responses from eryc website re poc land allocations

Draft Allocations & Draft Policies Map.

Draft Allocations & Draft Policies MapEvent Name

Mr C F HughesComment by

DA/912Comment ID

19/03/13 15:49Response Date

Rejected Site POC17r ( View )Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus

LetterSubmission Type

0.3Version

Response

We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to develop the land off the Mile to the northof Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to the west of POC14/17 . At the sametime we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution that could readily accommodate thenumber of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter is therefore in two parts. OBJECTION? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4 made by the developer majored onthe fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided to alleviate the flooding that has beenexperienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past 12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letterdated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were no figures given to back up this proposal.The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceived benefit of the suggested flood attenuationscheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRC Site Assessment document for POC4 whencompared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17r for instance. We understand that undercurrent regulations any developer only has to provide drainage comparable to green field drainage.At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off, from the hard surfaces, of the newdevelopment flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meeting with Stephen Hunt and several of hiscolleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understand that , flood alleviation will not form partof the requirement for this site and that the wording of the discussion document will be amended. Anyflood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies to be carried out in due course by the Counciland the Environment Agency and will be considered outside of POC4/24. We contend that the mainreason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRC own documentation has gone away andthat this Site has no better standing than any other site. In fact, in view of the high landscape character(again the Site Assessment document refers) the site should now be rejected for any development. ?By developing to the north of Pocklington you will be forcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars perday each way) to travel through the town to gain access to the A1079 being the only main road to themajor employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverley and Hull. Development to the south of the townwould avoid this. ? At school times there is traffic congestion on the Mile in the region of the roundaboutwhen parents park their vehicles to drop off their children for the local schools. Before any furtherincrease in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailed traffic assessment should be carried out. ? One ofthe major selling points of Pocklington as a town, to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as abackdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the best outlook in the town and enjoyed by many on theirwalks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside. It is inconceivable that any development shouldstart to erode this outstanding landscape and be allowed to damage the image of the town.SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC 17 now known as POC17r and which abutsPocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and we object to this rejection.This land is deliverable

Powered by Objective Online 4.0 - page 1

http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-OPTION-POC17R#ID-2295915-OPTION-POC17R

and of the right size to provide the same number of houses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a rightof way that that would give site connectivity into Pocklington and the open countryside. It is also closeto the local industrial estate in terms of local employment and in addition there is easy access to theA1079 for commuting to the major employment areas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Localservices such as the proposed new surgery and the Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sportsamenities such as tennis, football, etc.. Taking Pocklington Church as the centre of the town thedistance from POC 17r to this point is less than from POC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on theopen countryside. We therefore propose that part of POC17r be allocated as a preferred siteinstead of POC4/24.




Mrs Elizabeth HughesComment by

DA/1052Comment ID



ProcessedStatus

EmailSubmission Type

0.4Version

Response

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF POC4/24 - THE MILE, POCKLINGTON REJECTION OF POC17r - SOUTH OF POCKLINGTON We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to developthe land off the Mile to the north of Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to thewest of POC14/17 . At the same time we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution thatcould readily accommodate the number of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter istherefore in two parts. OBJECTION ? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4made by the developer majored on the fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided toalleviate the flooding that has been experienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letter dated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were nofigures given to back up this proposal. The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceivedbenefit of the suggested flood attenuation scheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRCSite Assessment document for POC4 when compared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17rfor instance.We understand that under current regulations any developer only has to provide drainagecomparable to green field drainage. At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off,from the hard surfaces, of the new development flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meetingwith Stephen Hunt and several of his colleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understandthat flood alleviation will not form part of the requirement for this site and that the wording of thediscussion document will be amended. Any flood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies tobe carried out in due course by the Council and the Environment Agency and will be considered outsideof POC4/24. We contend that the main reason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRCown documentation has gone away and that this Site has no better standing than any other site. Infact, in view of the high landscape character (again the Site Assessment document refers) the siteshould now be rejected for any development. ? By developing to the north of Pocklington you will beforcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars per day each way) to travel through the town to gainaccess to the A1079 being the only main road to the major employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverleyand Hull. Development to the south of the town would avoid this. ? At school times there is trafficcongestion on the Mile in the region of the roundabout when parents park their vehicles to drop offtheir children for the local schools. Before any further increase in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailedtraffic assessment should be carried out. ? One of the major selling points of Pocklington as a town,to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as a backdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the bestoutlook in the town and enjoyed by many on their walks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside.It is inconceivable that any development should start to erode this outstanding landscape and beallowed to damage the image of the town.. SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC



17 now known as POC17r and which abuts Pocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and weobject to this rejection. This land is deliverable and of the right size to provide the same number ofhouses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a right of way that that would give site connectivity intoPocklington and the open countryside. It is also close to the local industrial estate in terms of localemployment and in addition there is easy access to the A1079 for commuting to the major employmentareas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Local services such as the proposed new surgery andthe Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sports amenities such as tennis, football, etc.. TakingPocklington Church as the centre of the town the distance from POC 17r to this point is less than fromPOC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on the open countryside. We therefore propose that partof POC17r be allocated as a preferred site instead of POC4/24.





DA/1050Comment ID



ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF POC4/24 - THE MILE, POCKLINGTON REJECTION OF POC17r - SOUTH OF POCKLINGTON We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to developthe land off the Mile to the north of Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to thewest of POC14/17 . At the same time we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution thatcould readily accommodate the number of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter istherefore in two parts. OBJECTION ? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4made by the developer majored on the fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided toalleviate the flooding that has been experienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letter dated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were nofigures given to back up this proposal. The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceivedbenefit of the suggested flood attenuation scheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRCSite Assessment document for POC4 when compared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17rfor instance.We understand that under current regulations any developer only has to provide drainagecomparable to green field drainage. At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off,from the hard surfaces, of the new development flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meetingwith Stephen Hunt and several of his colleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understandthat flood alleviation will not form part of the requirement for this site and that the wording of thediscussion document will be amended. Any flood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies tobe carried out in due course by the Council and the Environment Agency and will be considered outsideof POC4/24. We contend that the main reason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRCown documentation has gone away and that this Site has no better standing than any other site. Infact, in view of the high landscape character (again the Site Assessment document refers) the siteshould now be rejected for any development. ? By developing to the north of Pocklington you will beforcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars per day each way) to travel through the town to gainaccess to the A1079 being the only main road to the major employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverleyand Hull. Development to the south of the town would avoid this. ? At school times there is trafficcongestion on the Mile in the region of the roundabout when parents park their vehicles to drop offtheir children for the local schools. Before any further increase in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailedtraffic assessment should be carried out. ? One of the major selling points of Pocklington as a town,to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as a backdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the bestoutlook in the town and enjoyed by many on their walks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside.It is inconceivable that any development should start to erode this outstanding landscape and beallowed to damage the image of the town.. SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC



17 now known as POC17r and which abuts Pocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and weobject to this rejection. This land is deliverable and of the right size to provide the same number ofhouses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a right of way that that would give site connectivity intoPocklington and the open countryside. It is also close to the local industrial estate in terms of localemployment and in addition there is easy access to the A1079 for commuting to the major employmentareas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Local services such as the proposed new surgery andthe Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sports amenities such as tennis, football, etc.. TakingPocklington Church as the centre of the town the distance from POC 17r to this point is less than fromPOC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on the open countryside. We therefore propose that partof POC17r be allocated as a preferred site instead of POC4/24.




