A PARISH poll may be organised to gauge public reaction to plans to earmark 250 acres of land for up to 2,500 homes on York’s eastern outskirts for housing.
Osbaldwick Independent councillor Mark Warters said he wanted the referendum to be staged over proposals to change the Local Development Framework (LDF), which he claims will “unleash a tidal wave of development” on 250 acres of draft green belt land near the village.
He claimed the loss of the rural setting and local residents’ quality of life would be bad enough in its own right but, coupled with the existing loss of 50 acres of nearby open space for the 540-home Derwenthorpe housing scheme, it becomes “completely unacceptable”.
He also attacked City of York Council’s new Labour cabinet for “side-stepping the normal, accepted route for member debate and recommendation” on the LDF, which sets out the city’s planning ambitions for the next 20 years. He said that instead of going to the all-party LDF working group, Labour was unilaterally presenting its plans to a meeting of the full council tomorrow night.
Coun Warters, who is also chairman of Osbaldwick Parish Council, claimed that for more than two decades, the local authority had maintained that Metcalfe Lane was a recognisable, defendable and enduring green belt boundary when attempting to justify the Derwenthorpe scheme on its western side.
Coun Warters said: “Now, the ‘beast is well and truly out of the box’ and City of York Council, having already secured £5.65 million capital gain with a further £2 million expected for the sale of their own land west of Metcalfe Lane, prepares to unleash a tidal wave of development immediately to the east.” He claimed the authority was failing to consider the welfare of existing local residents in relation to open space provision, amenity provision, traffic generation and air quality issues, and he was therefore proposing to work towards initiating a parish poll – “in effect a referendum to allow local residents to express their view.”
Consultation pledged over new proposals
LABOUR’S cabinet member for city strategy, Coun Dave Merrett, has defended the decision to put the new development proposals straight to full council – and reassured residents there would be full public consultation.
He said the revised proposals – which involved developing land near Osbaldwick in the last five years of the 20-year plan period – were using the same “evidence base” that had already been to the LDF Working Group, albeit using it in a different way.
“However, the main reason for not going through that route is in order to not delay the LDF Core Strategy further,” he said.
“The council’s existing policies are already well out of date, and we are seeing appeal decisions quoting planning inspectors saying they are giving little, even no weight, to those existing policies.
“It is therefore vital we get the new framework in place as soon as possible, otherwise we risk seeing the risk of speculative planning bids coming forward that no one in the city would want to see.”
He said previously that Labour wanted 800 new properties built annually, in line with demand from local businesses, instead of the 575 agreed by the previous Liberal Democrat administration.
However, priority would continue to be given to brownfield sites first.
Property consultant Richard Flanagan said that, without commenting on the Osbaldwick proposals, some tough decisions were needed – possibly including a review of the draft green belt boundaries – if enough housing was to be built to ensure the city’s future prosperity.
He said brownfield sites were “part of the answer but not a panacea”.
We need to talk
ON THE face of it, earmarking green-belt land in Osbaldwick for up to 2,500 new homes might seem to be a step too far. After all, the locals are only just about getting used to the 540 homes being built at Derwenthorpe.
At present, this proposal from the Labour-controlled City of York Council is just that – a suggestion that such land could be offered to developers at some point in the future.
York is a fast-growing city, and new homes will have to be built somewhere. What we need now is an intelligent, grown-up, non-partisan conversation about how and where that might happen. On past experience, such a level-headed discussion is likely to become heated and quarrelsome. That would be a shame and wouldn’t lead anywhere.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel