land off Foxhill Lane, Brayton - but still needs the council to agree specific designs. It proposed building 158 homes on the 12-acre site, including three three-storey apartment blocks, 17 three-storey houses and 80 "two-and-a-half" storey houses, with a storey in the roof.
But hundreds of angry Brayton residents have long argued that such tall houses would be out of keeping with the village bungalows nearby.
Leading campaigner David Dutton, of nearby Moss Green Lane, told councillors at a planning meeting on Wednesday: "We are not opposed to development on that land, but as residents we believe we have a collective responsibility to protect the character of the village - which consists mainly of two-storey houses and bungalows."
Council leader and Brayton resident Mark Crane said: "Anyone who has spent any time in Brayton will know that this development is not in keeping with the village."
Councillors on the planning committee agreed, and said the application had wider implications for future developments.
Coun David McSherry said: "Officers are asking us to grant planning permission for something that is simply wrong, and we all know it."
Coun John Mackman said: "We are ruining communities with developments like these, and we have got to stop and think about what we are doing to them."
Planning permission was deferred, and the developer will now have to rethink its plans for the site.
Updated: 10:22 Friday, October 14, 2005
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article