Mr Paul WalkerComment by

DA/33Comment ID


Rejected Site POC6 ( View )Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

I am wrting in respect of the draft East Riding development plan, which was approved by cabinet inDecember 2012. I understand the consultation on this document starts tomorrow. In respect to anumber of concerns I have regarding the draft, I wish to raise the following freedom of informationrequest.

May I request the following information:

1a) The information used in your anaylsis to inform the document and the recommendationsto the Dec cabinet meeting which supports why POC5 and POC6 are stated as being locatedin a prominent position at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds. Please advise what information leadto your decision not to describe POC4/24 in the same way.Why is this land in any way differentto POC5 adn POC 6.

1b) In respect to the POC5 and POC6 commetns taken from the document adn shown below,please advise the name of the ERYC officer who's work supports these comments.

1c) POC4/24 is prime agricultural land, but these documents states this land "is not of anyimportance", will you please provide the information which supports this decision and theERYC officer's name who's work supported this description.

(P 331 states: rejected site POC5. Site is located in a prominent position at the foot of the YorkshireWolds, which is an area of high landscape value. Development of the site would detrimentally impactlandscape character, and there are no suitable accesses into the site.

Rejcted site POC6. Site is located in a prominent position at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds, which isan area of high landscape value. Development of teh site would detrimentally impact the landscapecharacter.)

2) In consideration of POC4/24 the site has been accepted at this stage- on (p326) the documentstates "development must incorporate features to store surface water from the site, and flood waterfrom Pocklington Beck, before it enters the town. This will ensure that the development reduces therisk of flooding both the site and in teh rest of the town."

I am in possession of correspondence from the EA to Pocklington Town council that states the run offwater into Pocklington beck from the surrounding landscape is 600,000 cubic meters per inch of rainfall, and Pocklington is likely to flood when the flow through the town culverts exceeds 10,000 cubicmeters per hour. As a meaningful flood mitigation scheme would require storage the size of a resevoir,


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-OPTION-POC6#ID-2295915-OPTION-POC6

why was a significant 13000 sqm scheme supported in this your proposition to the development, andif so are you saying a reservoir would meet with your planning approval, in this area of high landscapevalue.

2a) Will you please provide the flood mitigation analyse which supported the decsion to propse thedeveloper includes flood mitigation and the related information tabled to the cabinet in Dec 2012.

2b) What was the cabinet advised in respect to the POC4/24 flood mitigation scheme.

2c) What scale of flood water mitigation do you (the planning department) recommend is meaningfulthrough excavation, as oppose to flood plain.

2d) Are you proposing a concrete lining and pumping station to keep the capacity available.

2e) do you consider 13000 cubic meters as stated in the document will provide meaningful floodmitigation to Pocklington town and have you agreed this figure with the EA

2f) Did you use a qualified engineer to consider POC4/24 flood mitigation proposal and if so, what isthe ERYC engineers name and related qualification and experience in excavating flood mitigationschemes.

2g) Did you take into account POC4 is situated on land which already floods (I have photographicevidence) and did you make it clear in your reccommendations to the Dec cabinet that POC4 alreadyfloods.

2h) Did you adivse the cabinet that the EA reccommend that new housing developments should notbe buit on land that is likely to flood.

3) POC24 was included in the cabinet Dec mtg but is not included in earlier public information. Willyou please put forward the information which supports why POC24 was added to the developmentplan late and who authorized it's late addition. Please also advise what was the cut off date forapplications to be included in this development plan adn the date the PO24 appliction was receivedand approved for inclusion by ERYC.

4) Will you please forward information received from Pocklington Town Council in respect to proposeddevelopments with the town boundary.

5) I understand that POC4/24 development land is owned by an active supporter of the ConservativeParty, will you please confirm if this fact has been declared to ERYC.

60 Will you please advise who I should contact at the council if I feel there may be evidence offavouritism in respect to the handling of POC4/24 by ERYC.

I appreciate this is a large request and appreciate your help in past in dealing with past correspondence.Thank you for giving this matter your consideration and I look forward to Hearing from you.

REPLIED TO THIS COMMENT VIA EMAIL.





DA/32Comment ID



ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response















DA/31Comment ID



ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response















DA/23Comment ID



ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response














Pocklington and Wolds Gateway Partnership (MrGrahame Hicks)

Comment by

DA/46Comment ID


Policy POC22 - EYMS Bus Station, Station Road(0.23ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

POC 22 is expected to be developed for retail provision. The group welcomes this and sees it as anopportunity to create extra car parking and safe pedestrian access within the development. If the retailprovision is to be single storey, perhaps roof top parking may be an option. Whatever is built there,however, we would like to see a building that is sympathetic in architecture and design with the oldrailway station on the opposite side of the road. It may also be an opportunity to put a pedestriancrossing linking Sainsburys, Aldi and the bus stops with the new development.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC22-EYMS-BUS-STATION-STATION-ROAD-0.23HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC22-EYMS-BUS-STATION-STATION-ROAD-0.23HA-




Comment by

DA/48Comment ID


Policy POC18 - Former School, New Street (0.2ha) (View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

Perhaps the most contentious single issue was the development of POC 18. In the light of recentknowledge and understanding the Pocklington and Wolds Gateway Partnership would recommendretention of this important public facility. Among its many and varied uses it provides 25 car parkingspaces, a youth club, a polling station, and serves as a social centre for the elderly. Moving forwardthese activities will be even more pressing. But perhaps just as important is the future potential. As acommunity and business centre it could help to assimilate and start up new business. Pocklingtoncurrently does not have an ?official? community centre nor business centre and here is a building thatis suitable. In comparison with the cost of a new-build it would seem more sensible to retain it.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC18-FORMER-SCHOOL-NEW-STREET-0.2HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC18-FORMER-SCHOOL-NEW-STREET-0.2HA-



Rev Tony BurdonComment by

DA/13Comment ID


Policy POC8 - Land East of Nine Acres, Burnby Lane(3.6ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus

WebSubmission Type

0.2Version

Response

The reasons given for the rejection of other sites (e.g. POC 6 and POC 7) could equally well apply tothis site, which occupies a position at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds.

In particular, we are concerned that any proposed development on this site would seriously increasethe level of traffic congestion along Burnby Lane.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC8-LAND-EAST-OF-NINE-ACRES-BURNBY-LANE-3.6HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC8-LAND-EAST-OF-NINE-ACRES-BURNBY-LANE-3.6HA-




Comment by

DA/43Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

Cycle Route 66 and the Way of The Roses cycle route bring many visitors to Pocklington and yet thesewill be affected (and possibly threatened) by increased traffic caused by the development of POC 8,POC 2 & POC 3. There is concern at raised traffic in George Street and at the junction with BarmbyRoad. It was recalled that the group had previously suggested a relief road be created from POC 2 toBarmby Road, possibly crossing POC 1. Although existing roads are, in the main, too narrow to providecycle paths we would welcome the addition of cycle paths on the new access roads and whereverelse possible.






Comment by

DA/42Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

Concerns were expressed about access to Primrose Wood from Burnby Lane, especially as it isreasonable to assume increased traffic to the Household Waste Recycling Site from the town. It is feltthat developers of POC 8 should provide a suitable pedestrian access. It has also been suggestedthat a feeder road between Burnby Lane and the Balk should be developed in order to avoid increasedtraffic through Pocklington and Burnby/ Hayton to the A1079.






DA/909Comment ID


Policy POC4/24 - Land North of Mile End Park(7.11ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to develop the land off the Mile to the northof Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to the west of POC14/17 . At the sametime we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution that could readily accommodate thenumber of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter is therefore in two parts. OBJECTION? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4 made by the developer majored onthe fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided to alleviate the flooding that has beenexperienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past 12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letterdated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were no figures given to back up this proposal.The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceived benefit of the suggested flood attenuationscheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRC Site Assessment document for POC4 whencompared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17r for instance. We understand that undercurrent regulations any developer only has to provide drainage comparable to green field drainage.At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off, from the hard surfaces, of the newdevelopment flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meeting with Stephen Hunt and several of hiscolleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understand that , flood alleviation will not form partof the requirement for this site and that the wording of the discussion document will be amended. Anyflood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies to be carried out in due course by the Counciland the Environment Agency and will be considered outside of POC4/24. We contend that the mainreason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRC own documentation has gone away andthat this Site has no better standing than any other site. In fact, in view of the high landscape character(again the Site Assessment document refers) the site should now be rejected for any development. ?By developing to the north of Pocklington you will be forcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars perday each way) to travel through the town to gain access to the A1079 being the only main road to themajor employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverley and Hull. Development to the south of the townwould avoid this. ? At school times there is traffic congestion on the Mile in the region of the roundaboutwhen parents park their vehicles to drop off their children for the local schools. Before any furtherincrease in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailed traffic assessment should be carried out. ? One ofthe major selling points of Pocklington as a town, to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as abackdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the best outlook in the town and enjoyed by many on theirwalks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside. It is inconceivable that any development shouldstart to erode this outstanding landscape and be allowed to damage the image of the town.SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC 17 now known as POC17r and which abuts


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC4-24-LAND-NORTH-OF-MILE-END-PARK-7.11HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC4-24-LAND-NORTH-OF-MILE-END-PARK-7.11HA-

Pocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and we object to this rejection.This land is deliverableand of the right size to provide the same number of houses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a rightof way that that would give site connectivity into Pocklington and the open countryside. It is also closeto the local industrial estate in terms of local employment and in addition there is easy access to theA1079 for commuting to the major employment areas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Localservices such as the proposed new surgery and the Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sportsamenities such as tennis, football, etc.. Taking Pocklington Church as the centre of the town thedistance from POC 17r to this point is less than from POC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on theopen countryside. We therefore propose that part of POC17r be allocated as a preferred siteinstead of POC4/24.




Mrs Elizabeth HughesComment by

DA/1051Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.5Version

Response

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF POC4/24 - THE MILE, POCKLINGTON REJECTION OF POC17r - SOUTH OF POCKLINGTON We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to developthe land off the Mile to the north of Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to thewest of POC14/17 . At the same time we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution thatcould readily accommodate the number of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter istherefore in two parts. OBJECTION ? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4made by the developer majored on the fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided toalleviate the flooding that has been experienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letter dated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were nofigures given to back up this proposal. The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceivedbenefit of the suggested flood attenuation scheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRCSite Assessment document for POC4 when compared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17rfor instance.We understand that under current regulations any developer only has to provide drainagecomparable to green field drainage. At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off,from the hard surfaces, of the new development flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meetingwith Stephen Hunt and several of his colleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understandthat flood alleviation will not form part of the requirement for this site and that the wording of thediscussion document will be amended. Any flood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies tobe carried out in due course by the Council and the Environment Agency and will be considered outsideof POC4/24. We contend that the main reason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRCown documentation has gone away and that this Site has no better standing than any other site. Infact, in view of the high landscape character (again the Site Assessment document refers) the siteshould now be rejected for any development. ? By developing to the north of Pocklington you will beforcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars per day each way) to travel through the town to gainaccess to the A1079 being the only main road to the major employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverleyand Hull. Development to the south of the town would avoid this. ? At school times there is trafficcongestion on the Mile in the region of the roundabout when parents park their vehicles to drop offtheir children for the local schools. Before any further increase in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailedtraffic assessment should be carried out. ? One of the major selling points of Pocklington as a town,to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as a backdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the bestoutlook in the town and enjoyed by many on their walks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside.It is inconceivable that any development should start to erode this outstanding landscape and be



allowed to damage the image of the town.. SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC17 now known as POC17r and which abuts Pocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and weobject to this rejection. This land is deliverable and of the right size to provide the same number ofhouses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a right of way that that would give site connectivity intoPocklington and the open countryside. It is also close to the local industrial estate in terms of localemployment and in addition there is easy access to the A1079 for commuting to the major employmentareas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Local services such as the proposed new surgery andthe Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sports amenities such as tennis, football, etc.. TakingPocklington Church as the centre of the town the distance from POC 17r to this point is less than fromPOC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on the open countryside. We therefore propose that partof POC17r be allocated as a preferred site instead of POC4/24.





DA/1049Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF POC4/24 - THE MILE, POCKLINGTON REJECTION OF POC17r - SOUTH OF POCKLINGTON We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to developthe land off the Mile to the north of Pocklington and also to object to the rejection of the land to thewest of POC14/17 . At the same time we would like to suggest an alternative deliverable solution thatcould readily accommodate the number of houses proposed to be built on POC4/24. This letter istherefore in two parts. OBJECTION ? Presumably to ensure acceptance the presentation on POC4made by the developer majored on the fact that a flood attenuation scheme would be provided toalleviate the flooding that has been experienced in Pocklington in recent years, and in fact in the past12 months. (Geoffrey Prince letter dated 9 October 2012 to Andy Wainwright refers.) There were nofigures given to back up this proposal. The major reason for acceptance of POC4 was the perceivedbenefit of the suggested flood attenuation scheme, and this is borne out by examination of the EYRCSite Assessment document for POC4 when compared to other Site Assessment documents - POC17rfor instance.We understand that under current regulations any developer only has to provide drainagecomparable to green field drainage. At best the small pond suggested would restrict the extra run-off,from the hard surfaces, of the new development flowing into the Pocklington Beck. After a meetingwith Stephen Hunt and several of his colleagues on Wednesday 13 March 2013 we now understandthat flood alleviation will not form part of the requirement for this site and that the wording of thediscussion document will be amended. Any flood alleviation scheme would require detailed studies tobe carried out in due course by the Council and the Environment Agency and will be considered outsideof POC4/24. We contend that the main reason for acceptance of this site as borne out by the EYRCown documentation has gone away and that this Site has no better standing than any other site. Infact, in view of the high landscape character (again the Site Assessment document refers) the siteshould now be rejected for any development. ? By developing to the north of Pocklington you will beforcing increased traffic(potentially 300 cars per day each way) to travel through the town to gainaccess to the A1079 being the only main road to the major employing towns of York, Leeds, Beverleyand Hull. Development to the south of the town would avoid this. ? At school times there is trafficcongestion on the Mile in the region of the roundabout when parents park their vehicles to drop offtheir children for the local schools. Before any further increase in vehicle volumes is allowed a detailedtraffic assessment should be carried out. ? One of the major selling points of Pocklington as a town,to townspeople and tourists alike, is that it has as a backdrop of the Wolds to the north. It is the bestoutlook in the town and enjoyed by many on their walks, cycle rides and drives into the countryside.It is inconceivable that any development should start to erode this outstanding landscape and be



allowed to damage the image of the town.. SUGGESTION The land to the west of POC 14 and POC17 now known as POC17r and which abuts Pocklington Beck has been rejected by the EYRC and weobject to this rejection. This land is deliverable and of the right size to provide the same number ofhouses as proposed for POC4/24. It has a right of way that that would give site connectivity intoPocklington and the open countryside. It is also close to the local industrial estate in terms of localemployment and in addition there is easy access to the A1079 for commuting to the major employmentareas such as Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull. Local services such as the proposed new surgery andthe Sewage Works are nearby, as are local sports amenities such as tennis, football, etc.. TakingPocklington Church as the centre of the town the distance from POC 17r to this point is less than fromPOC4/24. Additionally there is no impact on the open countryside. We therefore propose that partof POC17r be allocated as a preferred site instead of POC4/24.




N MaidwellComment by

DA/707Comment ID


Policy POC4/24 - Land North of Mile End Park (7.11ha)( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

Please note that I oppose and am against development of land upstream and to the north of Pocklingtonin the areas marked as POC 4/24 for the following reasons:

The additional water runoff created upstream to the north of the town is likely to contribute to floodingof our schools and main part of the town. Figures are availiable to support this. Existing developmentsup stream of teh town appear to have already contributed to flooding. Environment Agency and ERYCexperts have agreed that there is a high flood risk in the area.The Natioanl Planning Policy Framework(March 2012) seeks to ensure development is located away from flood risk areas. Building would beon prime agricultural land in an area of high quality at the foot hills of the Wolds (David Hockneycountry) Any development will have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of the landscapeand unique range of wildlife including protected species. Development to the north of the town wouldsignificant ass to vehicular impact past our schools, through the centre of Pocklington to get to themajor routes via the A1079 and proposed bus and railway access, medical and other services. It wouldadd even more strain on local schools, amenities and services that are already under pressure.





Mrs M V HowardComment by

DA/630Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

I understand that it has been proposed that approximately 200 houses be built on the good agriculturalland to the North of Mile End Park in the areas marked as POC/4/24 on the forward plans forPocklington. I strongly oppose these plans for the reasons given below [they are not in order ofimportance]

The additional run off of water, particularly in heavy weather conditions, is very likely to causeflooding in the centre of the town.The land is of very good agricultural quality & in these times of a demand for extra food productionfrom our farmers it seems very retrograde to take such land for housing, when there are`brownfield' areas that should be used for that purpose.Recent development such as that on the Chapel Hill site appears to have contributed to floodingin the area both in the town & in the neighbourhood of Woldgate College.Experts from both the Environment Agency & the East Yorkshire Council have indicated thatthere is a high flood risk in the area.The National Planning Policy Framework [March 2012) seeks to ensure that housing developmentis located away from flood risk areas.Additional housing development at this point would have a dramatically adverse effect on theWolds landscape & on the wildlife associated therewith.There is insufficient employment in the surrounding area to accommodate the extra residents ofemployable age that the proposed scheme would generate, thereby (a) increasing the , commutertraffic on the roads in the vicinity & especially on the A 1079, which is already very heavily used& (b) increasing the traffic & parking problems in the centre of Pocklington.The schools & local amenities in Pocklington & surrounding areas would be overloaded - theyare already very heavily used.If the scheme were to be approved, public transport facilities will have to be considerably improved.At present there are virtually no useful such facilities to the North of Pocklington.

Please give consideration to my objections





R F HowardComment by

DA/629Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

I understand that it has been proposed that approximately 200 houses be built on the good agriculturalland to the North of Mile End Park in the areas marked as POC/4/24 on the forward plans forPocklington. I strongly oppose these plans for the reasons given below [they are not in order ofimportance]

The additional run off of water, particularly in heavy weather conditions, is very likely to causeflooding in the centre of the town.The land is of very good agricultural quality & in these times of a demand for extra food productionfrom our farmers it seems very retrograde to take such land for housing, when there are`brownfield' areas that should be used for that purpose.Recent development such as that on the Chapel Hill site appears to have contributed to floodingin the area both in the town & in the neighbourhood of Woldgate College.Experts from both the Environment Agency & the East Yorkshire Council have indicated thatthere is a high flood risk in the area.The National Planning Policy Framework [March 2012) seeks to ensure that housing developmentis located away from flood risk areas.Additional housing development at this point would have a dramatically adverse effect on theWolds landscape & on the wildlife associated therewith.There is insufficient employment in the surrounding area to accommodate the extra residents ofemployable age that the proposed scheme would generate, thereby (a) increasing the , commutertraffic on the roads in the vicinity & especially on the A 1079, which is already very heavily used& (b) increasing the traffic & parking problems in the centre of Pocklington.The schools & local amenities in Pocklington & surrounding areas would be overloaded - theyare already very heavily used.If the scheme were to be approved, public transport facilities will have to be considerably improved.At present there are virtually no useful such facilities to the North of Pocklington.

Please give consideration to my objections





Mr Tony MargettsComment by

DA/94Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

I am writing in respect of the draft East Riding development Plan, which was approved by cabinet inDecember 2012. I understand that there will be a consultation on this document but there are a numberof concerns regarding the draft that I would like to raise for clarification before the consultation. Inconsidering the possible sites for development in Pocklington the sites POC 5 and POC6 were rejectedfor the following reasons (see P331)

"Rejected Site POC5: Site is located in a prominent position at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds, whichis an area of high landscape value. Development of the site would detrimentally impact landscapecharacter, and there are no suitable accesses into the site."

"Rejected Site POC6: Site is located in a prominent position at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds, whichis an area of high landscape value. Development of the site would detrimentally impact landscapecharacter." In consideration of POC4/24 the site has been accepted at this stage despite also beingof high landscape value and at the foot of the Wolds. Why is it in any way different form POC5 andPOC6? I am also concerned by the language used to discus the increased flood risk presented bydeveloping this site in particular (p326) "Development must incorporate features to store surface waterfrom the site, and flood water from Pocklington Beck, before it enters the town. This will ensure thatthe development reduces the risk of flooding both on the site and in the rest of the town". It is verydifficult to see how developing this site could possibly reduce the risk of flooding to the town (and willalmost certainly increase it) and this sentence appears to link protecting Pocklington from flooding tothis development going ahead. Surely it would be possible to take reasonable steps to reduce floodingwithout building this development?





Mr John BanksComment by

DA/96Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.5Version

Response

We are writing to register our disquiet regarding the above and accordingly we highlight the followingpoints: A).POC 4 should not be dealt with in isolation as has been attempted by Mrs Jibson.You willhave already seen the statement from Owen Robinson ERYC of 4.5.12 " POC4 is outside the`development limits of Pocklington and is therefore regarded as open countryside. Only certain formsof development are supported outside of development limits and this does not normally includedgeneral housing development .In addition the area to the north of Mile End Park and to the east of TheMile is part of the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection. As you note, this is covered by Policy EN 3of the East Yorkshire Borough Wide Local Plan(1997).This `designation' has not changed ,though itwill be reviewed along with all of the other policies in the various Local Plans through the LocalGovernment framework Process. As such we would be unlikely to support the development of POC4 in advance of the allocations DPD being finalised as it is contrary to existing local plan policies". Wenote the matter will now be reviewed in January 2013. B). The hedgerow along the northern boundaryof POC 4 was planted within the last five years and residents of Mile End Park can provide photographsof before and after plantation showing the negative impact this has had on the area along with anecdotalevidence of how this has already impacted greatly on wildlife. It is in any event an "incomplete hedge"which divides the two fields and has already impaired the visual view of the countryside. It is interestingthat this serves no purpose anyway to the landowner- it is an incomplete boundary with the field eitherside of it planted with the same crop with wide areas at each end to allow access for farm machinery.C).The hedge on the western boundary along the Mile has been grown so tall that it obscures previousopen countryside views across the site. Prior to this there were open views for all to enjoy. This is acynical move to create a "parcel "of land along with the planting of an incomplete line of trees / "hedge"across the site itself. Was a hedge planting subsidy paid for this? This is an area iused byPocklingtonians and walkers and there is a nearby public right of way. D). As stated above we arealready concerned about the issue of nature conservation and ecology and it is of note that no ecologicalsurvey has been carried out. In this field we have historically seen buzzards, red kites, lapwings,skylarks, hares, deer, game birds, birds of prey, bats, field mice and owls. These will be lost if thedevelopment is permitted along with the character of the landscape. E.) The pre-planning enquirylodged by Mrs Jibson fails to explain why this site above others is suitable for development.The enquirywrongly states that the WALP is out of date. The comment made that "The site is small and its loss todevelopment would have no discernible impact on the landscape character area and WALP" has notbeen substantiated with hard evidence nor the supply of impact surveys. The proposed developmentwould clearly have a major impact on landscape and access for Pocklingtonians in addition to extending



the town boundary. F). There is also the issue that if development is permitted in a WALP then a flurryof other such applications will be made with a devastating impact on our landscape and wildlife. Thisis contrary to public policy. G) .A further misleading statement contained in the landowners pre-planningapplication that residents of MEP have impaired views across the field and the Wolds landscape dueto fences. The landowner cannot possibly make assertions without visiting each property at MEP andobserving views both from street level in the rear gardens and from upstairs. In any event the rear ofthe gardens that back on to the field have a hedge as a boundary. Fences are used to define boundariesbetween properties. H).The local infrastructure cannot cope and there are already significant safetyproblems. The Mile cannot cope at peak times with the existing volume of traffic including buses dueto school drop off and collections to the three primary schools (two infants one junior) in the very closevicinity. Any development will add dramatically to this problem and compromise safety even further.I).The attempt to "piggy back" flood defences to the application is wholly misconceived and cynical atbest; a subsequent meeting at which the Environment Agency were present on 21 November 2012established that the data supplied was insufficient and deficient in numerous respect which we findvery troubling and had not included fall off from the proposed development .It was concluded at themeeting that the proposal were insufficient and that a small reservoir would be required and that theEA would not support the plan nor would PTC. The pre planning enquiry also fails to deal with thecrucial issue as to who would be responsible for maintenance. J).The drawings included with the plancontradict the written statement that planning would be sought for 85 houses yet the drawing showsonly 53 thus the site would be an intensively packed development. Therefore the drawings aremisleading and contradict assurances that thought would be given to reduce the impact of residentsviews across the Wolds. We also wish to record our disquiet with the exceptionally late notice we havereceived from Pocklington Town Council with regards to planning meetings which is inequitable andcontrary to the principles of natural justice. Importantly we have received no explanation as to why arequest for feedback from ERYC dated 26/10/12 requesting comments by 16.11.12 were not providedto Mile End Park resident until the morning of 16 November and we trust there will be no repeat of thisand that there will now be complete transparency and even handedness.




Mrs Sheila BanksComment by

DA/91Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

Re Response to Planning Enquiry and Potential Application at land east and North of Mile EndPark Pocklington POC 4 We are writing to register our disquiet regarding the above and accordinglywe highlight the following points: A).POC 4 should not be dealt with in isolation as has been attemptedby Mrs Jibson.You will have already seen the statement from Owen Robinson ERYC of 4.5.12 " POC4is outside the ?development limits of Pocklington and is therefore regarded as open countryside. Onlycertain forms of development are supported outside of development limits and this does not normallyincluded general housing development .In addition the area to the north of Mile End Park and to theeast of The Mile is part of the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection. As you note, this is covered byPolicy EN 3 of the East Yorkshire Borough Wide Local Plan(1997).This ?designation' has not changed,though it will be reviewed along with all of the other policies in the various Local Plans through theLocal Government framework Process. As such we would be unlikely to support the development ofPOC 4 in advance of the allocations DPD being finalised as it is contrary to existing local plan policies".We note the matter will now be reviewed in January 2013. B). The hedgerow along the northernboundary of POC 4 was planted within the last five years and residents of Mile End Park can providephotographs of before and after plantation showing the negative impact this has had on the area alongwith anecdotal evidence of how this has already impacted greatly on wildlife. It is in any event an"incomplete hedge" which divides the two fields and has already impaired the visual view of thecountryside. It is interesting that this serves no purpose anyway to the landowner- it is an incompleteboundary with the field either side of it planted with the same crop with wide areas at each end to allowaccess for farm machinery. C). The hedge on the western boundary along the Mile has been grownso tall that it obscures previous open countryside views across the site. Prior to this there were openviews for all to enjoy. This is a cynical move to create a "parcel "of land along with the planting of anincomplete line of trees / "hedge" across the site itself. Was a hedge planting subsidy paid for this?This is an area iused by Pocklingtonians and walkers and there is a nearby public right of way. D). Asstated above we are already concerned about the issue of nature conservation and ecology and it isof note that no ecological survey has been carried out. In this field we have historically seen buzzards,red kites, lapwings, skylarks, hares, deer, game birds, birds of prey, bats, field mice and owls. Thesewill be lost if the development is permitted along with the character of the landscape. E.) Thepre-planning enquiry lodged by Mrs Jibson fails to explain why this site above others is suitable fordevelopment. The enquiry wrongly states that the WALP is out of date. The comment made that "Thesite is small and its loss to development would have no discernible impact on the landscape characterarea and WALP" has not been substantiated with hard evidence nor the supply of impact surveys.The



proposed development would clearly have a major impact on landscape and access for Pocklingtoniansin addition to extending the town boundary. F). There is also the issue that if development is permittedin a WALP then a flurry of other such applications will be made with a devastating impact on ourlandscape and wildlife. This is contrary to public policy. G) .A further misleading statement containedin the landowners pre-planning application that residents of MEP have impaired views across the fieldand the Wolds landscape due to fences. The landowner cannot possibly make assertions withoutvisiting each property at MEP and observing views both from street level in the rear gardens and fromupstairs. In any event the rear of the gardens that back on to the field have a hedge as a boundary.Fences are used to define boundaries between properties. H).The local infrastructure cannot copeand there are already significant safety problems.The Mile cannot cope at peak times with the existingvolume of traffic including buses due to school drop off and collections to the three primary schools(two infants one junior) in the very close vicinity. Any development will add dramatically to this problemand compromise safety even further. I).The attempt to "piggy back" flood defences to the applicationis wholly misconceived and cynical at best; a subsequent meeting at which the Environment Agencywere present on 21 November 2012 established that the data supplied was insufficient and deficientin numerous respect which we find very troubling and had not included fall off from the proposeddevelopment .It was concluded at the meeting that the proposal were insufficient and that a smallreservoir would be required and that the EA would not support the plan nor would PTC. The preplanning enquiry also fails to deal with the crucial issue as to who would be responsible for maintenance.J).The drawings included with the plan contradict the written statement that planning would be soughtfor 85 houses yet the drawing shows only 53 thus the site would be an intensively packed development.Therefore the drawings are misleading and contradict assurances that thought would be given toreduce the impact of residents views across the Wolds. We also wish to record our disquiet with theexceptionally late notice we have received from Pocklington Town Council with regards to planningmeetings which is inequitable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Importantly we havereceived no explanation as to why a request for feedback from ERYC dated 26/10/12 requestingcomments by 16.11.12 were not provided to Mile End Park resident until the morning of 16 Novemberand we trust there will be no repeat of this and that there will now be complete transparency and evenhandedness. Re LDF LAND BID ALLOCATION-POCKLINGTON We refer to the above and wouldask that the land at POC 4/24 Pocklington is re-allocated within your proposed allocation scheme.Section 8.24 clearly states" land of Yorkshire Wolds which rises up from the North East of the town isof high quality... and that development that might impact on its character should be avoided... similarly,excessive or unnecessary extension of built form into open countryside, floodrisk...... have also beendeciding factors in determining location of proposed allocation" .On this basis POC/4/24 should havebeen rejected. The fact it has not shows that the allocation process used is inconsistent. The followinghas not been taken into account: 1. POC/24 is within a WALP. This status has been omitted . 2. Thelandscape of Yorkshire Wolds rises up from POC4/24 and is of high quality and is in a prominentposition 3. Therefore any development will have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character ofthe landscape. 4 .Any development will extend the boundary of the town into the countryside 6. Thereis a high flood risk within this site.We would refer to the meeting of 21 November with the EnvironmentAgency and ERYC expert during which it was concluded that a small reservoir would be required toalleviate flooding. As a result this contradicts section 8.28 namely that the site must be able to provideflood alleviation that is of benefit to the site and the town. 7. Any development would significant addto vehicular impact .The Mile is already suffering from traffic safety and congestion issues . We alsorefer to the section within the LDF Land Bid Document entitled "What you told us". This clearly statesresident told ERYC: 1. Development should avoid risk of flood. 2. Major developments should be southof the town. 3. Development should not be allowed to extend into The Wolds. These numberedstatements have not been taken into account in relation to POC 4/24. We would ask that POC 4/24be rejected for the above reasons and cannot see why it has not been rejected in line with other sitesspecifically POC3R, POC6 and POC7.The common reasons being the build would unduly extend intoopen high value countryside / agricultural land and impact dramatically on its character.




Erika and Richard WillimanComment by

DA/98Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

We refer to the above and would ask that the land at POC 4/24 Pocklington is re-allocated within yourproposed allocation scheme. Section 8.24 clearly states" land of Yorkshire Wolds which rises up fromthe North East of the town is of high quality... and that development that might impact on its charactershould be avoided... similarly, excessive or unnecessary extension of built form into open countryside,floodrisk...... have also been deciding factors in determining location of proposed allocation" .On thisbasis POC/4/24 should have been rejected. The fact it has not shows that the allocation process usedis inconsistent.The following has not been taken into account: 1. POC/24 is within a WALP.This statushas been omitted .

2.The landscape of Yorkshire Wolds rises up from POC4/24 and is of high quality and is in a prominentposition

3. Therefore any development will have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of thelandscape.

4 .Any development will extend the boundary of the town into the countryside

6. There is a high flood risk within this site. We would refer to the meeting of 21 November with theEnvironment Agency and ERYC expert during which it was concluded that a small reservoir would berequired to alleviate flooding. As a result this contradicts section 8.28 namely that the site must beable to provide flood alleviation that is of benefit to the site and the town.

7. Any development would significant add to vehicular impact .The Mile is already suffering from trafficsafety and congestion issues . We also refer to the section within the LDF Land Bid Document entitled"What you told us". This clearly states resident told ERYC: 1. Development should avoid risk of flood.2. Major developments should be south of the town. 3. Development should not be allowed to extendinto The Wolds. These numbered statements have not been taken into account in relation to POC4/24. We would ask that POC 4/24 be rejected for the above reasons and cannot see why it has notbeen rejected in line with other sites specifically POC3R, POC6 and POC7.





Mr & Mrs RuddComment by

DA/1089Comment ID


Policy POC3 Land North of Andrews Court YaphamRoad (3.4ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons: Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more. Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained. The density of the proposedhousing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing in Pocklington is already situated tothe N and NE this development would add even more strain on local schools, amenities and servicesthat are already under pressure. Building would be on prime agricultural land in an area of high qualityat the foothills of the Wolds. Such a large development would have a dramatic and adverse effectupon the character of the landscape and on wildlife. It would also set a precedent for future land grabsto the north of Pocklington. I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential to createsurface water flooding in this area. (Note 8.25)

Also I think the developments should be kept to the south and east of the town mainly on the old airfieldwith better access to the main A1079 and save the better agricultural land to the north.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC3-LAND-NORTH-OF-ANDREWS-COURT-YAPHAM-ROAD-3.4HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC3-LAND-NORTH-OF-ANDREWS-COURT-YAPHAM-ROAD-3.4HA-



Mrs K J EttyComment by

DA/1087Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






Mr & Mrs RussellComment by

DA/1086Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






Mrs Rachel StonehamComment by

DA/1075Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






G UttleyComment by

DA/1073Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mrs B E SimpsonComment by

DA/1071Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






Mr Paul BrookeComment by

DA/1068Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mr M J DaviesComment by

DA/1062Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response


The infrastructure for providing water, sewage gas and electricity would be a major issue for this largedevelopment. Can these existing services coupe for the development without adversely affecting thepresent environment.

There has never been, as far as I am aware, been any gliding incident in this area, however there isalways a first time. This new development is directly under the flight landing path for gliders from thePocklington Gliding Club. No matter how safe there is always the potential for an incident what wouldbe devastating.





Emma WatsonComment by

DA/989Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr and Mrs J G TerryComment by

DA/998Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

The filed behind us wanting a large development of 350 houses to be built. If four people to each housethat is 1,400 people. The sewerage station near us has problem they are there most weeks so howcan it take more.

Also we have a large amount of wildlife foxes hares hedgehogs birds of prey woodpeckers deer andmany more.

It will also affect schools h/services parking. Pocklington is a market town and thats how we would likeit to stay.






S L and C M HollingComment by

DA/1059Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr Brian LarcumComment by

DA/1056Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mr & Mrs TinsonComment by

DA/987Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






B.A MorleyComment by

DA/983Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






Pauline StaveleyComment by

DA/982Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






L StaveleyComment by

DA/981Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






David, Paul and Shirley NewsomeComment by

DA/914Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






A FleethamComment by

DA/896Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Derek PennockComment by

DA/1034Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons: Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more. Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained. The density of the proposedhousing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing in Pocklington is already situated tothe N and NE this development would add even more strain on local schools, amenities and servicesthat are already under pressure.

Building would be on prime agricultural land in an area of high quality at the foothills of the Wolds.Such a large development would have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of thelandscape and on wildlife. It would also set a precedent for future land grabs to the north of Pocklington.I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential to create surface water flooding in thisarea. (Note 8.25)





Carolyn PennockComment by

DA/1033Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response







Mr & Mrs E.T BarkerComment by

DA/1030Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons:

Development to the north of the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicularimpact both through and in the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical,leisure and other services all of which are sited there - and with planning for more.

Vehicles would attempt to avoid existing congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction bycutting through the residential areas of Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posingincreased danger, noise and pollution to residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorlymaintained.

The density of the proposed housing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing inPocklington is already situated to the N and NE this development would add even more strain on localschools, amenities and services that are already under pressure.

Building would be on prime agricultural land in an area of high quality at the foothills of the Wolds.Such a large development would have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of thelandscape and on wildlife. It would also set a precedent for future land grabs to the north of Pocklington.

I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential to create surface water flooding in thisarea. (Note 8.25)





Mr Malcolm RowleyComment by

DA/1026Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response











Mrs Tina DennisComment by

DA/846Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

The proposed development of POC 2 & 3, North end of town, on farm, Yapham Road, approximately350 houses . Most household will have at least one vehicle and more; in order to go to work in thesurrounding cities, like York,Hull, Leeds etc. The additional vehicular traffic will cause further trafficcongestion to George Street and the town, as all vehicles have to come through there to access shops,doctors, dentists, buses and all other services. Currently, very few vehicles observe the 30mph limitand they do not stop at pedestrian crossing. The greater population of Pocklington is situated in theNorth end of town and is mostly elderly, some disabled and vulnerable people who would be stronglyaffected, but probably unable to voice their concerns. Particularly the residents in Sherbuttgate Roadarea and associated streets who would see increased traffic using it as a ?rat' run. The traffic throughBarmby Road and Barmby Moor village to access A1079 would also greatly increase. The South endof town is more naturally linked with trunk roads and services and amenities. This is an area prone toflooding. A dense housing and or new access road to ease congestion will cause further drainage andsewerage problem to whole of the town. The proposed amount of land does not support new jobs andeconomic growth as few jobs are available in the immediate area as mentioned above. Most peoplewould need to travel, thereby burdening A1079 even further.You said that you would listen to ourconcerns in the Core Strategy Further Consultation. I do not feel that our views have been taken intoaccount.





Mr Alan DennisComment by

DA/1017Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

I have had trouble logging on to the interactive portal to make my comments - as well as being unableto make out the details on your very bad, indistinct maps. Ref. POC 2 & 3 of the Housing AllocationPlan Please note that I am opposed the proposed development of the land to the south of SherbuttgateFarm, in the areas marked as POC2 and POC3 of your plans, on either side of Yapham Road, for thefollowing reasons: * Development to the north of the town would significantly add to the vehicularimpact both through and in the centre of Pocklington, causing greater traffic congestion as morevehicles try to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and other services, all of which aresited to the south - and with planning for more retail on the bus depot! * In addition vehicles wouldattempt to avoid the existing congestion and problems at the George Street/Barmby Road junction bycutting through the residential areas of Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, to andfrom Barmby Road.This would pose increased danger, noise and pollution to residents, many of whomare elderly and chose to live here because of the safety and calm. * The roads are already too narrowand poorly maintained and large trucks use them increasingly. * The sight lines for vehicles turningonto Barmby Road are already a hazard thanks to bus stops and parked vehicles. * There is little workopportunity in Pocklington therefore people moving into such a development would be commuting towork. As there is no transport/bus service available here, so more cars will be on the road. * Thedensity of the proposed housing is too great. The vast majority of residential housing in Pocklingtonis already situated to the N and NE and this development would add even more strain on local schools,leisure amenities and health services that are already under pressure. 350 houses is equivalent to agood sized village in its own right and it is ridiculous to propose adding such numbers to the northernoutskirts of the town with no provision for improved transport infrastructure. * Building would be onprime agricultural land in an area of high quality looking to the foothills of the Wolds. Such a largedevelopment would have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of the landscape and onwildlife. It would set a precedent for future land grabs of good open land to the north of Pocklington. *I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential for such a large development to createsurface water/sewage flooding in this area - a sight we see too frequently now thanks to badplanning/housing developments. They don't have to be on a flood plain for such problems to occur.Not enough thought has been given to the problems outlined above and the impact on those whoalready live in the area.






Comment by

DA/45Comment ID


Policy POC3 Land North of Andrews Court Yapham Road(3.4ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mr & Mrs RuddComment by

DA/1090Comment ID


Policy POC2 Land South of Sherbuttfields Farm,Yapham Road (11.94ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.6Version

Response


Also I think the developments should be kept to the south and east of the town mainly on the old airfieldwith better access to the main A1079 and save the better agricultural land to the north.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-POLICY-POC2-LAND-SOUTH-OF-SHERBUTTFIELDS-FARM-YAPHAM-ROAD-11.94HA-#ID-2295915-POLICY-POC2-LAND-SOUTH-OF-SHERBUTTFIELDS-FARM-YAPHAM-ROAD-11.94HA-



Mrs K J EttyComment by

DA/1088Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr & Mrs RussellComment by

DA/1085Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






Mrs Rachel StonehamComment by

DA/1074Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response






G UttleyComment by

DA/1072Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mrs B E SimpsonComment by

DA/1070Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr Paul BrookeComment by

DA/1067Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mr M J DaviesComment by

DA/1061Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response


The infrastructure for providing water, sewage gas and electricity would be a major issue for this largedevelopment. Can these existing services coupe for the development without adversely affecting thepresent environment.

There has never been, as far as I am aware, been any gliding incident in this area, however there isalways a first time. This new development is directly under the flight landing path for gliders from thePocklington Gliding Club. No matter how safe there is always the potential for an incident what wouldbe devastating.





Emma WatsonComment by

DA/988Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr and Mrs J G TerryComment by

DA/997Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response

The filed behind us wanting a large development of 350 houses to be built. If four people to each housethat is 1,400 people. The sewerage station near us has problem they are there most weeks so howcan it take more.

Also we have a large amount of wildlife foxes hares hedgehogs birds of prey woodpeckers deer andmany more.

It will also affect schools h/services parking. Pocklington is a market town and thats how we would likeit to stay.






S L and C M HollingComment by

DA/1058Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Mr Brian LarcumComment by

DA/1055Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons:Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more.Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained.The density of the proposedhousing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing in Pocklington is already situated tothe N and NE this development would add even more strain on local schools, amenities and servicesthat are already under pressure.Building would be on prime agricultural land in an area of high qualityat the foothills of the Wolds. Such a large development would have a dramatic and adverse effectupon the character of the landscape and on wildlife. It would also set a precedent for future land grabsto the north of Pocklington.I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential to createsurface water flooding in this area. (Note 8.25)





Mr & Mrs TinsonComment by

DA/986Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






B.A MorleyComment by

DA/984Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons: Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more. Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained. The density of the proposedhousing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing in Pocklington is already situated tothe N and NE this development would add even more strain on local schools, amenities and servicesthat are already under pressure. Building would be on prime agricultural land in an area of high qualityat the foothills of the Wolds. Such a large development would have a dramatic and adverse effectupon the character of the landscape and on wildlife. It would also set a precedent for future land grabsto the north of Pocklington.






L StaveleyComment by

DA/979Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons: Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more. Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained.

The density of the proposed housing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing inPocklington is already situated to the N and NE this development would add even more strain on localschools, amenities and services that are already under pressure. Building would be on prime agriculturalland in an area of high quality at the foothills of the Wolds. Such a large development would have adramatic and adverse effect upon the character of the landscape and on wildlife. It would also set aprecedent for future land grabs to the north of Pocklington.I am also concerned about drainage issuesand the potential to create surface water flooding in this area. (Note 8.25)





Pauline StaveleyComment by

DA/980Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

Please note that I oppose the proposed development of land to the south of Sherbuttgate Farm, in theareas marked as POC2 and /POC 3 of your plans, for the following reasons: Development to the northof the town would significantly add to the traffic congestion and the vehicular impact both through andin the centre of Pocklington trying to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and otherservices all of which are sited there - and with planning for more. Vehicles would attempt to avoidexisting congestion at the George Street/Barmby Road junction by cutting through the residential areasof Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, posing increased danger, noise and pollutionto residents. The roads here are already narrow and poorly maintained.

The density of the proposed housing is too great. As the vast majority of residential housing inPocklington is already situated to the N and NE this development would add even more strain on localschools, amenities and services that are already under pressure. Building would be on prime agriculturalland in an area of high quality at the foothills of the Wolds. Such a large development would have adramatic and adverse effect upon the character of the landscape and on wildlife. It would also set aprecedent for future land grabs to the north of Pocklington. I am also concerned about drainage issuesand the potential to create surface water flooding in this area. (Note 8.25)





David, Paul and Shirley NewsomeComment by

DA/913Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






A FleethamComment by

DA/895Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response






Derek PennockComment by

DA/1032Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response







Carolyn PennockComment by

DA/1031Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response







Mr & Mrs E.T BarkerComment by

DA/1029Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response











Mr Malcolm RowleyComment by

DA/1024Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response











Mrs Tina DennisComment by

DA/845Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.2Version

Response

The proposed development of POC 2 & 3, North end of town, on farm, Yapham Road, approximately350 houses .Most household will have at least one vehicle and more; in order to go to work in thesurrounding cities, like York,Hull, Leeds etc. The additional vehicular traffic will cause further trafficcongestion to George Street and the town, as all vehicles have tocome through there to access shops,doctors, dentists, buses and all other services.Currently, very few vehicles observe the 30mph limitand they do not stop at pedestrian crossing. The greater population of Pocklington is situated in theNorth end of town and is mostly elderly, some disabled and vulnerable people who would be stronglyaffected, but probably unable to voice their concerns.Particularly the residents in Sherbuttgate Roadarea and associated streets who would see increased traffic using it as a ?rat' run. The traffic throughBarmby Road and Barmby Moor village to access A1079 would also greatly increase.The South endof town is more naturally linked with trunk roads and services and amenities.This is an area prone toflooding. A dense housing and or new access road to ease congestion will cause further drainage andsewerage problem to whole of the town.The proposed amount of land does not support new jobs andeconomic growth as few jobs are available in the immediate area as mentioned above. Most peoplewould need to travel, thereby burdening A1079 even further.You said that you would listen to ourconcerns in the Core Strategy Further Consultation. I do not feel that our views have been taken intoaccount.





Mr Alan DennisComment by

DA/1016Comment ID



Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.3Version

Response

I have had trouble logging on to the interactive portal to make my comments - as well as being unableto make out the details on your very bad, indistinct maps. Ref. POC 2 & 3 of the Housing AllocationPlan Please note that I am opposed the proposed development of the land to the south of SherbuttgateFarm, in the areas marked as POC2 and POC3 of your plans, on either side of Yapham Road, for thefollowing reasons: * Development to the north of the town would significantly add to the vehicularimpact both through and in the centre of Pocklington, causing greater traffic congestion as morevehicles try to access the A1079 and the shops, medical, leisure and other services, all of which aresited to the south - and with planning for more retail on the bus depot! * In addition vehicles wouldattempt to avoid the existing congestion and problems at the George Street/Barmby Road junction bycutting through the residential areas of Sherbuttgate North and South, as already happens, to andfrom Barmby Road.This would pose increased danger, noise and pollution to residents, many of whomare elderly and chose to live here because of the safety and calm. * The roads are already too narrowand poorly maintained and large trucks use them increasingly. * The sight lines for vehicles turningonto Barmby Road are already a hazard thanks to bus stops and parked vehicles. * There is little workopportunity in Pocklington therefore people moving into such a development would be commuting towork. As there is no transport/bus service available here, so more cars will be on the road. * Thedensity of the proposed housing is too great. The vast majority of residential housing in Pocklingtonis already situated to the N and NE and this development would add even more strain on local schools,leisure amenities and health services that are already under pressure. 350 houses is equivalent to agood sized village in its own right and it is ridiculous to propose adding such numbers to the northernoutskirts of the town with no provision for improved transport infrastructure. * Building would be onprime agricultural land in an area of high quality looking to the foothills of the Wolds. Such a largedevelopment would have a dramatic and adverse effect upon the character of the landscape and onwildlife. It would set a precedent for future land grabs of good open land to the north of Pocklington. *I am also concerned about drainage issues and the potential for such a large development to createsurface water/sewage flooding in this area - a sight we see too frequently now thanks to badplanning/housing developments. They don't have to be on a flood plain for such problems to occur.Not enough thought has been given to the problems outlined above and the impact on those whoalready live in the area.






Comment by

DA/44Comment ID


Policy POC2 Land South of Sherbuttfields Farm, YaphamRoad (11.94ha) ( View )

Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus


0.4Version

Response






Mr Stephen RidsdaleComment by

DA/2Comment ID


8.23 Paragraph ( View )Consultation Point

ProcessedStatus

WebSubmission Type

0.4Version

Response

This comment relates to all the proposed housing at Pocklington for Policies Poc 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 14,17. Policies Poc 4 and 24 have inclded some provision for flood water storage, and so the belowcomments may not be as applicable to these proposed developments. Downstream of Pocklington,the Pocklington/Bielby beck has in the past flooded many properties in the Bielby/Thornton area. It isnot unusual for these properties to be at high risk of flooding several times per year. The Bielby Beckis already at total capacity and cannot take any more water. Housing development at Pocklington willincrease the water entering Pocklington (and hence Bielby) Beck. Rapid surface water drainage canbe mitigated by incorporating regional sustainable drainage systems (it must be a condition of anyplanning permission that these are not just installed, but also maintained ). There are housingdevelopments in the York area which have these drainage features, but are not maintained properlywhich is currently causing problems for the Ouse internal drainage board). However, it is not justsurface water run-off which adds to the water entering the Pocklington Beck. Foul water from sinks,toilets, baths etc. all goes into the Pocklington sewage treatment plant which then outflows into thebeck. This is all additional water (to rain water) which enters the beck and would not do so if itwere not for the proposed extra housing .

As stated above, properties downstream of Pocklington are regularly on the verge to flooding at timesof high rainfall. For the reasons outlined above any extra housing development is wholy inappropriateand will increase the risk of flooding these downstream properties .

If the current proposals for 1250 houses at Pocklington remain unchanged, then I would like thechairperson of the committee responsible for making this decision to contact me in person and explainhow they think it is reasonable to increase the flood risk of my property.

Propsal to mitigate the flooding problem at Bielby.

Downstream of Bielby, the Bielby Beck flows underneath the Pocklingotn Canal through a culvert. This culvert is not large enough to take the required capacity at times of high rainfall, and as a resultthe water is prevented from flowing properly. If housing development happens at Pocklington thecapacity of this culvert must be increased. I believe that the culvert belongs to the Canal And RiverTrust (formerly British Waterways Board), but the cost of increasing the capacity of this culvert couldbe born by the housing developers). Please contact me to discuss this issue.


http://consult.eastriding.gov.uk/portal/forward_planning/allocations_dpd/draftallocs?pointId=ID-2295915-P-8.23#ID-2295915-P-8.23

responses from eryc website re poc land allocations

Documents

eyrc site assessment

north of pocklington

acceptance of poc4

northof pocklington

pocklington beck

detailed traffic assessment

flood attenuation scheme

discussion document